On The Origin Of Life

[sigurdV]

Hi all!

 

I dont think Darwin ever c l a i m e d that life arouse in a pool of water,

he only pointed towards the only object he could find that might suffice.

Im not good at counting but life is thought to take a long time in coming,

and i suspect that not even the ocean is enough in the allotted time...

 

Im not trying to prove life was created mysteriously,

i only suggest we look for a place where the probability is high!

Where then do I point? Any suggestions?

[Moontanman]

Hi all!

 

I dont think Darwin ever c l a i m e d that life arouse in a pool of water,

he only pointed towards the only object he could find that might suffice.

Im not good at counting but life is thought to take a long time in coming,

and i suspect that not even the ocean is enough in the allotted time...

 

Im not trying to prove life was created mysteriously,

i only suggest we look for a place where the probability is high!

Where then do I point? Any suggestions?

 

 

The earth, at one time, was a cauldron of chemical reactions being recycled in a great many ways. Through things like black smokers and evaporating pools. Billions if not trillions of chemical reactions every second all over the planet, pseudo cells made up of lipids, that had a strong affinity for other chemicals and this property concentrated these chemicals. Here is a video that makes these processes very clear. It is a good starting point of discussion and shows how some of the processes could have worked, i think it was almost certainly a synergy of several different processes that brought about life on earth.

 

http://www.youtube.com/user/potholer54#p/c/100500E4C9404405/2/3H0RXDrfyZc

[sigurdV]

Good work there soldier! (Im not kidding here.)

 

Thank you,and if you missed smthng, someone will point it out :)

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis#Origin_of_organic_molecules

 

The problem with this, If I may call it so, "null hypothesis",

 

is that although the condition perhaps were xcellent,

 

the time interval might be too short...

 

Theres 3 factors involved when you calculate the probability of life in here:

 

P r o b a b i l i t y 1: Area times Conditions times Time.

 

I cant calculate the probability ...

 

only suspect it is low but higher than before.

 

I suggest we take a look at the cloud that became our solar system,

 

and compare probabilities:

 

P ro b a b i l i t y 2: Space times Conditions times Time

 

Still cant calculate but a comparation can be done. Shall we bet?

 

A small 2 dinensional area times good conditions times just a little time.

 

Compared with a gigantic 3 dimensional space

 

times low but not impossible conditions times lots and lots of time...

[sigurdV]

I notice you probably havent read me before...

 

I suggest u check out:

 

"The Final Solution of the Liar" in philosophy, i think, who can be sure?

 

"Maths and Harmony theory" in music, ditto

 

"sigurdV posts" in artists lounge, ditto

[maddog]

I cant calculate the probability ...

only suspect it is low but higher than before.

I suggest we take a look at the cloud that became our solar system,

and compare probabilities:

Space times Conditions times Time

I can (calculate) -- it is 100%. Why do I know; we are here.

 

The probability on the roll of a die being when once the dice is thrown is fixed. It either

was a 6 or not. As Moontanman said the early Earth was a very different environment

than today. Say a billion years ago single cell life was it. [i hope I remember enough

of my biology] Eukaryotic processes were just beginning to differentiate from

Prokaryotic processes.

 

I am not clear why the coalescing of our solar system becomes an issue other than

to obfuscate what you point really is. The sun "ignited" about 6 and half billion years

ago. The cloud as you had been before that and after. The nebular hypothesis by

Immanuel Kant in the 18th Century is now the dominant thinking refined by what we

know today. It was his vision that planets accreted material as they revolved the sun.

 

maddog

[sigurdV]

I can (calculate) -- it is 100%. Why do I know; we are here.

 

The probability on the roll of a die being when once the dice is thrown is fixed. It either

was a 6 or not. As Moontanman said the early Earth was a very different environment

than today. Say a billion years ago single cell life was it. [i hope I remember enough

of my biology] Eukaryotic processes were just beginning to differentiate from

Prokaryotic processes.

