The Theory Of Life?

[Moontanman]

Say 500000 million years then. Thats why Im asking if someone knows the source of my vague memory!

If I try to imagine whay was said I might falsify things. I really want to re read the original argument!

Meanwhile Ill do what I can. Problem one: The first cell...when,why and how did it get complex.

I distinctly remember the figure of TWO BILLION years in contrast to less than a million million years.

I think he said 100000 million years. So any change that makes the cell complex will do.

 

I think of two possibilities.

Either the cell failed in assimilating another cell that survived inside the first cell...mitochondria for example...or the cell did not divide properly and managed to live on as two cells forming one cell...a complex cell.

Are there more possibilities?

 

Did he mean the stromatolites or whatever they are called? Perhaps their beginning can be dated?

Somebody should be able to tell when scientists think the complex life first appeared surely?

And how they get the date! With only single cells on one side and complex mix on the other.

 

Then we can ask whether the time periods involved are reasonable or not.

 

 

SigurdV lets get the time indexes relatively accurate first. 500,000 million years is 500 billion years, the universe has not existed for but a small fraction of that number... I know it was an honest mistake on your part but the less confusion in this issue the better...

 

Stromatolites can be dated, the oldest are something like 3.5 billion years old. But stromatolites are not complex life forms but colonies of bacteria, some single celled organisms are complex such as protozoa, they can be traced back to about 2 billion years ago more or less via micro fossils. True complex multicellular life forms do not show up until less than 1 billion years ago, there is some dispute on this so I would not state it as anything but an estimate. something like 540 million years ago was the Cambrian explosion.

 

Does this at least help us establish common ground for measuring time frames?

[sigurdV]

http://arxiv.org/abs/1304.3381Life Before Earth

 

Alexei A. Sharov, Richard Gordon

(Submitted on 28 Mar 2013)

An extrapolation of the genetic complexity of organisms to earlier times suggests that life began before the Earth was formed. Life may have started from systems with single heritable elements that are functionally equivalent to a nucleotide. The genetic complexity, roughly measured by the number of non-redundant functional nucleotides, is expected to have grown exponentially due to several positive feedback factors: gene cooperation, duplication of genes with their subsequent specialization, and emergence of novel functional niches associated with existing genes. Linear regression of genetic complexity on a log scale extrapolated back to just one base pair suggests the time of the origin of life 9.7 billion years ago. This cosmic time scale for the evolution of life has important consequences: life took ca. 5 billion years to reach the complexity of bacteria; the environments in which life originated and evolved to the prokaryote stage may have been quite different from those envisaged on Earth; there was no intelligent life in our universe prior to the origin of Earth, thus Earth could not have been deliberately seeded with life by intelligent aliens; Earth was seeded by panspermia; experimental replication of the origin of life from scratch may have to emulate many cumulative rare events; and the Drake equation for guesstimating the number of civilizations in the universe is likely wrong, as intelligent life has just begun appearing in our universe. Evolution of advanced organisms has accelerated via development of additional information-processing systems: epigenetic memory, primitive mind, multicellular brain, language, books, computers, and Internet. As a result the doubling time of complexity has reached ca. 20 years. Finally, we discuss the issue of the predicted technological singularity and give a biosemiotics perspective on the increase of complexity.

Comments: 26 pages, 3 figures

Subjects: General Physics (physics.gen-ph)

Cite as: arXiv:1304.3381 [physics.gen-ph]

(or arXiv:1304.3381v1 [physics.gen-ph] for this version)

[Eclogite]

As someone who believes there is a significant probability that pan spermia was involved with the appearance of life on Earth I might be expected to be enthusiastic about this paper. I have not yet had time to study it properly, but my initial reaction is negative: the argument appears to be based upon a definable rate of change in complexity and a consequent extrapolation backwards to predict the time of origin. There appears little justification for such a presumption.

[sigurdV]

As someone who believes there is a significant probability that pan spermia was involved with the appearance of life on Earth I might be expected to be enthusiastic about this paper. I have not yet had time to study it properly, but my initial reaction is negative: the argument appears to be based upon a definable rate of change in complexity and a consequent extrapolation backwards to predict the time of origin. There appears little justification for such a presumption.

Paradigms die hard... Because so few takes its negation seriously! I predict it will take at least another twenty years until its settled that the probabilities for life to have its beginning in free fall is thousands of times higher than the probability for life beginning on planets ... Why dont you calculate the number of drops of water in free fall (in the zones where temperature and pressure was favourable) containing carbohydrates, each one a possible place for life to begin, and compare with the number of spots on earth where conditions were suitable for an equally long duration? ... On earth the duration was a million years or so at maximum but in free fall we can count a billion years... times how many billions of drops?

 

There will be more voices.

But at first they will be few...

like first drops of rain...

