|
Introduction
How life began. This problem really permeates much of
humankind, societies and cultures past and present. Some have evoked a
supreme being to explain the origin of life; others look to the
scientific method to provide answers. Regardless of the position, there
have been at least two extremely exciting discoveries or reports that
really change the nature of the game. The first one is the discovery of
planets around nearby stars. There are other solar systems in space.
That's very important.
And the other is the discovery of the possibility that life
existed on Mars. 3.6 billion year old structures that look like
microbial fossils preserved in a Martian meteorite that was blasted off
Mars, was in space for around 16 million years, and hit Antarctica
several thousand years ago. This is extremely controversial, but with
these two important breakthroughs, evidence for the possibility of the
existence of life in the past on Mars and planets around nearby stars, I
think we're entering into a new dimension with regard to the origins of
life on this planet. And there's a new field emerging and it's called
astrobiology. NASA is very keen on developing this new discipline.
What does one mean by astrobiology? Well, in its most general sense,
it's really discussing the origins, the distribution and the future of
life in the universe. And as you can see, these two discoveries really
drive that home.
Now, let's go back to Earth. Because, it's on Earth where we
have a great deal of information on the early Earth still preserved in
the rock record and a variety of other information to help understand
this incredibly interesting and fascinating field on the origins of
life. Speculation on the origins of life from the scientific point of
view have been many. Of course, Louis Pasteur in the 1860's disproved
spontaneous generation. That was somewhat of an impediment with regard
to the origin of life from non-living substances. Charles Darwin was
very careful in his publications with regard to dealing with the origin
of life. Yet, in letters, in particular in a letter in 1871 to a friend
of his, and I quote, "It has often been said that all the conditions for
the first production of a living organism are now present which could
have ever been present but if and oh what a big if, we could conceive in
some warm little pond with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts,
light, heat, electricity, etc. 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." It's
very unfortunate that Darwin did not publish on this.
Alexander Oparin, one of the premier Russian biochemists
published an interesting little paper in 1924 that went virtually
ignored. And in this paper, Oparin--he did not know of Darwin's letter
in 1871--sort of presented the scenario, the hypothesis for much of the
current research going on in a variety of laboratories around the world
in the field of chemical evolution. That really spells it out; that's
about the best way of putting it. He dealt with something he called the
primitive earth and he indicated that the primitive earth was very
different than the earth we see around us, that the atmosphere was very
different. There was no oxygen in the atmosphere; it was a reducing
atmosphere. It was probably hot, all sorts of energy around. There was
no life on the primitive earth. He argued that if you take the reduced
compounds in the atmosphere and you supply some energy source you might
be able to produce organic compounds which would then combine with other
of these organic compounds. There would be a bit of self-assembly
leading to the origin of a self-replicating cell. Again, in 1924 the
paper was virtually ignored.
Oparin traveled widely and lectured widely. Here is Oparin
enjoying capitalist Mexico in Aculpulco in 1974. Oparin, after World
War II, and after his papers became translated, and a variety of studies
resulted with this origin of life, became one of the grand spokespersons
for chemical evolution and the origin of life.
Another scientist, H.B.S. Haldane came up with the concept of
the primordial broth or the primitive soup. And in that he felt that,
and indeed he published a few years after Oparin's paper appeared and
Haldane had no knowledge of Oparin's work. It was one of these
independent kind of things. He presented the same basic framework
Haldane presented. He also indicated that in these bodies of water
these reactions would be going on under the rather large concentrations
of these organic substances leading to this whole idea of a primitive
broth.
|