Today, researchers believe that the pre-living molecules formed on tiny ice grains in interstellar space. Although this argument seems to contradict the conventional wisdom that life in space is impossible, the surface of these grains actually provides a comfortable environment conducive to the creation of life since it protects the molecules from harmful space radiation.
Before life as we know it existed, there were molecules, and after a number of many and unexpected stages, these molecules underwent a serious transformation: they became complex systems capable of replicating, transmitting information and initiating chemical reactions. However, the first step that led to this transformation still remains one of the greatest mysteries in the world of science.
A new study suggests that the building blocks of life - the pre-life molecules - could have been formed in the atmosphere of planets far from Earth, where the dust environment provides them with a safe and protective infrastructure to form and also the plasma surrounding them which provides them with enough energy, in the amount required for the creation of life.
"If the creation of life is like an assembly game (Lego or puzzle) - a large and extremely complex assembly game - I would imagine the pre-life molecules as part of the individual puzzle pieces," said Professor Craig Stark from the University of St Andrews. "When you combine the pieces together, you get very complex biological structures that lead to a clearer and more structured picture. And when all the pieces land in their right places, the resulting picture is life itself."
Today, researchers believe that the pre-living molecules formed on tiny ice grains in interstellar space. Although this argument seems to contradict the conventional wisdom that life in space is impossible, the surface of these grains actually provides a comfortable environment conducive to the creation of life since it protects the molecules from harmful space radiation.
"Molecules are formed on top of the dust surface following the adsorption and accumulation of atoms and other molecules coming from the surrounding gas," explains the lead researcher. The additional requirement for the creation of these molecules is energy. The simple molecules that populate the galaxy are quite stable; In the absence of a huge amount of energy, new bonds will not be formed. The accepted explanation today holds that life was created with the help of the energy that came from lightning and volcanic eruptions on the surface of the earth.
Therefore, the researchers turned their attention to the atmospheres of planets outside the solar system (exoplanets), where dust is immersed in a plasma full of positive ions and negative electrons. In this environment the electrostatic interactions of the dust particles with the plasma may provide the high energy required for the creation of pre-living molecules.
In the plasma itself, the dust grains will react with the free electrons quickly and become negatively charged. This is due to the fact that electrons are extremely light, and therefore faster than positive ions. As soon as the dust grain becomes negatively charged, it will soon attract a collection of positive ions, which will accelerate towards the dust particles and collide with it together with an energy greater than that present in a normal environment.
In order to test their hypothesis, the researchers tested a sample atmosphere that allowed them to examine the various processes that might transform the ionized gas into plasma and determine whether such plasma could indeed give rise to high-energy reactions. "As a proof of principle we looked at the sequence of chemical reactions leading to the creation of the simplest amino acid - glycine," explains the lead researcher. Amino acids are excellent examples of pre-living molecules since they are required for the creation of proteins, proteins and enzymes, which are themselves the basis of life as we know it today.
Their research methods showed that "the plasma ions can indeed be accelerated with sufficient energies to pass the activation energies required for the creation of simple organic molecules such as formaldehyde, ammonia, hydrogen cyanide, and ultimately also for the creation of the amino acid glycine," explains the researcher. "These reactions could not take place in the absence of the plasma." The researchers demonstrated that with relatively mild plasma temperatures there is enough energy to create the pre-living molecule glycine. Higher temperatures than which can lead to the creation of even more complex reactions and therefore to the receipt of even more complex molecules.
The researchers showed that a possible pathway was indeed found for the creation of pre-living molecules, and hence for the creation of life, under the conditions that exist in space. While the origin of life still remains one of the most beloved mysteries of the scientific world, we continue to gain a better understanding of this issue, piece by piece. The article was accepted for publication in the scientific journal Astrobiology.
27 תגובות
Raz B
My argument is simple. Panspermia has nothing to do with intelligent design. On the contrary - Panspermia weakens the (ludicrous in any case) argument of the (apparently) low probability of the formation of life in such a short period on Earth, in a random process.
Why do you think there is more room for an intelligent planner now?
I will not get into an argument with creationists here. It is impossible to beat fools, only to descend to their discussion level and lose due to their experience in the field. As for the chicken and the egg, the answer is rather easy.
The egg preceded the chicken because there were eggs before there were chickens
To the supplier:
Your ignoring of all explanations does not seem random at all.
You consistently ignore the explanations and continue to assert your wrong claims.
There is not even one scientist who claims that the egg was born from the chicken randomly.
There is also no claim that the chicken's eye was created randomly.
All these things are dictated by the laws of biochemistry.
The only thing that is random is mutations.
Miracles, wait, I don't understand?
do we have an argument What is the argument? You ask me a question and I don't understand what you want/expect me to answer. From the beginning I felt that you probably don't understand what I'm talking about. I will explain again. Stay focused on your response so I can respond accordingly.
