How does chemistry come alive? Nick Lane

On 27 May 2021 Professor Nick Lane of University College London talked to RSC Belgium on the topic: ‘How does chemistry come alive?’ He explored how the continuous reaction of hydrogen and carbon dioxide in the structured environment of hydrothermal vents could have driven the beginnings of metabolism and genetics in protocells at the origin of life on Earth.
Nick is an evolutionary biochemist and writer in the Department of Genetics, Evolution and Environment at University College London. He was awarded the inaugural UCL Provost's Venture Research Prize for his research on evolutionary biochemistry and bioenergetics and his current work focuses on the origin of life, and the origin and evolution of eukaryotes. He was a founding member of the UCL Consortium for Mitochondrial Research, and leads the UCL Research Frontiers Origins of Life programme.

[@Elephantine999]

This is just mind-bogglingly cool and interesting!

[@doodelay]

It's extraordinary that these origin questions are so difficult, even with all the mathematics, chemistry, and physics we know now is not enough to answer this question

[@TonyTigerTonyTiger]

Why is it extraordinary? They are trying to figure out something that occurred only 1 time, some 4 billion years ago, under conditions that are not widespread on Earth today. There are a myriad different combinations of temperatures, changes in temperatures, pHs, changes in pHs, concentrations, changes in concentrations, pressures, changes in pressures, wet or dry, changes in wet or dry, chemicals present, changes in chemicals present, etc. that need to be investigated.

[@47f0]

Hmmm. Did you ever have to replace something on your car and think to yourself, " What a pain... this can't be the way they assembled it at the factory."? I don't think it's a matter of the math, chemistry, and physics that we have being inadequate. I just think it's going to be a challenge to account for all the variables in a laboratory the size of a young planet. I'm also not sure that life occurred only once on this planet. It may have occurred multiple times, with less successful occurrences ending up being a snack tray for the more successful or most successful appearance. It does seem that life on this planet occurred almost as soon as it was possible - as soon as the planetary surface became stable enough for complex organic chemistry. That has implications for our interstellar neighborhood. While life seems to have occurred relatively quickly, what took a much longer time was multicellular life. It may be that our galaxy is well populated with alien life... And it is mostly oceans filled with our equivalent of bacteria and single-celled algae.

[@hosoiarchives4858]

Abiogenesis is not possible

[@hosoiarchives4858]

@@TonyTigerTonyTigerhow do you know it only happened one time

[@TonyTigerTonyTiger]

@@hosoiarchives4858 You made a claim. Now support it.

[@oosakasan]

I'm super excited to find this! I've been fascinated by this hypothesis ever since I found out about it a decade or so ago and I'm so glad it seems to be moving happily along forward! And with some extra steps in there too... the big "a miracle happens here" factor in earlier talks I saw by Dr. Lane on this is how you get from "organic molecules" to "replication, RNA, protein synthesis", but now I see those aspects are being brought into the fold as well.

[@rb8049]

So far the best talk I’ve seen from Nick.

[@thomasschwarz1973]

Question: does everything change? If yes, does everything evolve? If yes, then can we equate the origin of life as a "type of" the evolution of life? And can we say that a subset of the origin/evolution of life is the evolution/origin of more fundemental things like electrons/ quarks, etc....? My point: if we can agree that everything evlolves, and changes, then the distinction between "alive" and "dead" becomes much less meaningful....

[@TheMickeymental]

thomassshwarz1973 you are one hundred percent wrong logically, mathematically and biologically. Kudos

[@chastetree]

​@@TheMickeymental If all you have to contribute is a brusque put down and give no reason for your statement, then your post is 100% useless.

[@TheMickeymental]

@@chastetree Would you like to confer on science?

[@eklim2034]

Shrodinger:"life.....continually sucking orderliness from its environment" Stephen Hawking said somewhat, life maintains its entropy by causing entropy to rise on others

[@michaelhart2715]

Entropy engines

[@joshuabowman7210]

Thanks for having this i am trying to learn Organic Chemistry on my own which is very slow. be nice to ask some questions i cant figure out

[@TonyTigerTonyTiger]

There is a good video lecture series named Foundations of Organic Chemistry, from The Great Courses.

[@joshuabowman7210]

@@TonyTigerTonyTiger Thanks

[@spacelemur7955]

I hear you, cousin, I've tried slogging my way through it solo, and learned enough to mostly follow this video. Stick with it. It's fun and intellectually rewarding. The effort will help ward of dementia as you age, if. Othing else!

