A new development to watch closely

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,628
12,068
✟230,461.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Sorry! What is obvious to me was that they tweaked the original atmospheric model until they came up with one that would be hostile to actual life (which most do not think existed) though was able to produce some amino acids ( actually hostile to long things) which denatured in this artificial and hostile environment and so they devised the cold trap which in no way was present in nature.

Don't get me wrong, it was brilliant, but nothing like creating life in a lab...they did what was needed to get a certain reaction (just good chemistry)


Nope, that is not what they did. They set the atmosphere to what was thought to be the Early Earth atmosphere at that time. Later work puts the time of abiogenesis later and the atmosphere was different then. It was tested again with that atmosphere and it still worked. There was no dishonest tweaking.

And you don't seem to understand the purpose of the experiment. At that time there were those that denied that amino acids could form naturally. That would be one of the first steps in abiogenesis. The demonstrated that that claim was wrong and later experiments reconfirmed their work.
 
Upvote 0

pshun2404

Newbie
Jan 26, 2012
6,026
620
✟78,299.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Nope, that is not what they did. They set the atmosphere to what was thought to be the Early Earth atmosphere at that time. Later work puts the time of abiogenesis later and the atmosphere was different then. It was tested again with that atmosphere and it still worked. There was no dishonest tweaking.

And you don't seem to understand the purpose of the experiment. At that time there were those that denied that amino acids could form naturally. That would be one of the first steps in abiogenesis. The demonstrated that that claim was wrong and later experiments reconfirmed their work.

No DISHONEST tweaking just tweaking...we can call it "making adjustments" until they procured the hoped for results but it was not dishonest. And I cannot understand anybody that would deny that normal chemical reactions would or could take place in nature (but that's not life)...even if we found some (which we have not) that could actually "self" assemble or self-replicate, that is not life...
 
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,628
12,068
✟230,461.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
No DISHONEST tweaking just tweaking...we can call it "making adjustments" until they procured the hoped for results but it was not dishonest. And I cannot understand anybody that would deny that normal chemical reactions would or could take place in nature (but that's not life)...even if we found some (which we have not) that could actually "self" assemble or self-replicate, that is not life...

pshun. Once again, they did no change the atmosphere to get the results that they did. Therefore there was no tweaking at all.

What they did was to try to best replicate what the Early Earth atmosphere was thought to be at that time.

Do you understand?

Replicating is never "tweaking".

Later that atmosphere was found to be wrong. So the experiment was run again. In fact it has been run several times with different atmospheres and they were constantly able to get amino acids. Some atmospheres were better than that one.

And if you can't understand why people would deny the obvious you do not understand creationists very well at all. Denying the obvious is a must if one is to be a creationist.
 
Upvote 0

tas8831

Well-Known Member
May 5, 2017
5,611
4,000
55
Northeast
✟101,040.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
This new hypothesis therefore must ASSUME:

Remind us all about the ASSUMPTIONS YOU employ in choosing to accept bible-based creation?

So one hypothesis ASSUMES that early nucleic acids “assembled themselves” into functional proteins

Proteins are not made of nucleotides.
Well on the side of intelligent design playing a major role in all science
Really?
So to ASSUME such reactions already existed as the cause of forming such reactions in the first place is a logical absurdity, but the hypothesis driven are missing this in their thinking.

And the ABSURDITY of ASSUMING that the tribal deity of ancient middle eastern numerologists was the one TRUE supernatural entity, and the the largely un-original stories they told regarding this deity and his followers were TRUE and ACCURATE depictions of reality?

What is that saying about planks in eyes?
 
Upvote 0

pshun2404

Newbie
Jan 26, 2012
6,026
620
✟78,299.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Remind us all about the ASSUMPTIONS YOU employ in choosing to accept bible-based creation?



Proteins are not made of nucleotides.
Really?

And the ABSURDITY of ASSUMING that the tribal deity of ancient middle eastern numerologists was the one TRUE supernatural entity, and the the largely un-original stories they told regarding this deity and his followers were TRUE and ACCURATE depictions of reality?

