willowdreams Posted April 30, 2014 #1 Share Posted April 30, 2014 http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn25471-spark-of-life-metabolism-appears-in-lab-without-cells.html#.U2BWdVfNF2A Now, I love science, and usually 'get it' when I read about it. But could someone dummy down this for me? Maybe its the 10 hour shifts and I feel dumb and tired, could someone here just dummy it down and explain this to me? At first i thought it was something like.. I dunno, the first cells of life through mishmash of chemicals naturally on earth perhaps when life first appeared.. and so i was excited, but then i read it, it confused me.. and i do not think it is what I thought it was. SOOOO dummy it down? Thank you ahead of time, and if i am slow in responding, i am either 1. sound asleep or 2. at work AGAIN. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacecowboy342 Posted April 30, 2014 #2 Share Posted April 30, 2014 Hey Willowdreams. You have the gist of it right. This about abiogenesis and the first spark of life. Life can't have started with anything as complex as cells. Cells must have developed much later. The first spark of life must have been chemical polymers that were able to replicate themselves. DNA couldn't have come first as it can't replicate itself. RNA is one candidate but it may have been something simpler. Something that would blur the line between life and non-life and apparently these people are on that trail. I'm no expert on this either but, like you I am fascinated by every aspect of science Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter B Posted April 30, 2014 #3 Share Posted April 30, 2014 (edited) From the linked article: Remarkably, the discovery was an accident, stumbled on during routine quality control testing of the medium used to culture cells... Heh, that's how many good scientific discoveries are made! ETA: Thanks for the article, Willowdreams, it was an interesting read. Edited April 30, 2014 by Peter B Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willowdreams Posted April 30, 2014 Author #4 Share Posted April 30, 2014 (edited) Hey Willowdreams. You have the gist of it right. This about abiogenesis and the first spark of life. Life can't have started with anything as complex as cells. Cells must have developed much later. The first spark of life must have been chemical polymers that were able to replicate themselves. DNA couldn't have come first as it can't replicate itself. RNA is one candidate but it may have been something simpler. Something that would blur the line between life and non-life and apparently these people are on that trail. I'm no expert on this either but, like you I am fascinated by every aspect of science thank you, i am glad i wasnt too far off the mark then.. it is like i get it.. but other times i feel slow on the uptake on it. From the linked article: Heh, that's how many good scientific discoveries are made! ETA: Thanks for the article, Willowdreams, it was an interesting read. i am glad you liked the link...i find most stuff like this by accident, i click links here and there and get lost online and wham... stuff like this just magically appears. Edited April 30, 2014 by willowdreams Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now