[@espinoza6777]

That is to say, by adding entropy a superior order and complexity of Matter is achieved; I don't think that's the way

[@patrickortiz2898]

To think that the complexity of the first cells JUST HAPPENS IS RIDICULOUS and you all sound like that

[@spatrk6634]

it didnt "just happen" if it sounds like that you are hearing wrong

[@spacelemur7955]

You could try to understand what they are saying, or do you lack the prerequisites?

[@jonathanrussell1140]

Ah, so it's not "Magic", after all? What is it, then?

[@Billb9I3]

The minimum complexity of the first possible cells has been computed. It still makes this narrative false...that life comes from nonlife. It has never been observed or repeated

[@jonathanrussell1140]

​@@Billb9I3computed by whom? Douglas Axe, Stephen Meyer? Debunked by Jackson Wheat. Check out Darwin's Confidence Pts 1&2

[@vordag]

it is not surprise that life is using building blocks which are at disposal and doing so along the natural law of physics, chemistry ...

[@lrvogt1257]

I am amused at the reasoning of those creationists who dismiss abiogenesis as magic only to insist that it really was magic... AKA supernatural powers operating outside the laws of nature. You really can't have it both ways. The whole function of abiogenesis research is to follow the laws of nature to whatever conclusions they lead. OOL is a complex process that happened billions of years ago in an environment that no longer exists so it will be difficult but not necessarily impossible. The purpose of the ID hypothesis is to create a pseudo-scientific rationalization for the god-of -the-gaps for people who need scientific justification for their belief. Creationism is just faith in ancient stories which is at least more honest than ID.

[@shaccooper4828]

You ask is there a way that we can go fr these simple systems to cells as we know them, but you never explained how this system came and how does it feasibly function. Where does this membrane and pump come from? You seems to just throw in a system begging the same question abiogenesis what is the clear pathway? Why do these explanations never explain anything, rather, explain infeasible conjectures to yes men.

[@Sportliveonline]

what happened 53:

[@rustyspottedcat8885]

Living in optimal entropy gradient environment.

[@JO-mg6xc]

Biochemistry is a dynamic equilibrium, not “near equilibrium “ there a constant inter conversion of chemicals. You probably meant a near steady state of concentration within a range.

[@TonyTigerTonyTiger]

Uhm, you appear to be talking about a specific statement made, somewhere in an hour-long video. You couldn't think to put a timestamp in your post?

[@JO-mg6xc]

@@TonyTigerTonyTiger At 8’25” biochemistry is pretty close to equilibrium. At equilibrium we are dead. Our chemical concentrations fluctuate around certain points, like around the Km of Michaelis and Menten enzymes. During fight or flight responses glycogen phosphorylase increases glucose concentration very rapidly to keep up with flight or fight energy needs.

[@TonyTigerTonyTiger]

@@JO-mg6xc "When the reactants are present at values close to their equilibrium values, [C]eq[D]eq/[A]eq[B]eq ~ Keq, and [delta]G ~ 0. This is the case for many metabolic reactions, which are said to be near-equilibrium reactions." (Fundamentals of Biochemistry: Fourth Edition. Voet, Voet, and Pratt. John Wiley & Sons. 2013. p443)

[@TonyTigerTonyTiger]

@@JO-mg6xc By the way, to put a timestamp in your post, just put it as MINUTES[COLON]SECONDS. For example, 8:25.

[@TonyTigerTonyTiger]

Further, this is what he actually said, which is correct because he qualifies it. 8:21 "A gross generalization of biochemistry as a whole, especially the core metabolic biochemistry, is pretty close to equilibrium."

[@scenFor109]

I imagine that simple molecular chemistry would need input from highly structured molecular wind, complex vibration and a trapped primordial photon to produce reproductive life.

[@TonyTigerTonyTiger]

Only if the vortical fluxes of quantum perburtations oscillate the quantum field of excitability of entropic violations, of course.

[@KurtHansonIan]

The systems and methods intrinsic within the genesis of environments conducive towards life. #emilyLinge🤷🏼‍♀🙇🏻‍♂

[@detailsimply3564]

Can someone please introduce prof nick lane to critical point theory?

[@attractionnow]

What's next?

[@chrism.1131]

Create life in the laboratory.

[@MS-od7je]

No such magic happened. Why is the brain a Mandelbrot set?

