It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NASA study reproduces origins of life on ocean floor

page: 1
14
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 26 2019 @ 06:12 AM
link   
There have been many theories about where life began on earth. Everything from Panspermia, clay beds, tide pools, and the latest theory has been maybe the hydrothermal vent systems at the bottom of our oceans is where the seeds of life began. This is a decent question as most I would assume already know that some of the icy covered moons of our outer solar system are believed to have liquid oceans due to gravitational tectonics and the resulting hydrothermal vents.

On a personal note I believe if given a chance life finds a way so maybe a combination of many different spots on earth brought forth the beginnings of life. Regardless this scientific study is once again pointing to "There might be Life out there" which I do believe is true.


Scientists have reproduced in the lab how the ingredients for life could have formed deep in the ocean 4 billion years ago. The results of the new study offer clues to how life started on Earth and where else in the cosmos we might find it.

Astrobiologist Laurie Barge and her team at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California, are working to recognize life on other planets by studying the origins of life here on Earth. Their research focuses on how the building blocks of life form in hydrothermal vents on the ocean floor.

To re-create hydrothermal vents in the lab, the team made their own miniature seafloors by filling beakers with mixtures that mimic Earth's primordial ocean. These lab-based oceans act as nurseries for amino acids, organic compounds that are essential for life as we know it. Like Lego blocks, amino acids build on one another to form proteins, which make up all living things.



Barge and Flores used ingredients commonly found in early Earth's ocean in their experiments. They combined water, minerals and the "precursor" molecules pyruvate and ammonia, which are needed to start the formation of amino acids. They tested their hypothesis by heating the solution to 158 degrees Fahrenheit (70 degrees Celsius)—the same temperature found near a hydrothermal vent—and adjusting the pH to mimic the alkaline environment. They also removed the oxygen from the mixture because, unlike today, early Earth had very little oxygen in its ocean. The team additionally used the mineral iron hydroxide, or "green rust," which was abundant on early Earth.

phys.org...




posted on Feb, 26 2019 @ 06:27 AM
link   
a reply to: 727Sky

Nice article. Phys.org is a great source.

We may have some evidence for life "out there" as well. The Cassini-Huygens mission is being redirected to Enceladus, a tiny moon of Saturn. The geysers may be similar to geysers here on Earth that we believe may have had a role in primitive life on this planet.

Senior scientist argues that we should bypass Europa for Enceladus
"We just don't know that much about Europa with certainty."

arstechnica.com...



Tiny moon

This is true. Whereas NASA’s Galileo probe explored the Jupiter system during the 1990s, the space agency sent a more capable probe to Saturn in the 2000s. That spacecraft spent 13 years in orbit around Saturn, and it found conclusive evidence of not only an ocean on Enceladus, but one that is accessible through its large geysers. These jets of icy particles soar as much as 500km above the surface because there is so little surface gravity to restrain them.





And just a note to you folks who don't understand how a scientist thinks, read this remark by Carolyn Porco:



“I have a bias, and I don’t deny that,” says Carolyn Porco, one of the foremost explorers of the Solar System and someone who played a key imaging role on the Voyagers, Cassini, and other iconic NASA spacecraft. “But it’s not so much an emotional attachment with objects that we study, it’s a point of view based on the EVIDENCE. We simply know more about Enceladus.”


Discovery and evidence. That's the definition of science.


edit on 26-2-2019 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)

edit on 26-2-2019 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)

edit on 26-2-2019 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 26 2019 @ 07:18 AM
link   
a reply to: 727Sky

When you have trillions of bubbles over several billion years something extremely unlikely is bound to happen. If you buy every possible lottery ticket a million times over at some point you will have the winning ticket.

And then of course there is Exogenesis which expands the number of probabilistic attempts to include the number of stars in the galaxy.

Regardless of how science believes life began it makes no difference to religion. Anyone with a reasonably strong faith knows an omnipotent God can create the Universe in any amount of time including all the fake carbon dating and fossil evidence. People of faith generally assume God is not bounded by the laws of physics or logic.

An then another way of looking at is this. If a tree falls down in the forest an no one is around to hear the forest does not exist. Time only exists when a conscious observer is present. So the Universe did not exist until man created the written word about 6000 years ago. Prior to the written word, the Universe was without form and without labels. The word of God gave the Universe form because we became conscious observers of reality.


edit on 26-2-2019 by dfnj2015 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 26 2019 @ 07:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423
Discovery and evidence. That's the definition of science.


I agree. Science should no speculate on anything that does not include evidence. Unless it can be tested and observed it doesn't exist.

