Nick Lane Quotes

These are all lifestyles that exist in bacteria anyway. ...Photosynthesis obviously. The only eukaryotic lifestyle that does not exist at all in bacteria is ... the ability to engulf other cells, to grow around them. That's never been found yet in bacteria. It seems to require... a lot of energy, a large complicated system capable of changing shape and moving around. ...For whatever reasons it never evolved. I would say the reason was that you need mitochondria to get that large and complex in the first place.

What is [life] it? Would we even recognize it. What I imagine we would find would be cell-like things. Not a million miles away from bacteria, using , probably in water, not because it's the only way of organizing. It's just that carbon is very good at that kind of chemistry. It's very common in the universe. Water is ubiquitous. We know, from the principles of life on earth, that all this stuff works and we know that it's thermodynamically favored. ...[J]ust statistically, I would expect, maybe 900 times out of a thousand that life would be organized in a similar way to life here. That's not to say it can't be different. It's just probably... going to be similar.

[A]cquiring mitochondria gives you a headache that can go wrong very easily, but here's an interesting problem in a nutshell. You look at a plant cell under a microscope, or an animal cell, or a fungal cell, or an or something, and you'll recognize the same structure in all of them. They've all got a nucleus. They've all got the s as straight chromosomes. They've all got s. They've all got s. They've all got complexes. They all do as a division mechanism. They all do as two steps where you first double everything and then half it twice. They all go through the same rigmarole. They've all got mitochondria. They've all got the same system, endoplasmic reticulum, things like that. ...[Y]ou could list page after page after page in a text book and it would be exactly the same for a plant, or a fungal cell, or an animal cell. Now they have really different ways of life. If you were to simply think, "Well, there's some inevitability that bacteria will give rise to complex life." ...You would imagine that a photosynthetic bacteria, a would give rise directly to photosynthetic , eukaryotic algae, but they didn't. It was by the intermediary of acquisition of a . There was a common ancestor of eukaryotes that was nothing like a cyanobacterium and nothing... quite like an algae except without the chloroplasts. So... why is it that we all have the same machinery inside, but we have such different lifestyles? Why don't we see multiple origins of complex life where cyanobacteria give rise to photosynthetic trees? Why don't we see predatory bacteria?

[W]e are biochemically quite simple in comparison bacteria. Simpler than bacteria. In terms of our metabolic biochemistry we are really limited. ...[W]e have ...across the entire domain of s, about the same degree of metabolic sophistication as a single bacterial cell.

The driving force of is thermodynamics. ...[I]n this context ...the chemical need to react (to dissipate energy) in the same way that water needs to flow downhill.

[T]he mechanism by which mitochondria generate energy, by pumping protons across a membrane (), is found in all forms of life... It's a bazarre way... This idea, however... won Peter Mitchell a Nobel Prize...

[On the :] It's a bit of a sterile conversation. I suppose I think of it as the cell. That's not to say that it can't act at the level of s. Of course it can. It does all the time. Any selfish gene is acting in it's own interest. I think the trouble with looking at selection only at the level of genes is it tends to downplay the importance of genetic conflict in a strange way... [I]f you have levels of selection you can have, for example... mitochondria... They were bacteria once. They're the power packs inside eukaryotic cells... [O]nce they get inside another cell, inside another originally, then they have an agenda of their own. They're making copies of themselves, and it's the speed at which the bacterium as a whole is making a copy of itself that means whether it tends to dominate in the population or not. It's not the individual genes. They will tend to throw away genes that they don't really need. And the host cell itself has got its agenda. It needs to make sure that it's getting benefits from this symbiont. It's not being taken over. It's not being eaten, and so it's... more intuitive to think of the interests of the cells themselves. And if you simply think of all of them as genes then you don't have that discrimination between the layers. Again, if you're thinking about s at the origin of life, the unit of selection in my mind is, "Can a cell make a copy of itself?" If you have a pure RNA world...

This membrane, so vanishingly thin, looms large... for bacteria use it for generating their energy.

According to mitochondrial gene analysis, man didn't interbreed with Homo Sapiens...

I'm not particularly... eucaryocentric, but I do think there is a problem to solve there. ...There is a difference in morphology ...

It could be any of those <nowiki>[</nowiki>sodium, or other ion gradients]. The fact of life on earth is that it tends to use proton gradients, and we know particular environments that do use proton gradients, and the reason I think protons is because , which is to say the proton concentration, can modulate the reactivity of both and . Now sodium concentrations wouldn't do that, but protons, if you've got gas in alkaline fluids, hydrothermal fluids... what you've got coming out of these s, hydrogen is more reactive in alkaline conditions. It really doesn't want to push its electrons onto something else, but if it's in alkaline conditions it pushes its electrons onto something else, and the protons are left behind and they will react immediately with the hydroxide ions to form water, which is thermodynamically very favored, and so it's far more likely to push its electrons onto CO₂ if it's in alkaline solution.

I would say that if there's a probability of life being cellular, which I think there is. Life being based, which I think there is. Life starting out with CO₂ because it's so common in planetary atmospheres, and , which is very common, from the kind of s which I'm talking about... and liquid water. They need liquid water for , but we know of it on ... on Europa... [Serpentinization] is giving rise to alkaline fluids with hydrogen gas. Most hydrogen gas you find in planetary atmosphere are coming from serpentinization. , which is the mineral required for that... is ubiquitous in interstellar dust... So all of this pushes you down a certain avenue, and if that's correct it gives you bacteria... and if that's correct then bacteria have a structural problem, and they're not going to get beyond bacteria except with an endosymbiosis, and that in itself is improbable, unlikely... because it only happened once, to our knowledge, on earth.

It does seem to me, from our experience of life on earth that allows you to... step up, by probably orders of magnitude in just how much life can take over a planet.

I'm... interested in the principles of what governs the emergence of life on the planet, with a certain set of resources. Can we understand it? We'll never know what happened, so we'll never know how life started on earth. ...[I]f those principles are enormously difficult, if it turns out that it's a freak statistical accident, then there's little point in studying it and we will gain... very little. If, on the other hand, those principles are reasonable, intelligible, that we can study them in the lab and demonstrate that the steps that we propose are plausible and... we can demonstrate it, then I think that's as close to understanding the origin of life [as] we can get. ...[I]f those principles are generalizable, then as a scientist, that's... a pleasing thing. I'm not sure there's any more that's more pleasing to me, personally as a scientist.

[M]etabolic flux... Even a simple bacterial cell can undergo... a billion trnasformations per second... is... what being alive is.