[HN Gopher] Were large soda lakes the cradle of life?
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Were large soda lakes the cradle of life?
        
       Author : geox
       Score  : 40 points
       Date   : 2025-03-25 15:42 UTC (7 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (ethz.ch)
 (TXT) w3m dump (ethz.ch)
        
       | toast0 wrote:
       | > Large, phosphorus-rich soda lakes are the most likely places to
       | have met this requirement.
       | 
       | Cola then, not orange or lemon-lime.
        
         | IAmBroom wrote:
         | Um, haha, no.
         | 
         | Mountain Dew, duh. Real creatives crave it.
        
         | dfltr wrote:
         | It's got electrolytes, it's what abiogenesis craves.
        
           | daveslash wrote:
           | But what _are_ electrolytes!? Da ya even _know_?
        
         | lenerdenator wrote:
         | In the Midwest they're called pop lakes.
        
       | im3w1l wrote:
       | > pfdietz [flagged] [dead]: Oh great, more inherently untestable
       | speculation about origin of life.
       | 
       | What is the value in this kind of speculation? I think that it
       | can help provide direction for future research. If we think these
       | soda lakes were the cradle of life, then we could look for
       | remnants of early (even though finding that is quite unlikely).
       | We could also try to replicate (steps of) abiogenesis in the lab
       | in conditions mimicking soda lakes and plausible variations
       | thereof. If that yields promising results it could inform
       | exobiology speculation, and as to the purpose of _that_
       | speculation, it could inform where we send probes in the very
       | long term.
        
         | ergl wrote:
         | FYI you can "vouch" for dead comments if you have enough karma.
         | But in general, if a comment is dead it is a sign that it is
         | not worth engaging with it.
        
           | NoahKAndrews wrote:
           | I think im3w1l's response is valuable enough to be worth
           | showing the original comment's text without reviving it
           | entirely
        
           | fsckboy wrote:
           | pfdietz has 13 thousand karma since 2018 so that's not a non-
           | serious account.
           | 
           | perhaps in this case "he" edit-clobbered his comment because
           | it was so unpopular, but what it says now is just off-topic
           | and doesn't match the response:
           | 
           |  _" It had to do everything because the business case for it
           | (that it would have sufficient ROI) required it. Even then,
           | the business case was basically fraudulent, and the reality
           | was even worse than the critics like Mondale were saying."_
        
         | mtlmtlmtlmtl wrote:
         | Not to mention that "speculation", better known as theory, is a
         | fundamental and crucial part of science. Some of the most
         | celebrated scientists in history are celebrated for their
         | theoretical work. Newton, Einstein, Charles Darwin(sure, Darwin
         | did a lot of observation as did most biologists of that era,
         | but his theory of natural selection, though inspired by his
         | observational work, is clearly a theoretical idea, not an
         | empirical result).
         | 
         | And of course, skimming over the actual paper in question, it's
         | not even theory/speculation really. It's more like a review of
         | the existing literature and empirical data on soda lakes, the
         | different types of them, and their plausibility for abiogenesis
         | based on their ability to maintain P concentrations despite
         | significant biological activity.
         | 
         | This is actually someone testing a previously theorised idea
         | against the best available data and affirming it as plausible.
        
           | TheAceOfHearts wrote:
           | Speculation is part of the process by which we formulate a
           | *hypothesis*. We then run experiments to test and validate
           | this hypothesis. If it is found to be correct then it gets
           | promoted to a *theory*.
        
         | rtkwe wrote:
         | Another reason is it gives us ideas of what to look for if
         | we're trying to find life on other planets or moons instead of
         | just dead remnants.
        
       | Sniffnoy wrote:
       | So this is being suggested purely because of phosphorus
       | availability there? How does this compare on that aspect to say
       | the the theory that life arose in alkaline hydrothermal vents?
       | (Note: Alkaline hydrothermal vents are not to be confused with
       | "black smokers", the more famous kind of hydrothermal vent.)
        
       | culi wrote:
       | In ecology it's recognized that highly alkaline lakes are some of
       | the most productive[0] ecosystems around. Despite this, most
       | organisms able to survive in highly alkaline environments are
       | considered "extremophiles".
       | 
       | Maybe it's the rest of us that are the extremophiles.
       | 
       | [0] In ecology "productive" is usually measured by the rate at
       | which biomass is measured in a system
        
       | m0llusk wrote:
       | Potentially also supports the idea that subsurface channels and
       | cavities could also have been involved with providing
       | environments for early life. There would have been high heat, a
       | range of minerals including phosphorus, and a wide variety of
       | interconnected cavities that could act as reaction chambers or
       | even cells.
        
         | tim333 wrote:
         | After reading "The Mysterious, Deep-Dwelling Microbes That
         | Sculpt Our Planet" in the nyt I figure the most likely origin
         | is deep in the earth. https://archive.ph/VgzKD
         | 
         | Reasons, apart from the phosphorus thing is it's warm and
         | stable with chemical gradients to fuel reactions, and some
         | rocks have cell like cavities which could be handy. Also
         | there's an awful lot of it. I guess you could try some
         | experiments with different suitable rocks and chemicals.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2025-03-25 23:01 UTC)