Origin of life – a brief history


The study of astrobiology involves 3 things, finding the origin of life, finding aliens and also the future of life. The latter is fully theoretical and often described as the one for the future. When it comes to finding aliens (FA), we are looking for more simpler life forms (bacteria etc), the complex ones are mostly being investigated by the UFO junkies. I will touch on FA in the future. My focus today will be on origin of life (OL).

Viewpoints from all over the world has shaped the philosophy and early sciences in regards to the OL. In 1778, Buffon, a french naturalist was one of the first to postulate the origin of life theory, he claimed that during the early stages, with colder temperature (probably referring to the ice age), organic molecules could produce spontaneous generations, thus producing each species as we know them now. 80 years on, Charles Darwin wrote a letter to Joseph Hooker, a botanist describing a primordial condition on earth:

 It is often said that all the conditions for the first production of a living organism are now present, which could have been present. But if (and oh what a big if) we could conceive in some warm little pond with all sort of ammonia and phosphoric salts,—light, heat, electricity, present, that a protein compound was chemically formed, ready to undergo still more complex changes, at the present day such matter would be instantly devoured, or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed.

Darwin was referring to the OL. He did not define or even hinted about how the origin of life might have been in his famous book. Since his work in “origin of species” involved the history of life, he must have thought that there must have been a starting point. However, OL questions were considered buried once Louis Pasteur concluded that life came from preexisting life-forms. He stood by his words that there is a difference between non-life and life, hence life would not have occurred by inert molecules. In 1917, a young Russian, Aleksandr Oparin begin thinking; How did life first started. He wrote his thoughts in his book The origin of life; published in 1924. During the same time JBS Haldane, a British born geneticist independently publish an essay indicating the similar ideas to those of Oparin’s. Hence, the Oparin-Haldane hypothesis was introduced. Oparin suggested that organic chemicals could have went through a series of reactions which would then lead to more complex aggregates. The aggregates then form a colloidal mixture in watery environment. He calls them ‘coacervates’. Coacervates would be able to perform simple metabolic functions and with evolution become the first life form. Haldane posed a similar idea where the primordial sea would serve as a chemical reservoir powered by the sun. He also added that the group of chemicals was enclosed in a lipid membrane system, thus developing to become the first living cells. He coined the term ‘prebiotic soup’, and this became the expression of the Oparin-Haldane view of the origin of life.

In the early 1950s, Harold Urey, already a nobel price winner for his discovery of heavy water simulated a chemical model of primitive atmosphere. This was done with his then graduate student, Stanley Miller. They put up a mixture of simple gas to an electrical discharge, any products from this will accumulate in the flask below the apparatus. They left the experiment to run for a week. The products of the experiment contained organic chemicals including several amino acid (monomer of proteins). This results were indeed ground breaking and became an instant sensation among fellow scientist. The detection of amino acid shows that natural laws allows them to be synthesized under prebiotic condition. Till date many modified version of this Miller-Urey experiment has been conducted which further enhance our knowledge of creating amino acids from simple gas or molecules. Miller-Urey experiment started the bandwagon, on what kind of life’s chemicals can be created prebioticaly. John Oro showed that the highly reactive hydrogen cyanide under alkaline conditions will polymerize to become adenine, a nucleobase essential to DNA. Lastly in 1978, Dave Deamer and co-workers managed to produce vesicle from fatty acids under certain prebiotic condition. The vesicle here mimics a simple membraneous vesicles. He then used fatty acid extracted from Murchison meteorite (carbonaceous chondrites) to produce vesicle with prebiotic conditions. This indicates that fatty acid formed in space had/has the capacity to form vesicles which can encapsulate DNA or proteins to possibly form the Proto-cell.

The discoveries mentioned above are landmark discoveries which gave scientist the hope that we can get closer to the origin. The experiments (and many more) indicates that under prebiotic condition we can produce life’s chemicals. When it was discovered that Europa could have an ocean below its ice crust; and Mars used to have seas, scientist became excited because if Primitive Earth can yield life’s chemicals towards living beings, then the same could have/had happened in Mars and Europa respectively.

What i have mentioned above is simply a brief history of OL, many experiments have been conducted ever since. Its worth to mention that there are many limitation and unsolved riddles when comes to this study. For example, although we can produce amino acid prebioticaly, there isn’t a prebiotic way where we can polymerize the amino acids to proteins. Also on close examination, life is very selective; only left handed amino acids are utilized to perform life’s activities. But in prebiotic experiments (e.g Miller-Urey), a racemic mixture is always produced, in other words 50% right handed and 50% left handed amino acids. There are many hypothesis that can explain on why these phenomena known as homochirality happens, but there are no explanations on HOW this must have happened 3.5 billion years ago. If we look further into the formation of genetic materials, it is known that DNA denature under prebiotic temperatures (200 C to 400 C). So how did the DNA molecules formed when the earth was hot as hell?. This is only the the tip of the iceberg. Till then this is the story we have.

Cellrelics needs your help! If you click on any of the social networking connections below, or share this post with a friend in any way, it will start a chain reaction of fun and knowledge across the world. Many thanks for reading!

Advertisements

14 thoughts on “Origin of life – a brief history

  1. Prebiotic soup or soap :)? I understand the formation of the hydrophobic/hydrophilic soap/lipd is thought to be a necessary precursor to a cell membrane.

    Like

  2. Oh, what a wonderful topic! I’m glad to know those details of the Oro experiments–I knew he produced adenine but I didn’t know the chemical reaction used was that spontaneous!

    Right now I’m sort of a fan of the “RNA world” theory, especially given recent findings about RNA’s ability to catalyze both protein formation and nucleic acid cleavage at selected points. What do you think of the theory?

    Like

  3. I was just reading another blog talking about how ID (Intelligent Design) as a theory was dead, and I disagreed with him because of the lack of explanation the theory of evolution has when it comes to the origin of life, and I enjoyed the brief history of the origin of life found in this article very much!

    I want to add, from a philosophical point of view, that no matter what you believe about the origin of life, whether you believe that non-life gave rise to life as an accident, or whether you belief that life was created by a transcendent designer, what you are believing is a metaphysical presupposition that you take to be true on faith.

    I don’t think it is prudent or correct when an atheist says that they don’t take things on faith, because what they believe to be the origin of life (that there was a natural accident, where life somehow sprang from non-life) cannot be proven with facts, and even if they somehow are able to create organic particles in a lab, and even if they somehow show that they can take non-living material and cause it to come to life, they have not shown that this happens naturally, and have only shown that it is possible with an intelligent agent (in this case the scientist) behind it. They can say, “we used only chemicals and settings we think are the prebiotic state” but they cannot show that this is in fact the way the world was way back when.

    The point is, if they cannot prove it empirically, then they have to admit that they take what they believe to be the origin of life (a natural accident) to true on faith, just like the theist believes that God created the Universe for a purpose because of the worldview that person holds.

    Like

      1. first, I am not sure I understand what you mean by statements of attainders. Could you please clarify what is meant by this? Second,what scientific fact do you believe I am trying to contradict? Are you saying you believe that I have made statements of attainders, and am (apparently unsuccessfully) trying to contradict scientific fact, or are you merely summing up my comment in a two sentence twitter-esque fashion? I am simply confused about your comment and do not understand what it is meant to convey.

        Like

Comments are closed.