 

I am not clear why the coalescing of our solar system becomes an issue other than

to obfuscate what you point really is. The sun "ignited" about 6 and half billion years

ago. The cloud as you had been before that and after. The nebular hypothesis by

Immanuel Kant in the 18th Century is now the dominant thinking refined by what we

know today. It was his vision that planets accreted material as they revolved the sun.

 

maddog

 

I think the calculation can be made on any cloud becoming a solar system.

 

What follows is edited in much later:

 

My view here is that Evolution in itself is neutral put has a path to follow!

It is supposed that life arose in the sea,and if it is true

then life will have to either dig down into the ground,

settle on the surface of the earth or water

or take to the air.

 

I think its clear that life will not immediatly take off to the air! Right?

Life will not evolve in that direction until theres not much choice left!

And, in particular, for life to enter space and settle on the Moon

theres lots of necessary adaptions to acquire...

 

The path to the Moon leads through civilisation it seems.

I tried to find this idea in evolutionary thinking but failed.

Perhaps too much energy is spent in educating creationists?

[Moontanman]

I think the calculation can be made on any cloud becoming a solar system.

 

So the point that there IS life on earth NOW is irrelevant

when we calculate the probilities for life to have an origin at different points in space and time...

 

Im very happy that u did not miss that my point is

that the probability that we are not alone in the universe is very close to 1

 

Notice that: the argument = 1/Malthus.

 

Perhaps the preceeding statement is too obscure... Dont worry its "sVmATHS"

 

I have no doubt we are not alone, but i would be willing to guess the number of actual technologically advanced civilizations is very small, much smaller than the already very small number of planets with complex life. I would be surprised if there are a half dozen civilizations in our galaxy. But if there are lots of civilizations then it doesn't bode well for us, since we haven't been visited it would mean the limits to technology we already see are real and impenetrable or that civilizations seldom last more than a brief flash of cosmic time.... or maybe both...

[sigurdV]

I have no doubt we are not alone, but i would be willing to guess the number of actual technologically advanced civilizations is very small, much smaller than the already very small number of planets with complex life. I would be surprised if there are a half dozen civilizations in our galaxy. But if there are lots of civilizations then it doesn't bode well for us, since we haven't been visited it would mean the limits to technology we already see are real and impenetrable or that civilizations seldom last more than a brief flash of cosmic time.... or maybe both...

 

Man, you ARE cautious! R you guessing or just willing to?

 

I guess "u must have been a beutiful baby" (kidding) repeat:

 

I suppose u have been yempered (y=t) by doing much scientific work.

 

Drop the tool: "Null Hypothesis", in your toolbox it doesnt work properly in random spaceitory.

 

I sincairily hope you are right since in general only the first sperm gets into the egg!

 

And i guesstimate there to be around a hundred billion civilisations in our galaxy at the moment...

 

I suppose the proper thing to do in order to get this thread moved into silly questios/statements

 

is to claim that life is but the sperms ejaculated by our universe into multispace?

 

So i hasten to assure you that i C L A I M nothing of the sort!

 

And... to answere the silly question:"Y havent they visited us already?"

 

It is because of what whimsical me calls "the Einstein Chord = C"

 

Space is larger than we can visualize within our heads...

 

Obviously them other civs will visit us at approximatly the same time

 

whenever (NOT ifever) that will be.

 

PS And please dont think im just another troll tryijung to enter religion into the context:

Religious texts are soaked in blood, I touch them only with a virtual hand!

[Moontanman]

Man, you ARE cautious! R you guessing or just willing to?

 

I guess "u must have been a beutiful baby" (kidding) repeat:

 

I suppose u have been yempered (y=t) by doing much scientific work.

 

Drop the tool: "Null Hypothesis", in your toolbox it doesnt work properly in random spaceitory.

 

I sincairily hope you are right since in general only the first sperm gets into the egg!

 

And i guesstimate there to be around a hundred billion civilisations in our galaxy at the moment...

 

I suppose the proper thing to do in order to get this thread moved into silly questios/statements

 

is to claim that life is but the sperms ejaculated by our universe into multispace?

 

So i hasten to assure you that i C L A I M nothing of the sort!

 

And... to answere the silly question:"Y havent they visited us already?"