...well, panspermia is an old idea, but has a kind of paradigm recently been created in regards to this matter? I am raising a hypothesis here, this is a question to which I do not have an answer, it is based on the accumulation of observations (only mine) in diverse fields of knowledge such as - science channels, media networks including the science website, culture and science supplements ("article in "Eretz"), cinema - See the movie "Prometheus", science journals - that talk about the remains of "microorganisms" that were "discovered" on meteorites that crashed on Earth and on and on.
In this context, I argued that perhaps this paradigm is growing in a favorable climate - on the one hand it has a purely scientific aspect but at the same time this idea has the potential for planning - now God can return to play an important and mysterious role in the process of creating life (a role that was largely taken away from him with the rise of the evolutionary paradigm) .
That's it, now try to respond so that I understand what our argument is, if there is one at all.
Avi,
Do I have to explain an absurd "scientific" theory that you stubbornly advocate?
The absurdity of the chicken and the egg should have shamed you and everyone who advocates "random evolution".
Aren't you ashamed to continue preaching Darwin's theory?
To the supplier:
Evolution does not claim that the egg was created from the chicken by a random process.
Evolution does not claim that the chicken was created from the egg by a random process.
The opposite is true. The process is predetermined and not random at all.
What is random is mutations. Changes from the normal process.
And I would be happy if you would explain, Hezi, if you are blocked because of previous bullying, why are you bullying again?
Avi,
On this occasion you are commenting here,
Maybe you can explain how "science" explains the possibility of the formation of an egg and the chicken that reproduces from it,
In "random" processes with tiny mutations?
Raz B
For every Jew there are 100 Catholics. This is also a fact.
And I have a question for you: Is this the best world that God could have planned?
That's why you have a thousand and one religious sites and only one scientific site, but that doesn't mean that the majority is right, but only that the majority passed through a childhood of brainwashing that is difficult for them to free themselves from.
I don't know and I don't understand either, the fact is that according to a recent survey, in Israel about 80% of the Jewish residents believe in a planner called God...
Raz B
I don't see any connection between panspermia and planning. One could equally argue that the earth was created to sustain life, regardless of panspermia.
The world doesn't seem planned and life certainly doesn't seem planned. What could make someone think otherwise?
hello miracles,
"There is nothing new under the sun" is a trite phrase used for tiredness and it applies to any idea including the idea of panspermia... It is known that this idea has existed for a long time, but turning it into a paradigm is something different and relatively new. Today every culture or science supplement, every second program on the popular science channels and now it turns out on the science website as well, brings this idea, it's the bon-ton today. And when I said "exists to produce" this is exactly what I meant - the idea of panspermia is magical because there is room for planning, the universe was created to produce life and this hidden assumption is problematic. Therefore, it seems to me that we are both on the same side of the fence.
Raz B
Panspermia is not exactly a new idea. Anaxagoras, 2500 years ago believed that life came from space. Weil, the inventor of the "big bang" concept, also believed in panspermia.
That the origin of life is in distant stars is beyond theory. The source of the heavy elements is in a supernova they called in the distant past. Without the explosion of the stars, planets would not have formed.
And be careful with the term "exists to produce" - you assume a goal here, and only an intelligent being has a goal...
very interesting. It is hard to ignore that a new paradigm of the creation of life is slowly emerging here - panspermia. Life is created around certain stars (or right on top of the stars) and they move from star to star and develop on those stars that allow reasonable conditions. There is a lot of grace and charm in this theory and it puts life as the meaning of the universe. The universe exists to produce life, it gives meaning to the universe and the fact that it exists. It seems to me that such a concept would fascinate quite a few clerics and believers in an intelligent designer...
"A new study suggests that..."
Oops, I didn't understand what 'research' is here. At most, another fantastic speculation, and not even sure that it is successful.
I don't understand what the fuss is about
I also believe that there should be intelligent life throughout the universe and we are not unique
skeptic
Come with me to my home planet in Vulcan and you will see in a way that is not implied that we are not alone and maybe you will become wiser and realize that your knowledge of astronomy is negligible
skeptic
On the one hand you don't believe in evolution, and now you don't believe in God?
skeptic
Did you get released early today?
To all who responded to my comment,
You dwarf people who are unable to think outside the box...
Learn a little astronomy and see how vast the universe is.
Distances of tens of billions of light years...
Does anyone here really understand what this means?
All this was created and exists only for poor people?
Stop being a skeptic. It's already getting unpleasant 🙂
skeptic
You seem to belong to those who think that man is the crown of creation. I'm not so sure about that. I have a question to you? How many stars have you been in at least in our solar system that you are in with such a sweeping conclusion?
skeptic
I seriously doubt your sanity. I find it hard to believe that one of the readers of science still remains in the stone age.
Moshe Nachmani
A skeptic has just demonstrated to you that not all life here is intelligent...
Moshe Nachmani,
Unfortunately, you also suffer from a defective thought,
that there is no intelligent life in the universe apart from humans...
It's a shame that this point of departure distorts the thinking of scientists
and causes them to divert precious resources to idle work...