Wait and you will get wet ;)

[blamski]

where is the place where 'free fall' happens? are you talking about interplanetary space or interstellar space? where in this place do you think the pressure and temperature would be appropriate for water to be liquid and thus provide a habitat for developing life. i'm prepared to be corrected, but i was always under the impression that despite the vast amount of water present in the universe it will be in either vapour or ice state, the lack of pressure (which only comes from atmospheres, and hence planets) will cause ice to sublimate and so effectively bypass the liquid state if subjected to a slight temperature increase.

 

there may well be 'life' out there that is not dependant on planets (star trek writers always seemed quite keen on this) but its highly unlikely that cellular life could have started in such a way.

[Moontanman]

SigurdV You have had your assertions shown to be mistaken over and over, your definitions are not coherent and do not conform to anything I have ever read. Your timelines are off by orders of magnitude and you ignore any data that doesn't support your conclusions... You keep basing this on "something you heard" Any chance you can address some of these issues?

 

panspermia is not exactly an answer to the origin of life btw...

[sigurdV]

Why not?

But only ONE at a time. So...

With what disproved assertion do we start?

Please quote BOTH assertion AND disproof.

[sigurdV]

where is the place where 'free fall' happens? are you talking about interplanetary space or interstellar space? where in this place do you think the pressure and temperature would be appropriate for water to be liquid and thus provide a habitat for developing life. i'm prepared to be corrected, but i was always under the impression that despite the vast amount of water present in the universe it will be in either vapour or ice state, the lack of pressure (which only comes from atmospheres, and hence planets) will cause ice to sublimate and so effectively bypass the liquid state if subjected to a slight temperature increase.

 

there may well be 'life' out there that is not dependant on planets (star trek writers always seemed quite keen on this) but its highly unlikely that cellular life could have started in such a way.

A fair question:I think there were several places where temperature and pressure was right.

How about in the middle of the Stellar cloud? I suppose it was cool and low pressured in the beginning...

Are you saying that at no time during the formation of the proto sun

the pressure and temperature in the center did permit water in liquid form?

[Moontanman]

A fair question:I think there were several places where temperature and pressure was right.

How about in the middle of the Stellar cloud? I suppose it was cool and low pressured in the beginning...

Are you saying that at no time during the formation of the proto sun

the pressure and temperature in the center did permit water in liquid form?

 

 

No, at no time would a gas cloud in space be pressured enough to maintain liquid water for any length of time. Such pressures only exist on planets or inside planets.

 

You could start off by explaining your 500 billion years assertions as I pointed out in post number 18

 

Are the following statements Scientific facts?

1 it took approximately 100000 years after the Earth was cool enough to sustain life

until the first single cell appeared.

 

No this is an estimate not a fact.

 

2 it took two billion years after the Earth was cool enough to sustain life

until the first complex cell appeared.

 

No, I really don't know where you got this from, but first define what you mean by complex life since all life on earth is quite complex.

Edited June 10, 2013 by Moontanman

[Essay]

A fair question:I think there were several places where temperature and pressure was right.

How about in the middle of the Stellar cloud? I suppose it was cool and low pressured in the beginning...

Are you saying that at no time during the formation of the proto sun

the pressure and temperature in the center did permit water in liquid form?

...I assumed you meant the atmosphere, clouds, fog, or the thick vapor of the organic soup that formed in our early "chemically reducing" atmosphere.

 

Sigurd, you should look into:

 

"Bacterial Growth and Form" by Arthur L. Koch, which you can get through a library [QR84.5 .K63 2001].

 

http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-94-017-0827-2_2

 

This Chapter considers what must have happened to create the First Cell and what must have developed between the time when the First Cell arose and the time that the Last Universal Ancestor gave rise to multiple lines of descent. The former was the first entity that could improve itself and its lot by Darwinian evolution. The latter is defined operationally as the latest organism that had various descendants that evolved into eubacteria, archaebacteria [archaea], eukaryotes, and organelles of eukaryotes. The parent of sub-cellular genetic elements, such as viruses, insertion sequences, and plasmids, is little considered here, but arguments can be made that their development was fairly late. The Last Universal Ancestor probably had many of the characteristics that we now find retained in bacteria and, of course, many of the features of most living organisms. During the intervening ‘Monophyletic’ epoch between the First Cell and the Last Universal Ancestor, the processes shown in the central part of Figure 1.1 were being perfected, but had not reached the state in which we now find them in organisms today. In this diagram, no phylogeny is implied except that within the epoch many mutations and changes occurred but each improved organism totally displaced its predecessors and the side shoots, and that multiple branching occurred after the Last Universal Ancestor to produce a diversity of types of biological descendants.