 

It is because of what whimsical me calls "the Einstein Chord = C"

 

Space is larger than we can visualize within our heads...

 

Obviously them other civs will visit us at approximatly the same time

 

whenever (NOT ifever) that will be.

 

PS And please dont think im just another troll tryijung to enter religion into the context:

Religious texts are soaked in blood, I touch them only with a virtual hand!

 

 

I honestly can't make heads or tails of what you are saying dude...

[maddog]

I think the calculation can be made on any cloud becoming a solar system.

Yes, I would agree with that statement. I miss your point as to why you make this reference?

 

So the point that there IS life on earth NOW is irrelevant

when we calculate the probilities for life to have an origin at different points in space and time...

So maybe you are driving at the Drake equation. As Moontanman says in a previous post, the probability of life in the universe has definitely

grown higher in the last forty some years since the equation was formed in the sixties. We know a lot more.

 

1. We now have a better estimate on the likelyhood that any coalescing cloud of material will form a solar system (incl planets).

2. We have a somewhat better estimate that solar systems have planets often in habitable zones.

With the rest it is still conjecture. You guess is good as mine.

 

Perhaps the preceeding statement is too obscure... Dont worry its "sVmATHS"

Yes, very. <_<

 

maddog

[maddog]

And i guesstimate there to be around a hundred billion civilisations in our galaxy at the moment...

With this galaxy being about 330 billion stars that would put your statistics close 30% solar system (which I assume you mean planets).

I find that "estimate" to be a bit high (I might consider 1-5%).

 

And... to answere the silly question:"Y havent they visited us already?"

... Space is larger than we can visualize within our heads...

Ughh, I think you are referring to "other" civilizations visting us. Space is large, yes and it take a long time to get here from "there".

More importantly "why" would they "want" to? What incentive are there. To make the journey, these civilizations would need to be very advanced to make the trip (if possible). What would they gain by doing so. The same goes for communication (SETI say). They have already had our signals for over the last seventy years. A no response does not mean no one is listening. It just mean no one is speaking.

 

Like Moontanman, I could not make sense of the rest of what you say. Maybe if you attempted a post sober, might help. Maybe ? :unsure:

 

maddog

[JMJones0424]

Theres 3 factors involved when you calculate the probability of life in here:

 

P r o b a b i l i t y 1: Area times Conditions times Time.

 

I cant calculate the probability ...

 

only suspect it is low but higher than before.

 

I suggest we take a look at the cloud that became our solar system,

 

and compare probabilities:

 

P ro b a b i l i t y 2: Space times Conditions times Time

 

Still cant calculate but a comparation can be done. Shall we bet?

 

A small 2 dinensional area times good conditions times just a little time.

 

Compared with a gigantic 3 dimensional space

 

times low but not impossible conditions times lots and lots of time...

 

My knowledge of abiogenesis and astrobiology is limited to say the least, however, I have a few problems with the process occurring in a solar nebula rather than on (or in) a planet or moon. Being at the bottom of a gravity well allows for increased density of the materials necessary for chemical reactions and allows for increased pressure and therefore a liquid solvent for these chemical reactions to take place in. It may be too limiting to consider liquid water as a necessary medium for life, but it seems reasonable to me that some liquid solvent would be required. The near vacuum of space, while abundant with the necessary ingredients for life, is not a very good place to find the pressures and temperatures necessary for liquid solvents.

 

Though the site is geared more towards debunking bad science involved in creationism, the TalkOrigins archive has a good introduction to abiogenesis.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/originoflife.html

 

I'm not aware of any work on the possibility of abiogenesis occuring in a solar nebula. Do you have any links you could share?

[Moontanman]

Great resource JMJones, really great information that can be easily understood, my hats off to you sir!

[sigurdV]

My knowledge of abiogenesis and astrobiology is limited to say the least, however, I have a few problems with the process occurring in a solar nebula rather than on (or in) a planet or moon. Being at the bottom of a gravity well allows for increased density of the materials necessary for chemical reactions and allows for increased pressure and therefore a liquid solvent for these chemical reactions to take place in. It may be too limiting to consider liquid water as a necessary medium for life, but it seems reasonable to me that some liquid solvent would be required. The near vacuum of space, while abundant with the necessary ingredients for life, is not a very good place to find the pressures and temperatures necessary for liquid solvents.