What is that saying about planks in eyes?

Tas...aside from the off topic rant (open thread if you wish) I said "ONE HYPOTHESIS" assumes this (there are a number of scientific origins hypotheses)....in the RNA World model they without doubt assume that these NUCEIC ACIDS (RNA) could have self-replicated and formed functional proteins (and yes NOT ALL proteins are nucleic acids) leading to living systems. They ASSUME it because not a single example of self-replicating RNA (a nucleic acid) has ever been found outside a living system in nature (before you go off, yes some have been intelligently designed in laboratories).

Caps for emphasis not emotion

For example, one of the products of RNA inside living systems is the production and use of ribonucleoproiteins. We are informed that RNA-binding proteins (RBPs) are proteins that bind to the double or single stranded RNA in cells participate in forming ribonucleoprotein complexes. See Lunde, B. M.; Moore, C; Varani, G (2007). "RNA-binding proteins: Modular design for efficient function". Nature Reviews Molecular Cell Biology. 8 (6): 479–90.( PMID 17473849. doi:10.1038/nrm2178 ) for more information. According to the article in Wiki, "diversity enabled eukaryotic cells to utilize RNA exons in various arrangements, giving rise to a unique RNP (ribonucleoprotein)." These ribonuceoproteins are functional proteins that assist in a number of various cellular processes (cellular function, transport and localization, splicing, stabilization, and even mRNA translation). Though still little understood without them the Eukaryotic cells as we know of them would no longer function properly.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Speedwell

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2016
23,928
17,625
81
St Charles, IL
✟347,270.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
No DISHONEST tweaking just tweaking...we can call it "making adjustments" until they procured the hoped for results but it was not dishonest. And I cannot understand anybody that would deny that normal chemical reactions would or could take place in nature (but that's not life)...even if we found some (which we have not) that could actually "self" assemble or self-replicate, that is not life...
Have you defined "life" yet?
 
Upvote 0

FrumiousBandersnatch

Well-Known Member
Mar 20, 2009
15,261
8,057
✟326,742.00
Faith
Atheist
How do we know "proto-cells" even existed long before life began?
We know that proto-cells or vesicles can form spontaneously in what are thought to be early Earth environments. Since life appears to have been cellular since very early times, some researchers feel it's reasonable to hypothesise that metabolism might have got started in the protected environment inside such vesicles.

Isn't this just another assumption of convenience?
It's just one hypothesis; other researchers think that metabolism might have come first and was encapsulated later. There are other ideas also being investigated.

And how do we know proto-cells were these fat vesicles OR that they became real cells?
It's one hypothesis of many. Living cells have lipid bilayer membranes and vesicles, and proto-cell vesicles are lipid bilayer membranes. It's not much of a leap to hypothesise a developmental connection.

It's worth remembering that modern cellular life is the product of several billion years of evolutionary selective refinement. The earliest replicators would probably be very inefficient and wouldn't yet have efficient enzymes - but reactions can be enhanced, even in energetically unfavourable directions, by simple metallic compounds and/or the surface chemistry of rocks and clays. This concept might favour development of metabolism outside of vesicles, with later encapsulation.

E.T.A. Almost forgot - biofunctional dipeptides have been found in meteorites and in outer space.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

pshun2404

Newbie
Jan 26, 2012
6,026
620
✟78,299.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
right
We know that proto-cells or vesicles can form spontaneously in what are thought to be early Earth environments. Since life appears to have been cellular since very early times, some researchers feel it's reasonable to hypothesise that metabolism might have got started in the protected environment inside such vesicles.

It's just one hypothesis; other researchers think that metabolism might have come first and was encapsulated later. There are other ideas also being investigated.

It's one hypothesis of many. Living cells have lipid bilayer membranes and vesicles, and proto-cell vesicles are lipid bilayer membranes. It's not much of a leap to hypothesise a developmental connection.

