Spark of life: Metabolism appears in lab without cells

Metabolic processes that underpin life on Earth have arisen spontaneously outside of cells. The serendipitous finding that metabolism – the cascade of reactions in all cells that provides them with the raw materials they need to survive – can happen in such simple conditions provides fresh insights into how the first life formed. It also suggests that the complex processes needed for life may have surprisingly humble origins.

"People have said that these pathways look so complex they couldn't form by environmental chemistry alone," says Markus Ralser at the University of Cambridge who supervised the research.

But his findings suggest that many of these reactions could have occurred spontaneously in Earth's early oceans, catalysed by metal ions rather than the enzymes that drive them in cells today.

The origin of metabolism is a major gap in our understanding of the emergence of life. "If you look at many different organisms from around the world, this network of reactions always looks very similar, suggesting that it must have come into place very early on in evolution, but no one knew precisely when or how," says Ralser.

www.newscientist.com...

Another piece of the jigsaw for the abiogenesis hypothesis. We're getting closer and closer, I sure hope we get enough evidence to form a solid scientific theory within my lifetime

a reply to: GetHyped

Could you quote the source and a link to the article the quote is from please.

It sounds like possibly interesting research.

a reply to: theabsolutetruth

Sorry, my bad. I've added it to the OP.

I have always wondered if the primordial soup of life was here and somthing as simple as a lightning strike or another energy source(asteroid impact, volcano, etc) kick started the life cycle system.

That's pretty interesting! I shall be following this research; looks like it could be a game changer for science!

Thanks, interesting research.

I am certain there is much more to the Universe than current science hypotheses.

Yes, very interesting research, that leaves many questions unanswered.

"There is one big problem, however. "For origins of life, it is important to understand where the source molecules come from," Powner says. No one has yet shown that such substances could form spontaneously in the early oceans.

A related issue is that the reactions observed so far only go in one direction; from complex sugars to simpler molecules like pyruvate. "Given the data, one might well conclude that any organics in the ocean would have been totally degraded, rather than forming the basis of modern metabolism," says Jack Szostak, who studies the origin of life at Harvard. "I would conclude that metabolism had to evolve, within cells, one reaction and one catalyst at a time."

But Ralser disagrees. In his opinion, whether the reaction is catalysed by an enzyme or by a molecule in the Archean Ocean leads to the same result; "every chemical reaction is in principle reversible, whether an enzyme or a simple molecule is the catalyst," he says."

From your link above.

a reply to: InTheLight

You are wrong. Complex organic molecules form easily enough under the right conditions. The spectroscopic signatures of organic molecules have even been seen in interstellar gas clouds.

The gaps in which God (or the Life Force, or whatever you want to call it) can hide are getting uncomfortably tight, aren't they?

Well, ai functioning of organic materials perhaps, but not what I call life, which is consciousness and can ask, am I real?

originally posted by: Unity_99
.............but not what I call life, which is consciousness and can ask, am I real?

Really??

a reply to: Unity_99

Jaden Smith, please step away from Twitter.

Define consciousness as you are using it in clear terms and only then can we have a fruitful discussion on the topic and its validity to the gradient of life.

a reply to: Astyanax

My post above was quoted from two disagreeing scientists, my personal quote was that there are many unanswered questions remaining.

originally posted by: GetHyped
We're getting closer and closer, I sure hope we get enough evidence to form a solid scientific theory within my lifetime

Science looks on the logical(external) way of the existence. That is way it gets solid in appearance things as answers. But life has its soft side, which is sometimes hidden from the five senses and logical meanings. If the current approach to science finds things, this colors would count only for half of the reality. Will you my friend eat a scientific pizza, without the tomatoes and cheese? I doubt so. What pizza would that be...

To get further investigation in the matter of how and why things, which appear solid are mirage and pure joke of the existence itself, I advise you to read what one cognitive psychologist has to say on that matter. Link

We often take it for granted that much of our world has been exposed and explained by science. The best remedy for such complacency is to take a closer look at those few remaining mysteries that present the deepest challenges to our understanding of the world. Three in particular come to mind: Why is there something rather than nothing? Why is some of what there is alive? And why is some of what is alive conscious, or selfaware?

a reply to: Egoismyname

Forgive me if I'm wrong but this reads like an attempt to side step evidence-based claims in favor of untestable faith-based claims. I'm afraid I'm not entirely sure how this ties in with the OP. Science is nothing more than a methodology and has consistently shown us to be the best methodology for objectively understanding and explaining the natural world. Dr. Steven Novella puts it quite nicely:

“What do you think science is? There's nothing magical about science. It is simply a systematic way for carefully and thoroughly observing nature and using consistent logic to evaluate results. Which part of that exactly do you disagree with? Do you disagree with being thorough? Using careful observation? Being systematic? Or using consistent logic?”

a reply to: Egoismyname

Your argument boils down to 'we don't know everything, therefore we know nothing.'

Hogwash.

a reply to: GetHyped

Hi GetHyped,

Thank you for posting this information! This is an exciting discovery.

Metabolism is a fascinating topic. I'm off to read the rest of the article and also to share it on my blog.

I so love the idea of life being created and designed by Nature or natural resources. It's seems so..well...natural and uhm...empowering.

Balance be unto you,

Co-Creator, Toni

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: Unity_99

Jaden Smith, please step away from Twitter.

Define consciousness as you are using it in clear terms and only then can we have a fruitful discussion on the topic and its validity to the gradient of life.

Pot, meet kettle.

a reply to: TiedDestructor

How? I'm not one claiming that the definition of life is "consciousness and can ask, am I real?". It's a vapid and unfounded assertion, further hampered by an undefined use of the term consciousness.

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: TiedDestructor

How? I'm not one claiming that the definition of life is "consciousness and can ask, am I real?". It's a vapid and unfounded assertion, further hampered by an undefined use of the term consciousness.

i understood the statement as meaning ''life'' brings about consciousness (self awareness) which allows one to question his own existence.