 

Though the site is geared more towards debunking bad science involved in creationism, the TalkOrigins archive has a good introduction to abiogenesis.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/originoflife.html

 

I'm not aware of any work on the possibility of abiogenesis occuring in a solar nebula. Do you have any links you could share?

 

Hi jones!

And thanx for entering. First the last question:

 

Thatll be the day "stoneager sV" learns quantum techniques!

I never travel the net, i only tend my garden in hypography.

 

(I stretch the truth... I caught myself checking a link given by you.)

You should not hesitate in reporting problems...

 

In the meantime Ill prepare the soil... I AM suggesting NOT YET c l a i m i n g

that terrestial life has an extraterrestial origin! Im not first!

The swedish philosopher (Svante Arrhenius)suggested it around 1910 or so.

 

Correct me if Im wrong, but isnt one forte of yours to examine and evaluate?

Here in "Darwins Pool" I intend investigating what I see

as a Malthusian argument.

 

I want to find/define the probability for life

(a beautiful flower i think) to originate in various places x...

be they in the center of earth,in Big Bang or elsewhere IN our universe.

 

I need help!

 

What on earth (ha ha) is "probability"

as applied in this matter? (Let there be Matematicians!)

 

I suggest a formula: P = A times B times C

 

P is the probability of life originating in x

 

A is the Domain for life to possibly have an origin in

 

B is the time involved

 

C is #Metaphorically Speaking# the quality of the soil in A

 

Circularity should be excluded... HOW?

 

Then ill compare Bishop Usher, Darwin and Modern Thinking

 

In a way reminding me of Malthus.

[sigurdV]

 

Like Moontanman, I could not make sense of the rest of what you say. Maybe if you attempted a post sober, might help. Maybe ? :unsure:

 

maddog

 

Hi maddog!

 

1 Youre not mad.

2 Good dog. (ha ha)

3 A pleasure to meet you!

4 I finished my entry and then noticed yours.

5 Will u be surprised to know that i sometimes cant make

Head nor Whoof of my writings?

 

6 "My report on interpretations of the number system, 

and the interpretions of its "naturally arising" groups, 

progresses slowly.There is at the moment not much else

than the preliminary report you understood so well."

 

Today sigurdV Challenges all and everyone!

 

1 Do you see the "glove" thrown below?

 

1+1=1.

2 Usually I print everything I know in a "heap"...

Instead, why dont anyone first tell me what,

sensible and well defined,

true interpretations on 1 he thinks there are?(if any)

 

3 Need I note that two distinct waterdrops is not one drop of water?

(Also dont bother interpreting "1" as 0. (One root of paradox.)) 

 

Cheers!

 

Edit on 3: Im hiding a truth here! IF we count shapes instead of mass then indeed (out of gravity fields) one shape of water added to another shape of water is the same shape of water...

Edited February 29, 2012 by sigurdV

[sigurdV]

Hi All, Maddog in particular!

 

 

 

I suggest a formula: P = f(A times T times C...)

 

P is the probability of life originating in x

 

A is the Domain for life to have an origin in

 

T is the time involved

 

C is #Metaphorically Speaking# the "quality" of the soil(!?) in A

 

Circularity should be excluded... HOW?

 

Somewhere in the age of darkness a voice was heard:

Studying the Holy Book I learned that God created everything

in the year-4004 at four o clock in the morning!

 

Lets pretend the formula works:

 

A=0 since God created the world out of nothing.

T=0 since he did so instantly

C=1 since nothing is something life can arise in (it seems)

P=0 since multiplying factors results in zero... (Nice result.)

 

Now comes a laymans voice: It aint necessarily so.

 

A=1/0 Everything is alive.

T=1/0 There always was a time.

C=1 Anything,given enough time, can happen

P=1/0 (Murphys Law:if something can go wrong it will!)

