The Origins of Life
A mineralogist believes he's discovered how life's early building blocks connected four billion years ago
- By Helen Fields
- Photographs by Amanda Lucidon
- Smithsonian magazine, October 2010, Subscribe
(Page 3 of 3)
Living room shelves hold things the couple has found nearby: beach glass, a basketful of minerals, and fossilized barnacles, coral and great white shark teeth. A 15-million-year-old whale jawbone, discovered on the beach at low tide, is spread out in pieces on the dining room table, where Hazen is cleaning it. “It was part of a living, breathing whale when this was a tropical paradise,” he says.
Hazen traces his interest in prehistory to his Cleveland childhood, growing up not far from a fossil quarry. “I collected my first trilobite when I was 9 or 10,” he says. “I just thought they were cool,” he says of the marine arthropods that went extinct millions of years ago. After his family moved to New Jersey, his eighth-grade science teacher encouraged him to check out the minerals in nearby towns. “He gave me maps and he gave me directions and he gave me specimens, and my parents would take me to these places,” says Hazen. “So I just got hooked.”
After taking a paleontology class together at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Hazen and Margee Hindle, his future wife, started collecting trilobites. They now have thousands. “Some of them are incredibly cute,” says Hazen. “This bulbous nose—you want to hug them.”
There are trilobites all over Hazen’s office and a basement guest room at the Hazens’ Bethesda, Maryland, home—they cover shelves and fill desk drawers and cabinets. There’s even trilobite art by his now grown children, Ben, 34, who is studying to be an art therapist, and Liz, 32, a teacher. “This is the ultimate cute trilobite,” he says, reaching into a cabinet and taking out a Paralejurus. “How can you not love that?”
Hazen calls himself a “natural collector.” After he and Margee bought a picture frame that just happened to hold a photograph of a brass band, they started buying other pictures of brass bands; eventually they wrote a history of brass bands—Music Men—and a time in America when almost every town had its own. (Bob has played trumpet professionally since 1966.) He has also published a collection of 18th-and 19th-century poems about geology, most of which, he says, are pretty bad (“And O ye rocks! schist, gneiss, whate’er ye be/Ye varied strata, names too hard for me”). But the couple tend not to hold on to things. “As weird as this sounds, as a collector, I’ve never been acquisitive,” Bob says. “To have been able to hold them and study them up close is really a privilege. But they shouldn’t be in private hands.” Which is why the Hazen Collection of Band Photographs and Ephemera, ca. 1818-1931, is now at the National Museum of American History. Harvard has the mineral collection he started in eighth grade, and the Hazens are in the process of donating their trilobites to the National Museum of Natural History.
After considering, for some time, how minerals may have helped life evolve, Hazen is now investigating the other side of the equation: how life spurred the development of minerals. He explains that there were only about a dozen different minerals—including diamonds and graphite—in dust grains that pre-date the solar system. Another 50 or so formed as the sun ignited. On earth, volcanoes emitted basalt, and plate tectonics made ores of copper, lead and zinc. “The minerals become players in this sort of epic story of exploding stars and planetary formation and the triggering of plate tectonics,” he says. “And then life plays a key role.” By introducing oxygen into the atmosphere, photosynthesis made possible new kinds of minerals—turquoise, azurite and malachite, for example. Mosses and algae climbed onto land, breaking down rock and making clay, which made bigger plants possible, which made deeper soil, and so on. Today there are about 4,400 known minerals—more than two-thirds of which came into being only because of the way life changed the planet. Some of them were created exclusively by living organisms.
Everywhere he looks, Hazen says, he sees the same fascinating process: increasing complexity. “You see the same phenomena over and over, in languages and in material culture—in life itself. Stuff gets more complicated.” It’s the complexity of the hydrothermal vent environment—gushing hot water mixing with cold water near rocks, and ore deposits providing hard surfaces where newly formed amino acids could congregate—that makes it such a good candidate as a cradle of life. “Organic chemists have long used test tubes,” he says, “but the origin of life uses rocks, it uses water, it uses atmosphere. Once life gets a foothold, the fact that the environment is so variable is what drives evolution.” Minerals evolve, life arises and diversifies, and along come trilobites, whales, primates and, before you know it, brass bands.
Helen Fields has written about snakehead fish and the discovery of soft tissue in dinosaur fossils for Smithsonian. Amanda Lucidon is based in Washington, D.C.
Subscribe now for more of Smithsonian's coverage on history, science and nature.









Comments (16)
+ View All Comments
He is stupid
Posted by on November 1,2012 | 06:29 PM
To understand origin of life, the first thing that needs to be understood is, which of the properties of matter can possibly account for inanimate to animate transformation. Last Universal Common Ancestor has been held to be the common ancestor of all the organisms that are known to exist on Earth. However, it is not correct and therefore ruled out. http://sciencengod.com/blog/whether-or-not-last-universal-common-ancestor-is-even-probable/ http://www.sciencengod.com http://sciencengod.com/buynow.php
Posted by Dr Mahesh C. Jain on October 9,2012 | 10:49 PM
Hazen gives good lectures, I heard him here in Uppsala at his Linné lecture.