===

 

It's the part, describing "...what must have happened to create the First Cell," that is really interesting—from a biochemistry perspective. Search ["first cell" quasi-species] and also ["first cell" hyper-cycles] to get some "sample" book results ...also try clicking on “Images” after entering your search term.

===

 

p.s. Testing that search suggestion, I found a free preview version for, "The Bacteria: Their Origin, Structure, Function and Antibiosis, By Arthur L. Koch [QR75 .K63 2007].

[books.google.com/books?isbn=1402066252] ...with similar info.

 

....Note also that even after the monophyletic periods, there was very little diversity... AS well as Antibiosis... along with symbioses and the varios processes that led mitochondria and chloroplasts to become integrated into eukaryotes. These aspects would change the way "evolutionary clocks" can be interpreted.

 

As an aside: I generally think of "complex life" to be multicellular, but it could be applied to the development of the nucleus and or organelles. Is that what you meant?

 

~

Edited June 10, 2013 by Essay

[sigurdV]

No, at no time would a gas cloud in space be pressured enough to maintain liquid water for any length of time. Such pressures only exist on planets or inside planets.

 

You could start off by explaining your 500 billion years assertions as I pointed out in post number 18

 

 

 

No this is an estimate not a fact.

 

 

 

No, I really don't know where you got this from, but first define what you mean by complex life since all life on earth is quite complex.

Its late ... I didnt say anything about HOW long time water in the sun existed as a liquid. All I was interested in forcing you to admit that a huge volume at some consecutive moments in time were in a liquid form ouside EARTH! To put life together if all constituents are are close together need not take more than minutes... But I only use the sun as an amusing test volume. I think the volume in space becoming the earth at first sight is a more promising objekt.

 

And here comes a card I kept up my sleeve:

Lets return to the beginning of the cloud contracting into what will become our solar system...when blocks of ice got smeared with organics:

1 will not chemical reactions release heat?

2 will there not be storms, lightnings and turbulence?

3 How many blocks of ice, no matter the size,

were there in the cloud and were they free from

non-organic molecules. What were the early conditions really like?

Calm or chaotic? And how many billions of years back in time are we looking?

 

PS Its late and I really have no time to checkk #18 ...

I still dont know who told me about the two billion year discrepancy...

and if you want to accuse me of dreaming it up I cant stop you...

My impression is that it MAY have been Gould or Wilson.

 

But I dont care! Reading THAT started me thinking on this subject.

And I can change my mind when I see Im wrong...in the beginning I was for instance not aware that both temperaure and pressure is needed to keep water in liquid form...But I bet you my last shirt that you usually never recognise it when you are wrong ;)

Edited June 10, 2013 by sigurdV

[sigurdV]

...I assumed you meant the atmosphere, clouds, fog, or the thick vapor of the organic soup that formed in our early "chemically reducing" atmosphere.

 

Sigurd, you should look into:

 

"Bacterial Growth and Form" by Arthur L. Koch, which you can get through a library [QR84.5 .K63 2001].

 

http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-94-017-0827-2_2

 

 

===

 

It's the part, describing "...what must have happened to create the First Cell," that is really interesting—from a biochemistry perspective. Search ["first cell" quasi-species] and also ["first cell" hyper-cycles] to get some "sample" book results ...also try clicking on “Images” after entering your search term.

===

 

p.s. Testing that search suggestion, I found a free preview version for, "The Bacteria: Their Origin, Structure, Function and Antibiosis, By Arthur L. Koch [QR75 .K63 2007].

[books.google.com/books?isbn=1402066252] ...with similar info.

 

....Note also that even after the monophyletic periods, there was very little diversity... AS well as Antibiosis... along with symbioses and the varios processes that led mitochondria and chloroplasts to become integrated into eukaryotes. These aspects would change the way "evolutionary clocks" can be interpreted.

 

As an aside: I generally think of "complex life" to be multicellular, but it could be applied to the development of the nucleus and or organelles. Is that what you meant?

 

~

I read this with some pleasure. Thank you for a fair reading! As I said its late so I will say no more to night.

[Moontanman]

Its late ... I didnt say anything about HOW long time water in the sun existed as a liquid. All I was interested in forcing you to admit that a huge volume at some consecutive moments in time were in a liquid form ouside EARTH! To put life together if all constituents are are close together need not take more than minutes... But I only use the sun as an amusing test volume. I think the volume in space becoming the earth at first sight is a more promising objekt.

 

In space, a gas cloud is very ethereal, ie pretty much a vacuum from our point of view and water cannot exist as a liquid in a vacuum, even on Mars the pressure is too low to allow liquid water to exist, just on the earth the pressure is too low to allow liquid carbon dioxide to exist.

 

And here comes a card I kept up my sleeve:

Lets return to the beginning of the cloud contracting into what will become our solar system...when blocks of ice got smeared with organics:

1 will not chemical reactions release heat?