It's worth remembering that modern cellular life is the product of several billion years of evolutionary selective refinement. The earliest replicators would probably be very inefficient and wouldn't yet have efficient enzymes - but reactions can be enhanced, even in energetically unfavourable directions, by simple metallic compounds and/or the surface chemistry of rocks and clays. This concept might favour development of metabolism outside of vesicles, with later encapsulation.

E.T.A. Almost forgot - biofunctional dipeptides have been found in meteorites and in outer space.

Thanks! That was an honest and insightful contribution (as usual). Yes there are a few hypotheses and some are very reasonable. These few dipeptides however are hardly "functional" since they do nothing on their own. I have no problem understanding that various results of the natural process of covelant bonding can produce amino acids anywhere in the universe and we have found a few here on earth as well (in nature outside of a living system) but these are extremely rare. So all the building blocks of what goes into a living thing's structure are there (no doubt here) and under certain conditions could be available. But assembling themselves together or becoming functional proteins that actually perform there purpose? It's a hypothesis...
 
Upvote 0

pshun2404

Newbie
Jan 26, 2012
6,026
620
✟78,299.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Have you defined "life" yet?

No one has done so here yet...the vitality that makes these forms eliminate, respirate, assimilate. reproduce offspring and so on, has not really been discovered or clearly understood (perhaps never). One thing I believe is that with life comes awareness (some form of consciousness) and I do not think that can be easily defined either. We often assume some lower forms have none because they do not share our types of systems (nervous system, brain, etc.) but we really do not know.

Is life simply the process of what happens to matter or is it a separate quality in the universe that only associates with certain levels of material complexity or is it something added by a God? We really do not know from a scientific level.
 
Upvote 0

Speedwell

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2016
23,928
17,625
81
St Charles, IL
✟347,270.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
No one has done so here yet...the vitality that makes these forms eliminate, respirate, assimilate. reproduce offspring and so on, has not really been discovered or clearly understood (perhaps never). One thing I believe is that with life comes awareness (some form of consciousness) and I do not think that can be easily defined either. We often assume some lower forms have none because they do not share our types of systems (nervous system, brain, etc.) but we really do not know.

Is life simply the process of what happens to matter or is it a separate quality in the universe that only associates with certain levels of material complexity or is it something added by a God? We really do not know from a scientific level.
In general I agree with that, but the reason I brought up the question is that you stated that a self-replicating entity is not yet life. Without a clear definition, how can you be sure?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

pshun2404

Newbie
Jan 26, 2012
6,026
620
✟78,299.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
In general I agree with that, but the reason I brought up the question is that you stated that a self-replicating entity is not yet life. Without a clear definition, how can you be sure?

I have seen too many times when scientists (not to be confused with science itself) pour new meaning into or change the meaning of commonly understood terms to support their hypothesis. This is just such a case. "Self-replication" is not "life" even many crystals replicate molecularly. This is the new tendency in the pro-abiogenesis movement...

IF we were to discover free floating RNA or DNA (outside of a living system of part of a designed/controlled experiment dependent on Intelligent intervention) that self-replicates, they would claim to have discovered the key to life, but living things are much, much more as I described above. The production of offspring is far more complex and involved many factors, forms, and forces. Plus all living things respirate, assimilate, digest, and so on and in my opinion, they are all aware of their environment and interact with it respective to their life-form.

If and when we ever find such an independent amino acid (or in a pool of them) that can do this It still would not mean it is alive. Does it move or grow with a determined purpose or goal". Does it respond to threat in a defensive manner? Can it perceive (by what ever means) its surroundings and react appropriately?

So far (and I know how people will explode when I say this) all we have demonstrated and all we have that are observable facts about "self-replicating RNA" is that which by intelligent intervention under conditions designed with intent to test for or derive a particular reaction or result, actually yields some result similar to what we planned and expected.

Add that to the observed and continually demonstrated fact that we have NEVER seen this in nature outside of already extant life and what have we really found evidence for? Think about it? Only when intelligence is involved and creates the conditions necessary for such a thing to happen does it happen (within the extant laws and principles of physics and chemistry which the matter when urged in this way follows and obeys).
 