Take dark matter for example as something being junk science. Or dark energy as being junk science. Or the idea of time. Where does time exist? I can't see it, I can't hold it in my hand. And just like the word God scientists will swear time exists and is eternal just like God.

There is no such thing as time


edit on 26-2-2019 by dfnj2015 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 26 2019 @ 07:44 AM
link   
a reply to: dfnj2015

I tend to think of time simply as how we measure the rate of change, things change with or without us, we just watch and complain that its taking to long. hah


side note: dfnj2015, I always enjoy what you bring to a thread!



posted on Feb, 26 2019 @ 07:59 AM
link   
a reply to: dfnj2015




Take dark matter for example as something being junk science. Or dark energy as being junk science. Or the idea of time. Where does time exist? I can't see it, I can't hold it in my hand. And just like the word God scientists will swear time exists and is eternal just like God.


Dark energy is actually the cosmological constant predicted by Einstein's field equations of general relativity. We may not know exactly what it is, but we know something is there or the universe would not be expanding. We also know that dark matter is there due to gravitation and gravitational lensing.

In other words, there is something there - we give it a name - study it with our technology. But the bottomline is we don't know enough about it to describe it completely.

Was just discussing this the other day on the Science Board - Arbitrageur posted some excellent videos - here's the link:
www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Feb, 26 2019 @ 08:56 AM
link   
"NASA study reproduces origins of life on ocean floor"

Followed by this

"Scientists have reproduced in the lab how the ingredients for life could have formed deep in the ocean 4 billion years ago."


Is there a large disconnect between the statements in the op, why make this stuff up, who makes this stuff up
Smoke and mirrors
What evidence do they have they have reproduced any evidence for anything other than "COULD HAVE" reproduced nothing of any relevance for anything



posted on Feb, 26 2019 @ 09:26 AM
link   
a reply to: 727Sky

These people have no idea how the first cough..."simple"...cough cell came into being.
Mathematically there is essentially 0% chance of it happening on accident.
When pressed, Dawkins agrees.


I have to laugh when anyone says that first "simple" cell.


IMHO the only question is, who or what created life?
edit on 2 26 2019 by stosh64 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 26 2019 @ 10:17 AM
link   
a reply to: 727Sky

This isn't the first time that these type of experiments ( reproducing early ocean conditions ) have been done.

Ralser’s team took early ocean solutions and added substances known to be starting points for modern metabolic pathways, before heating the samples to between 50 ˚C and 70 ˚C – the sort of temperatures you might have found near a hydrothermal vent – for 5 hours. Ralser then analysed the solutions to see what molecules were present.

“In the beginning we had hoped to find one reaction or two maybe, but the results were amazing,” says Ralser. “We could reconstruct two metabolic pathways almost entirely.”

The pathways they detected were glycolysis and the pentose phosphate pathway, “reactions that form the core metabolic backbone of every living cell,” Ralser adds. Together these pathways produce some of the most important materials in modern cells, including ATP – the molecule cells use to drive their machinery, the sugars that form DNA and RNA, and the molecules needed to make fats and proteins.

If these metabolic pathways were occurring in the early oceans, then the first cells could have enveloped them as they developed membranes.

In all, 29 metabolism-like chemical reactions were spotted, seemingly catalysed by iron and other metals that would have been found in early ocean sediments. The metabolic pathways aren’t identical to modern ones; some of the chemicals made by intermediate steps weren’t detected. However, “if you compare them side by side it is the same structure and many of the same molecules are formed,” Ralser says. These pathways could have been refined and improved once enzymes evolved within cells.
Spark of life: Metabolism appears in lab without cells : 25 April 2014



posted on Feb, 26 2019 @ 10:22 AM
link   
And all of a sudden a thread on a specific topic becomes a sh!tshow because it disagrees with religion, indirectly I might add.

You guys really are way to sensitive.
Just admit it, there is no God


The possibilities for the beginning of life in the universe are endless, but yet you choose faith...
I will never understand.



posted on Feb, 26 2019 @ 10:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: dfnj2015

originally posted by: Phantom423
Discovery and evidence. That's the definition of science.


I agree. Science should no speculate on anything that does not include evidence. Unless it can be tested and observed it doesn't exist.

Take dark matter for example as something being junk science. Or dark energy as being junk science. Or the idea of time. Where does time exist? I can't see it, I can't hold it in my hand. And just like the word God scientists will swear time exists and is eternal just like God.

There is no such thing as time



I used to watch a show called The Future Is Wild, which was a thought provoking series on how the world will evolve in millions of years, based on evidence of how it got to where it is now.

