Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Earth Science

Did Life Emerge In Ponds Rather Than Ocean Vents? 97

ananyo writes "The prevailing scientific view holds that life began in hydrothermal vents in the deep sea. But a controversial study (abstract) suggests that inland pools of condensed and cooled geothermal vapor have the ideal characteristics for the origin of life. The study hinges on the observation that the composition of the cytoplasm of modern cells is very different to that of seawater. On the other hand, the mix of metal ions in cytoplasm is (almost exclusively) found where where hot hydrothermal fluid brings the ions to the surface — places such as geysers and mud pots. There are a number of problems with the study, however — for instance, a lack of land 4 billion years ago would have made it difficult for life to start in such pools."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Did Life Emerge In Ponds Rather Than Ocean Vents?

Comments Filter:
  • by peter303 ( 12292 ) on Wednesday February 15, 2012 @11:38AM (#39044961)
    The gist I got from Robert Hazen's course on the Origin of Life is that the metabolic citric cycle and protein polymerization does not require enzymes in high pressure and in certain mineral substrates. Otherwise you have the chicken-egg problem of how to elvolve these special enzyme proteins first. Dr. Hazen generated many of these results in the lab.
  • All Good Things... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Colonel Korn ( 1258968 ) on Wednesday February 15, 2012 @11:46AM (#39045043)

    In the final episode of TNG we saw that life began in some sort of pond or tidal pool, not deep under the surface of the ocean.

  • by F69631 ( 2421974 ) on Wednesday February 15, 2012 @01:19PM (#39046265)

    Darwinism certainly isn't science. Darwin was one fella, whose theories very significantly influenced a scientific discipline known as Biology. I think that the term "Darwinism" is used widely in only two instances: 1) In natural language, when people refer to something/someone stupid that will probably disappear soon due to obvious reasons (see Darwin Awards). 2) By religious people who call evolution theory Darwinism in order to make it appear somehow separate from biology (They know how stupid it'd sound to say "The prevailing theories in Biology are bogus, thus the discipline of Biology is pretty much bogus" so they instead say "Darwinism is jut replacing JESUS with this DARWIN prophet. We can totally refute that without refuting biology!").

You have a massage (from the Swedish prime minister).

Working...