Upvote 0

pshun2404

Newbie
Jan 26, 2012
6,026
620
✟78,299.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Frumious was right, there are more than a few hypotheses, but we should not confuse any with fact. It may even turn out (as I believe) that these molecular building blocks that life uses and employs are available from many sources (space, volcanoes, vents, and more) not just one or the other.
 
Upvote 0

tas8831

Well-Known Member
May 5, 2017
5,611
4,000
55
Northeast
✟101,040.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Tas...aside from the off topic rant (open thread if you wish) I said "ONE HYPOTHESIS" assumes this (there are a number of scientific origins hypotheses)....in the RNA World model they without doubt assume that these NUCEIC ACIDS (RNA) could have self-replicated and formed functional proteins (and yes NOT ALL proteins are nucleic acids) leading to living systems. They ASSUME it because not a single example of self-replicating RNA (a nucleic acid) has ever been found outside a living system in nature (before you go off, yes some have been intelligently designed in laboratories).

Caps for emphasis not emotion

For example, one of the products of RNA inside living systems is the production and use of ribonucleoproiteins. We are informed that RNA-binding proteins (RBPs) are proteins that bind to the double or single stranded RNA in cells participate in forming ribonucleoprotein complexes. See Lunde, B. M.; Moore, C; Varani, G (2007). "RNA-binding proteins: Modular design for efficient function". Nature Reviews Molecular Cell Biology. 8 (6): 479–90.( PMID 17473849. doi:10.1038/nrm2178 ) for more information. According to the article in Wiki, "diversity enabled eukaryotic cells to utilize RNA exons in various arrangements, giving rise to a unique RNP (ribonucleoprotein)." These ribonuceoproteins are functional proteins that assist in a number of various cellular processes (cellular function, transport and localization, splicing, stabilization, and even mRNA translation). Though still little understood without them the Eukaryotic cells as we know of them would no longer function properly.

All your pontificating and 'paraphrasing', and yet still not a single example of scientific evidence supporting intelligent design or creation.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

pshun2404

Newbie
Jan 26, 2012
6,026
620
✟78,299.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
All your pontificating and 'paraphrasing', and yet still not a single example of scientific evidence supporting intelligent design or creation.

Was that what this thread was about? Maybe you should start one since ALL your comments go there....
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,851,136
51,515
Guam
✟4,910,057.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Those that have a hard time understanding science have a tough time telling the difference between oxygen's presence in compounds, which has always existed on the Earth, with molecular O2 which did not exist in any significant amounts until long AFTER life first arose.
As long as I can blow up balloons on my birthday, I'm not gonna worry about it.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: SkyWriting
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

SkyWriting

The Librarian
Site Supporter
Jan 10, 2010
37,279
8,500
Milwaukee
✟410,948.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
In a recent article in Science, (July 2017) titled “How sunlight might have jump-started life on Earth”, writer Roland Pease tells us of e new theory set forth by Geophysicist, Robert Hazen and others postulates the possibility that maybe something as simple as ultra-violet rays could have caused a reaction in Iron-Sulphur clusters that may have formed the first enzymes. And as we know enzymes are responsible for almost all cellular functions. However there are a few assumptions that would need to be confirmed to make the theory plausible.

One of the necessary components for this reaction however are peptides, the presence of a dipeptide being the first essential step leading to the structures in living things. A peptide is defined as “a compound consisting of two or more amino acids linked in a chain, the carboxyl group of each acid being joined to the amino group of the next by a bond of the type -OC-NH-“!

Now the one’s we are aware of at this point are all a part of a living system like:
So far (having expected to find these since the early 20th century) not a single life worthy dipeptide has been found naturally arising outside of the living system.

But recently we have been able to intelligently design some basic di- and poly- peptides inside the laboratory, like:
So the bottom line is in the actual Data we have two kinds...those we know we will find in already extant living systems, and those intelligently designed outside of a living system.