2 will there not be storms, lightnings and turbulence?

3 How many blocks of ice, no matter the size,

were there in the cloud and were they free from

non-organic molecules. What were the early conditions really like?

Calm or chaotic? And how many billions of years back in time are we looking?

 

Actually you may be close to the mark on this, it is possible that large comets have liquid interiors for short periods of time after they form.

 

PS Its late and I really have no time to check #18 ...

I still dont know who told me about the two billion year discrepancy...

and if you want to accuse me of dreaming it up I cant stop you...

My impression is that it MAY have been Gould or Wilson.

 

I am not talking about 2 billion I am talking about your 500 billion year assertion...

 

But I dont care! Reading THAT started me thinking on this subject.

And I can change my mind when I see Im wrong...in the beginning I was for instance not aware that both temperature and pressure is needed to keep water in liquid form...But I bet you my last shirt that you usually never recognise it when you are wrong ;)

 

I have no problem admitting being wrong, it's the only way you can learn, I like silk Hawaiian print shirts...

[sigurdV]

In space, a gas cloud is very ethereal, ie pretty much a vacuum from our point of view and water cannot exist as a liquid in a vacuum, even on Mars the pressure is too low to allow liquid water to exist, just on the earth the pressure is too low to allow liquid carbon dioxide to exist.

The pressure and temperature needs sometimes to prevent water from becoming ice or gas

in order for suitable conditions to exist. I agree on the point.

Since conditions, on and in the close surroundings of the massive bodies within the solar system ARE such, THEN once in their formation period the conditions were NOT right... meaning theres a period of transition in which the surroundings of the body are suitable but the body in itself perhaps is too hot for life.

 

How much is known of the conditions in the orbit of what was to become the orbit of The Earth?

Was there only one planetoid slowly growing into our planet or was there several?

IF SO: Were more than one of them big enough for allowing liquid water in its surroundings?

 

How many drops of water and clumps of ice containing organic compounds was there in the orbit

and for how long time were they there?

Besides... were there forces like lightnings, storms and other convections?

Perhaps ice became liquid for short periods, then returning to ice again?

Drifting... colliding with newly melted drops?

 

How much do we know of the early chemistry of molecules forming beginning life processes?

Do such beginnings really need water in liquid form ALL of the time?

Perhaps heat released by chemical reactions themselves melted ice?

Perhaps gaseous water molecules also were useful?

 

I cant help feeling that I have described a scenario

for life to begin with a high probability...

Where were there similar or better conditions on Earth?

Edited July 6, 2013 by sigurdV

[Moontanman]

The pressure and temperature needs sometimes to prevent water from becoming ice or gas

in order for suitable conditions to exist. I agree on the point.

 

Ok, we are in agreement then....

 

Since conditions, on and in the close surroundings of the massive bodies within the solar system ARE such, THEN once in their formation period the conditions were NOT right... meaning theres a period of transition in which the surroundings of the body are suitable but the body in itself perhaps is too hot for life.

 

I don't see any reason to think this condition is anything but extremely short and transitional, quite possibly only a few seconds before the material became part of the larger body.

 

How much is known of the conditions in the orbit of what was to become the orbit of The Earth?

Was there only one planetoid slowly growing into our planet or was there several?

IF SO: Were more than one of them big enough for allowing liquid water in its surroundings?

 

Again as i think I have already said small bodies like comets might contain the liquid water you are looking for.

 

How many drops of water and clumps of ice containing organic compounds was there in the orbit

and for how long time were they there?

 

In orbit drops of water are very unlikely since in orbit the pressure would essentially be zero.

 

Besides... were there forces like lightnings, storms and other convections?

Perhaps ice became liquid for short periods, then returning to ice again?

Drifting... colliding with newly melted drops?

 

Any such water would be very fleeting, seconds at best if that.

 

How much do we know of the early chemistry of molecules forming beginning life processes?

 

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

 

While the idea of abiogenesis isn't as well supported as Evolution it does have considerable evidence of the possibilities, most of the processes thought to have occurred seem to require a planetary surface to work this could be due to planetary chauvinism...

 

Do such beginnings really need water in liquid form ALL of the time?

 

It would appear to depend on the reaction you are looking for, many complex molecules do form in interstellar space.

 

Perhaps heat released by chemical reactions themselves melted ice?

 

In a vacuum the water would never be liquid, it would sublime like CO2 does on Earth...

 

Perhaps gaseous water molecules also were useful?

 

In some reactions this might be possible.

 

I cant help feeling that I have described a scenario

for life to begin with a high probability...

Where were there similar or better conditions on Earth?

 

Comets or other ice bodies are the only possibility of actual life forms other than on or near a planetary surface I can think of and so far you have not convinced me otherwise.

[Moontanman]

A trio of videos you might find helpful in your efforts...