When I'd describe it to people, I'd often be met with "How do they know, they can't. Sound rubbish."

Yet, it is postulation and the mind that wants to know... I don't see anything wrong with that, per se. It's when it becomes statement, that I do.

Desire in this context, is the imagination to investigate. And should not be written into fact. Till it has been discovered and verified. Science is always seeking discovery. At least, real science.

Time is a concept, we measure it by the passage of one moment to the next. Nothing measures the belief in any god... But if one day we can test it's presence, then who knows.



posted on Feb, 26 2019 @ 10:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: wheresthebody
a reply to: dfnj2015

I tend to think of time simply as how we measure the rate of change, things change with or without us, we just watch and complain that its taking to long. hah


side note: dfnj2015, I always enjoy what you bring to a thread!


Heh, we watch and wait for things to change, then wonder where all the time went as we are now old.

Hurry up and wait.



posted on Feb, 26 2019 @ 10:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: stosh64
a reply to: 727Sky

These people have no idea how the first cough..."simple"...cough cell came into being.
Mathematically there is essentially 0% chance of it happening on accident.
When pressed, Dawkins agrees.


I have to laugh when anyone says that first "simple" cell.


IMHO the only question is, who or what created life?


So, what you're saying is our current math is inadequate to describe everything.

Sounds legit. We should test more, before going with a supernatural thing that just exists eternally, is omnipotent, calls us his children, yet lets us die in the order of lesser, godless creatures.



posted on Feb, 26 2019 @ 11:22 AM
link   
a reply to: dfnj2015


If a tree falls down in the forest an no one is around to hear the forest does not exist. Time only exists when a conscious observer is present. So the Universe did not exist until man created the written word about 6000 years ago. Prior to the written word, the Universe was without form and without labels. The word of God gave the Universe form because we became conscious observers of reality.

That's just weird (involving or suggesting the supernatural; unearthly or uncanny: ).

When there is motion, there is time. Things that move exist whether labeled or not.
Bees have been on Earth for at least 100 million years. Bees navigate using spatial memory with a rich, map-like organization. They communicate these coordinates among each other.

There are people who have studied Ravens for decades, observing and creating tests. They conclude that Ravens have spatial memory and communicate times and distances to their fellow Ravens.



posted on Feb, 26 2019 @ 11:24 AM
link   
Have them get back to me when the actually create life rather than just a hot, pressurized container of goo.



posted on Feb, 26 2019 @ 11:37 AM
link   
a reply to: GreenGunther

Why do you hate science Gunther, some people are just asking that real science be applied and comments held accountable
Can you show me the real science and then I will understand your position

Don't believe in God, fine but don't think I have to believe in your faith because you have wrapped it in a pseudo science

The thread, title, statement disagree with science not religion

Show me how this experiment represented what was "deep in the ocean", show me what was deep in the ocean millions of years ago, what proof is there

You are brainwashed into a pseudo science fantasy
Maybe it was pan spermia, clay beds or tide poolst and nothing to do with the ocean, show me some science it was the ocean, show me empirical evidence, it's assumption not a reproduction of anything



posted on Feb, 26 2019 @ 11:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: gallop

originally posted by: stosh64
a reply to: 727Sky

These people have no idea how the first cough..."simple"...cough cell came into being.
Mathematically there is essentially 0% chance of it happening on accident.
When pressed, Dawkins agrees.


I have to laugh when anyone says that first "simple" cell.


IMHO the only question is, who or what created life?


So, what you're saying is our current math is inadequate to describe everything.

Sounds legit. We should test more, before going with a supernatural thing that just exists eternally, is omnipotent, calls us his children, yet lets us die in the order of lesser, godless creatures.

So by stating that I believe someone or some thing created first life on earth you are provoked to go off on a little rant about your issues with a Deity of religious belief?
Maybe seek a therapist to work on that issue.

Then write Dawkins and inform him how ignorant he is to consider that possibility.
edit on 2 26 2019 by stosh64 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 26 2019 @ 01:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

As usual you don't even grasp the basics.



posted on Feb, 26 2019 @ 01:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: stosh64
Mathematically there is essentially 0% chance of it happening on accident.


Completely false.



posted on Feb, 26 2019 @ 01:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: Blue Shift
Have them get back to me when the actually create life rather than just a hot, pressurized container of goo.


Get back to me when ID is more than idle speculation and denial of science. At least scientists are WORKING on it, while creationists just lie repeatedly and deny everything.



new topics

top topics



 
14
<<   2 >>

log in

join