Creationists shouldn't comment on science:
@ MPK:
Pyruvate is C3H3O3 [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyruvic_acid ].
@ Hans Hollis, MPK:
We have testable evidence for chemical to biological evolution.
Bottom up, both AMP/ATP and lipid protocell membranes form spontaneously. Top-down we now know that the earliest gene families handled ATP. Hence ATP sits at a nested sets of traits or a tested phylogeny.
The RNA world is that bottleneck environment, and you have to go to Szostak et al for that. We also now know that RNA selfreplicators can get long enough spontaneously, and that they interact well with self-replicating protocell membranes. The trick is to put the pieces together - they are working on it.
More generally, astrobiology has gone from coming up with new pathways to try to reject those who doesn't work. Among those that will remain will be the one taken in our case.
Posted by Torbjörn Larsson, OM on February 24,2012 | 10:57 AM
Wow this is a really cool project. I might be able to try it out and use it for my science project. Thanks whoever the creator is :)
Posted by Kayla on October 5,2011 | 08:25 PM
Thomas Gold's "Deep Hot Biosphere" discussed the possibilty of life originating under the surface of the earth back in the 1980's.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Deep_Hot_Biosphere#Origins_of_petroleum
There are compelling reasons why this should be. If "life" originated by a lucky chance out of random combinations of organic chemicals, then it would be most likely to originate in a region where the chemical reactions were at their peak density and peak reaction rate: at high pressures and temperatures that naturally occur under the surface.
Posted by john b on November 16,2010 | 05:39 PM
Wow, this is my next science project. Thanks Smithsonian
Posted by Q on October 23,2010 | 06:03 PM
I think I am a sane, well educated person. However, I have had some psychic ability that I don't understand and usually try to avoid. One of the recurring messages I have been getting for years is "The answer is in the rocks." Maybe this article explains that message.
Posted by Gwen Hays on October 20,2010 | 12:47 PM
Great article. How could people not find this kind of topic utterly fascinating?
Posted by Bob on October 13,2010 | 05:48 PM
I have subscribed to Smithsonian magazine for some 25 years and often enjoy the articles presented. Before There Was Life in the October 2010 issue is a rare exception. The idea that life somehow arose around hydrothermal vents was dismissed by Stanley Miller himself. In an interview appearing in Astrobiology Magazine on the 50th anniversary of Miller’s original experiment and subsequent paper, Miller stated ”the conditions of such ocean venting decomposes rather than enhances prebiotic chemistry.”
Chemist Jeffrey L. Bada of the University of California, (as reported in the New York Times) added: “This is probably the most unlikely area for the origin of life to occur”.
As a side note, Stanley Miller’s obituary appeared in The New York Times on May 23, 2007. In part, it stated “Despite the brilliant beginning, neither he nor others were able to take the next step, that of providing a plausible mechanism by which these chemicals could have been assembled into living cells or macromolecules, DNA and proteins – on which cells depend.” Mr. Hazen has only shown that amino acids can be formed under certain conditions, something that is already widely known. He, too, has failed to provide a plausible mechanism by which these chemicals could have been assembled into living cells.
Sincerely,
Hans Hollis
Posted by Hans Hollis on October 12,2010 | 02:43 PM
Thanks to scientists who continue to explore new ways of looking at how life could have started we have a more complete idea of what could have happened here on Earth about 4 billion years ago. Let's go to mars, drill down and find out if life is still there. Just a suggestion.
Posted by Bob Wiersma on October 8,2010 | 04:28 PM
This is shallow science for such a bold title. "I do wish that creationists would actually know the science they decry...The only thing organic chemical means is that it has carbon in it." Wrong, elitist Vel, Pyruvate, as a compound, has no carbon in its structure. Soup in is still soup out. Maybe there’s something useful still to come, but for now, this column describes nothing more than expensive alchemy.
Posted by MPK on October 7,2010 | 10:24 PM
I do wish that creationists would actually know the science they decry and realize that organic chemicals aren't only those that are made by life. We known how to make organic chemicals from inorganic. They are made that way in nature. We have done so since around 1832 when Wohler synthesized urea from inorganic chemicals. The only thing organic chemical means is that it has carbon in it.
Posted by vel on September 29,2010 | 12:46 PM
@Rick Powell: The article states that we've been able to synthesize amino acids (basic organic compounds) from ammonia, methane and hydrogen (inorganic elements) in early-earth-like conditions since the 1960s. To quote, "Hazen says that by 2000 he had concluded that 'making the basic building blocks of life is easy.'" Once you've mastered synthesizing organic compounds, you move on to the next question. "How did the right building blocks get incorporated? Amino acids come in multiple forms, but only some are used by living things to form proteins. How did they find each other?"
You may also be interested in this article: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18623-did-midwife-molecule-assemble-first-life-on-earth.html
Posted by Marie Torborg on September 29,2010 | 09:53 AM
The writing was as great as the story. Darwin would be proud. Rock on!
Posted by Tom Stohlgren on September 21,2010 | 11:13 PM
+ View All Comments