The oldest biological microstructures that we've found are from Australia and Greenland. However, it would be overly simplistic to state that life arose specifically in one of these two locations. The reason we have evidence of the first life forms in these areas is because these are the areas where we happen to have the oldest rocks. Also, theory kind of suggests that it's not really accurate to think of abiogenesis as happening "in one place". As Evan Thompson states in Mind in Life, the origin of life is best thought of as a planetary process. Trying to recreate abiogenesis in a laboratory has been a long and difficult process. No one has ever actually re-created life in a laboratory. Chris Impey states in The Living Cosmos that we have only been able to produce a few simple amino acids - which are millions of atoms less complex than even the simplest of cells. So that is the frontier contemporary chemists and biologists are trying to advance.Where is it thought that life on Earth first took root?
How do they try to simulate that?
Ah ok. So is this connected to the idea of the "primordial soup" (a term I actually haven't heard much of for a long time)? Thanks for the links.Also, theory kind of suggests that it's not really accurate to think of abiogenesis as happening "in one place".
First: since we can't go back in time - and since so little evidence from the early Earth remains - AND since we have never found another planet with life OR even another sample of life - our understanding of the "primordial soup" is very limited. This is an important read in terms of understanding what we can and can't know (and it's also a good overview of current theory). However, from everything we do know, abiogenesis seems to be a process that rapidly (geologically speaking) transforms an entire planetary landscape. So there is probably a unique interaction between geology, chemistry, and atmosphere that must occur for life to emerge. What is probably safe to say (at this point) is that the "primordial soup" of early life was based in large bodies of water around hydrothermal vents.
I've always thought the hydrothermal vents theory seemed the most logical, as indebted as life is to the presence of water. I'm not very well versed in it, unfortunately. Has there been any further elucidation upon what elements or compounds present that would lead to the formation of amino acids/peptides/enzymes? I remember reading recently about a younger chemist who got kind of famous recently working on self-assembling organic molecules and thought that they contained the necessary properties to "evolve" in some capacity, do you know much about this and what, if any, influence it has had?
The steps towards understanding what elements lead to the formation of amino acids/peptides is almost fully known. It is the step from amino acids to more complex entities like replicating RNA and proteins, that remains shrouded in mystery. For a quite complete overview on the current state of things check this out lecture by Jack Szostak. I have written about the dominant theory in systems chemistry to describe self-organizing organic compounds. You can check it out here.Has there been any further elucidation upon what elements or compounds present that would lead to the formation of amino acids/peptides/enzymes?
I remember reading recently about a younger chemist who got kind of famous recently working on self-assembling organic molecules and thought that they contained the necessary properties to "evolve" in some capacity, do you know much about this and what, if any, influence it has had?