[@lrvogt1257]

Exactly. It was not magic. It was not contrary to the laws of nature. It was a natural phenomenon.

[@kmonsense8716]

Chemistry cannot come alive because life is energy and we have learned in physics that energy is needed to do work. Any particles that react in chemistry need energy in the first place. Chemistry cannot be set behind energy. In the origin of life research, often scholars tend to put chemistry first. It cannot be because energy is needed for chemistry to take place. Energy must come before chemistry, and energy is life.

[@brentfodera377]

Energy can be stored in chemical bonds. There are organisms alive today who literally get their energy from inorganic molecules. They are called lithotrophs, which means “rock eaters.” The high energy electrons in these chemicals can be used to synthesize organic matter and drive other reactions/processes .

[@kmonsense8716]

@@brentfodera377 Not only energy is stored in chemical bonds, but it is also inside every atom. The standard model of physics particles teaches so. That means energy is there before chemistry starts. There is energy inside every massive particle. Life is energy therefore, life was there before chemistry took off. Chemistry cannot be behind energy; it must be after (E=MC2).

[@user-kp8wp6lv5h]

It doesn't and never will !!!

[@user-bg8cw8sp7w]

Short answer..It Doesn't.. utternonsense. 👎

[@Drbob369]

Say something with all those words 😅

[@nyttag7830]

An unknown universe of emergent properties, some may even be of a virtual nature that we can never imagine, even causality isn't a fundamental in the bigger scheme.

[@stevenmcnamara8123]

I will bring you all the chemicals....you need ....and the best labs .....and the best scientific thinkers... Produce consciousness.......or even one cell .....or a blade of grass ... Life comes from life. .. In other words consciousness comes from consciousness

[@mcmanustony]

This is vacuous, simplistic tripe.

[@jonathanrussell1140]

You are Preacher-Man James Tour and I claim my £5 😂😂😂

[@glenliesegang233]

The chemistry of life is simple. The chemistry set is not. The proper use of that set is not. Oh, yeah. Nor is the chemistry.

[@glenliesegang233]

Life arose twice, each with completely different DNA replication nanomachine complexes, and for RNA transcription as well.

[@spamm0145]

I'd be more interested in how complex engineering solutions like flight are solved without intelligent design and in order to believe in evolution the observations of complex arranged information has to be ignored to push a seriously flawed paradigm. Where are all the millions of fossils representing failed attempts at flight or do the gradual changes over millions of years crack it the first time, cells just realise this and go on to engineer all the bird species of the world. Engineers in aviation have to build prototypes and often require redesign due to failure, obviously the designers are highly intelligent and designing, engineering, and building an aircraft requires immense understanding of many intellectual disciplines, unless we are talking evolution and inexplicably, random lossy mutations can achieve better, more efficient, manoeuvrable, technically superior designs. I guess GOD, did create everything.

[@spacelemur7955]

😖

[@jonathanrussell1140]

Why would an intelligent designer chuck rocks at his intelligent design?

[@wiltonpt1]

Life as I understand is an energy. The nature of which is not amenable to investigation by mere scientific reasoning, tools, methods or experimentation just like the nature of thought and the mind. The exception is some scientists who , not understanding the metaphysical e entertain the naive and beguiled notion that the world we see and its intricacies can all be explained by a naturalist world view. Evolution has contributed to understanding diversity in species but the idea that chemistry can come alive or than an amoeba can develop its own genetic material to in time become reptiles fish and Man is a fruit of pure and fantastical thinking steeped in speculation

[@holgerjrgensen2166]

Life is Eternal, Life cant be created, Life is Creator. Cosmic Chemistry is the way Life continiue the Life-Performance, Developing and Re-Newing.

[@AdrieKooijman]

And thunder and lightning are caused by angry gods.

[@holgerjrgensen2166]

Do You really believe in 'Angry God's' ?

[@AdrieKooijman]

@@holgerjrgensen2166 No, but I just compare the ancient believe in gods causing thunder and ligthning to the modern believe in some magician being responsible for anything else science can not explain yet.

[@holgerjrgensen2166]

The most exposed 'Modern Believe', is that Intelligence can be 'artificial'. But spacetime and big bang got the kick out, things is moving. Onsdag and Torsdag, (DK) refer' to Odin and Thor, nordic mythology, the God of Thunder. Well, Electricity, is the finest of all Maya's Layers, We are in principle Electric Beings, along with the natural development, We will grow from low-electric to High-voltage Electric beings. Much more to tell, but hold short.