 

Whats nice with Drakes Equation is that we only need to fill in some numbers

to get a number between 0 and 1 representing a probability.

 

I suppose Im trying to make sense above...

I honestly think im not joking!

(to be continued, edited and "probably"

thrown into my own wastebasket.)

 

Leaving Poetry for a while, lets look at preludes...or preliminaries:

Even if i cant access their number, i can isolate, and order objects.

Or can I? What comes will be an ocean in need of editing!

 

To tell you the truth:

I am a compulsive joker

trying to "dig" the truth

wherever it may be found!

 

Later a Geologician/Engineer got a terryfying idea:

What if Earth with its Beautiful Mountains,Seas and Valleys could have been constructed by ...Ahem...God: Using Natural Processes as His Tool? (Excluding God out of calculus at the time was not a bright idea ... Remember G.Bruno in the care of Ignatius Lollola)

 

In my study of poetry

I ran into Poincare,

Check Eternitee, He said,

Notice the eternal return of...

 

Darwins concept of evolution needed a large amount of time in order to work, the demands for a better estimation of the age of earth could no longer be ignored by the establishment.

 

Physics assisted by Kelvin gives us an improved scenario

 

A = Surface of earth

B = 100000

C = 1 undefined really, but looking good given enough time...

P = at least 100000

 

Sir! I said. With due Respect,

I suspect: To identify

Infinity and Finitee!

Is a grave error indeed.

 

So what is the modern scenario?

 

A The surface now includes the bottom of the sea

T Close to 5 billion years

C not bad but still not understood, say 1

P 5 billion years

 

Note that the number is getting higher.

 

My scenario:

 

A the universe except suns and planets = The highest number yet.

T Some 14 billion yars

C Perhaps poor, say: 0.00000000...1 = The lowest number yet

P... Suppose A times C = 1 then this scenario wins.

 

PS Removing earth out of the calculus might not be a dangerous idea today,

but the gardener isnt satisfied yet: Ill return, he mutters.

[sigurdV]

My knowledge of abiogenesis and astrobiology is limited to say the least, however, I have a few problems with the process occurring in a solar nebula rather than on (or in) a planet or moon. Being at the bottom of a gravity well allows for increased density of the materials necessary for chemical reactions and allows for increased pressure and therefore a liquid solvent for these chemical reactions to take place in. It may be too limiting to consider liquid water as a necessary medium for life, but it seems reasonable to me that some liquid solvent would be required. The near vacuum of space, while abundant with the necessary ingredients for life, is not a very good place to find the pressures and temperatures necessary for liquid solvents.

 

Though the site is geared more towards debunking bad science involved in creationism, the TalkOrigins archive has a good introduction to abiogenesis.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/originoflife.html

 

I'm not aware of any work on the possibility of abiogenesis occuring in a solar nebula. Do you have any links you could share?

 

No! Im now searching but no one seems interested in the conditions in the solar cloud and how the organics in there were produced!

 

 

From Wikipedia:

"An alternative to Earthly abiogenesis is the hypothesis that primitive life may have originally formed extraterrestrially,

 

(Here Francis Crick is removed from the text. There should be one to be the first to mention the possibility of "Extra Terrestial Origin of Life", but im beginning to suspect that no one has hinted at the Solar Cloud as the origin of life... Not every Sun has planets ,but every sun was created out of a cloud!!! now to the rest of the quote:)

 

Organic compounds are relatively common in space, especially in the outer solar system where volatiles are not evaporated by solar heating.Comets are encrusted by outer layers of dark material, thought to be a tar-like substance composed of complex organic material formed from simple carbon compounds after reactions initiated mostly by irradiation by ultraviolet light. It is supposed that a rain of material from comets could have brought significant quantities of such complex organic molecules to Earth."

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin "Primitive" extraterrestrial life

 

We have found organics in space, are they somehow "spitted out" from planets,

or are there spots in space where the building blocks of life (and who knows what else)

are produced?

 

What were the conditions in the cloud that later became our solar system?

Surely the organics came from there somehow?