This new hypothesis therefore must ASSUME:

a) first that enzymes DID exist in the early Earth biochemistry, which rely on the presence of

b) basic Amino acid molecules already existing, and next

c) that these were all present in some kind of a primordial soup concept, around 4 billion years ago

So one hypothesis ASSUMES that early nucleic acids “assembled themselves” into functional proteins and RNA which then “assembled themselves” (a further assumption) into higher order functional strands of genetic material. This suggests enzymatic reactions already occurring. This newer suggestion is that Iron-Sulphur clusters (a basic component of all enzymes) have been around at least since the “last common ancestor of all living things” (an additional assumption). YET we know that all the many “carefully calibrated” metabolic reactions INSIDE living cells require oxygen which all modern scientists appear to agree was NOT PRESENT in this early earth!?!

So which came first, the enzymes (usually formed by coding in already extant RNA or DNA) or the cellular environment in which we can actually observe them arising in? Do we rely on and hypothesize based on the actual evidence, or the interpret the evidence to fit the model we suppose?

Well on the side of intelligent design playing a major role in all science, in laboratories Scientists have devised a way to remove oxygen, and then in this oxygen depleted environment mix Iron with glutathione (a sulfur containing peptide ) they claim was likely a predominate factor in the early earth (sound like a similar approach to the Miller/Urey intelligently designed model).

Only that makes little or no sense, because as we know, these already extant peptides would have required some catalytic or enzymatic action just to have formed in the first place. So to ASSUME such reactions already existed as the cause of forming such reactions in the first place is a logical absurdity, but the hypothesis driven are missing this in their thinking. So far replies I receive boil down to “Duh! I cannot understand what you are saying here!”

It is like some kind of cog is stuck not allowing them to process the simple reasonable fact of what this proposes. All they really did in these experiments was show that under intelligently designed conditions in a controlled environment they could produce a form of Iron that could readily interact with sulfur (the sulfur which is bound in already formed peptides).

Out of 30 different compounds they created for trial, a few were found to actually somewhat work if placed INSIDE our intelligently designed fatty acid vesicles (we refer to as proto-cells and use them in labs), SO now this proposes a new problem being ignored or not admitted to, which is that fatty acids contain a carboxylic acid which itself is oxygen dependent to exist.

They seem to agree that also “all the basic chemicals for life (meaning for their structures and functions) can be cooked up in a water –filled impact crater” but AGAIN a “water-filled” crater demonstrates the necessity of oxygen, since oxygen is essential for water to exist and the environment they ASSUME allegedly has none, and if it were as they project in their initial assumptions, in the presence of such high levels of Ultra-violet radiation, water would be almost immediately evaporate were it even able to form in the first place.

Despite these obvious realities, I predict within a year or so many will be persuaded there is some actual truth to this, and after a while it will find its place beside other intelligently designed processes (like Miller/Urey) in classrooms and textbooks everywhere as evidence for an evolutionary source for life.

So sunlight promotes life? I was under the impression that
every interested person in the field knew this. When searching
for life I thought most scientists lean toward sunlight as a given.
 
Upvote 0

tas8831

Well-Known Member
May 5, 2017
5,611
4,000
55
Northeast
✟101,040.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Was that what this thread was about? Maybe you should start one since ALL your comments go there....


I did.

And I note that ALL your comments appear to be archival, including the quotes you use. You've left a footprint on the internet in these debates. And the footprints seem to proscribe a circle.
 
Upvote 0

tas8831

Well-Known Member
May 5, 2017
5,611
4,000
55
Northeast
✟101,040.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
So one hypothesis ASSUMES that early nucleic acids “assembled themselves” into functional proteins and RNA which then “assembled themselves” (a further assumption) into higher order functional strands of genetic material.

Why would anyone ASSUME that nucleic acids assembled themselves into proteins?

This suggests enzymatic reactions already occurring.

Enzymes speed up reaction rates, but reactions can occur without them. That a reaction that, for example, we rely on to survive is enzymatic, it does not follow that the reaction does not occur spontaneously. You know why soft drinks bubble? Spontaneous reaction - the same reaction that occurs in your lungs at a much faster rate due to carbonic anhydrase.