[@AdrieKooijman]

@@holgerjrgensen2166 but nothing supernatural, that's the point.

[@TheMickeymental]

Answer: Abiogenesis is not possible therefore evolution is impossible.

[@POWWOWMIK]

How do you know abiogenesis is impossible? It also seems impossible that a dinosaur could evolve from a microbe, but that happened. So it could have happened that a microbe evolved over millions of years, from something far more simple.

[@doodelay]

It's not debatable anymore whether organisms change over time as is made clear by the many races of people that exist. And I'm sure you realize that even in biblical terms we all ought to be the same race as Noah at this time.

[@bungeebones]

Jim Tour's many KZbin videos is an excellent source for finding why this is true.

[@POWWOWMIK]

@@bungeebones jim tour doesn't provide any more answers than I do. He just says what he thinks it isn't.

[@bungeebones]

@@POWWOWMIK No, he says what he KNOWS it isn't.

[@sentientflower7891]

Abiogenesis is impossible. Everywhere.

[@spatrk6634]

so how does life happen?

[@sentientflower7891]

@@spatrk6634 there are some questions that science cannot answer. These questions must forever remain unanswered.

[@spatrk6634]

@@sentientflower7891 so you dont know how it happen... but you know the science is wrong about it. because you are afraid that they might be correct. hence your "these questions must forever remain unanswered"

[@spatrk6634]

also, just because science cannot explain something now. doesnt mean it never will. there was a time when we didnt understand how lightning forms. so we invented a powerful beings that live above clouds, create lightning in a forge, and toss them like spears down on earth.. we gave them names, called them gods, they had background stories and differnet relationships... humans are curious by nature. we want to know everything, even if it means making stuff up, just so that we can move on with our lives. but science doesnt operate by making stuff up with intent to decieve and stop people asking questions about it.

[@sentientflower7891]

@@spatrk6634 that isn't what I am saying. What I am saying is that Abiogenesis is impossible. If you would like to argue contrariwise you are going to have to do some chemistry.

[@bshul10]

Wow....with all the CO2 and H2 around...why don't we see these precursors, intermediates, and nucleotides forming spontaneously, in the field?...but only in contrived lab experiments

[@scj8863]

The processes may still happen, but how could you isolate the results as being new? You'd have to know that the compounds weren't in a certain patch of seawater already, and then found a way to predict a lightning strike on the vast ocean...

[@bshul10]

@@scj8863 so a theory that can't be tested, goes to the bottom of the list of possibilities

[@spatrk6634]

@@bshul10 yes. thats why origin of life researchers are doing. testing out all possibilites and paths that chemistry could've took to form proto cells and eventually life. also, even if new organic compounds are forming from inorganic ones today in the field, life that is already there and consumes organic matter would eat it instantly. thats why you need to have prebiotic environment, because when life was forming earth was sterile. thats why you make an lab experiment that simulates such environment that was on earth more than 4 billion years ago

[@lrvogt1257]

Earth at the time of abiogenesis was very different and life has filled every niche since so the conditions are likely no longer suitable. It will be extremely interesting to see what may be in the liquid water on Enceladus and Europa.

[@spacelemur7955]

Sounds like you have had this conclusion ready to hand and feel no need to understand what the lab expirements are about.

[@rajnigupta3187]

Too long.

[@user-kp8wp6lv5h]

Chemical evolution will never lead to life without guidance from the Creator.

[@jonathanrussell1140]

Who says?

[@user-kp8wp6lv5h]

@@jonathanrussell1140 Simple mathematics!!!

[@jonathanrussell1140]

​@@user-kp8wp6lv5h ah, the Douglas Axe poo that comes out of Stephen Meyer's mouth? That's been debunked by Jackson Wheat in his 2-part video "Darwin's Confidence"? That simple maths that's founded on false assumptions?

[@user-kp8wp6lv5h]

@@jonathanrussell1140 Sure thing buddy. Keep drinking that cool aid!!!

[@jonathanrussell1140]

​@@user-kp8wp6lv5hwatch the video.

[@user-bg8cw8sp7w]

Answer....it Doesnt! 😄

[@user-bg8cw8sp7w]

This is 1:04 of complete dribble.. Lots of silly, impressive sounding words, that really dont mean shit. All these people have wasted their lives pushing this nonsense...

[@jonathanrussell1140]

What nonsense are you talking about? Intelligent Design?