This newer suggestion is that Iron-Sulphur clusters (a basic component of all enzymes)

Iron-Sulfur clusters in all enzymes? Carbonic anhydrase does not have an Iron-sulfur cluster.
have been around at least since the “last common ancestor of all living things” (an additional assumption). YET we know that all the many “carefully calibrated” metabolic reactions INSIDE living cells require oxygen which all modern scientists appear to agree was NOT PRESENT in this early earth!?!
'Carefully calibrated' reactions?
Things change over time !?!?!!
Strawman argument?
So which came first, the enzymes (usually formed by coding in already extant RNA or DNA) or the cellular environment in which we can actually observe them arising in? Do we rely on and hypothesize based on the actual evidence, or the interpret the evidence to fit the model we suppose?

Good question.

It would appear that regardless of one's claimed scientific education and experience, if one is a creationist, their interpretations of any and all evidence is forced to fit into their deity/magic-based models.
Well on the side of intelligent design playing a major role in all science,

Setting up a fallacious 'argument from analogy'?


in laboratories Scientists have devised a way to remove oxygen, and then in this oxygen depleted environment mix Iron with glutathione (a sulfur containing peptide ) they claim was likely a predominate factor in the early earth (sound like a similar approach to the Miller/Urey intelligently designed model).

Only that makes little or no sense, because as we know, these already extant peptides would have required some catalytic or enzymatic action just to have formed in the first place.
Are you ASSUMING that no catalytic substances existed?

Why?
So to ASSUME such reactions already existed as the cause of forming such reactions in the first place is a logical absurdity, but the hypothesis driven are missing this in their thinking. So far replies I receive boil down to “Duh! I cannot understand what you are saying here!”

The hypothesis driven - as opposed to whom? The "scientists DESIGN experiments, therefore, INTELLIGENT DESIGN is real!" crowd?
It is like some kind of cog is stuck not allowing them to process the simple reasonable fact of what this proposes. All they really did in these experiments was show that under intelligently designed conditions in a controlled environment they could produce a form of Iron that could readily interact with sulfur (the sulfur which is bound in already formed peptides).

And if these results were observed in Nature, you would be saying 'but there is no way to know if these reactions occurred naturally!' or some other all-purpose escape.
Out of 30 different compounds they created for trial, a few were found to actually somewhat work if placed INSIDE our intelligently designed fatty acid vesicles (we refer to as proto-cells and use them in labs), SO now this proposes a new problem being ignored or not admitted to, which is that fatty acids contain a carboxylic acid which itself is oxygen dependent to exist.

I just cannot go on.

This sad 'scientists DESIGN experiments, therefore Jesus' line of "reasoning" is too much.

This thread is titled "A development to watch closely", yet in your OP, and ever since, you have done nothing but try to undermine the work and insult the intelligence of those involved.

What are you trying to accomplish?

*forgot that I had already replied to this, but I bring up some different points here, so I will leave it.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

tas8831

Well-Known Member
May 5, 2017
5,611
4,000
55
Northeast
✟101,040.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
So can obligate anaerobic exist in an oxygen-free environment? (yes). So why do we have so many all-caps words if some forms if life can exist without oxygen, or at least free oxygen?

I'm sure you already know the answer... :)
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

FrumiousBandersnatch

Well-Known Member
Mar 20, 2009
15,261
8,057
✟326,742.00
Faith
Atheist
So sunlight promotes life? I was under the impression that
every interested person in the field knew this. When searching
for life I thought most scientists lean toward sunlight as a given.
Not all abiogenesis hypotheses involve sunlight - in the deep oceanic hydrothermal vents (a popular choice for abiogenesis research), sunlight doesn't reach that far and ecosystems are based on based on bacteria that metabolize sulphur and iron compounds rather than photosynthesis.

Bacteria are also found deep underground in rocks and clays (clays are another popular subject of abiogenesis studies) where sunlight doesn't reach.

Simple life just needs a source of energy and materials to metabolize.
 
Upvote 0