Another Origin Theory?

[hazelm]

There is a lot of questioning and debating about how life got its start.  This one from Science Daily is probably not new to some of you.  However, it just happens to be connected to my uneducated guess.  For what it is worth:

 

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/09/170906114611.htm?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+sciencedaily%2Ftop_news%2Ftop_science+%28ScienceDaily%3A+Top+Science+News%29

 

Has the organic material that contributed to the origin of life on Earth existed for 4 billion years - long before our solar system existed?  And, if that is so, why not on other solar systems within our galaxy?

 

¶ 1 - The Rosetta space probe discovered a large amount of organic material in the nucleus of the comet "Chury". Researchers now advance the theory that this matter has its origin in interstellar space and predates the birth of the solar system.

 

Final ¶ - If cometory organic molecules were  indeed produced in interstellar space --- and if they played a role in the emergence of life on our planet, as scientists believe today  ---  might they not  also have seeded life on many other planets of our galaxy?

[Buffy]

Panspermia is a very popular theory which as you mention is getting more interest due to new hard evidence of extraterrestrial organic material. 

 

It's also another chink in the already silly "irreducible complexity" arguments of Intelligent Design proponents like Michael Behe, since it provides another 10 billion years for organic/self-replicating molecules to evolve.

 

No connections found yet, but we're getting closer, now that we're starting to find more organic material close by, and people are working on trying to detect evidence of organic matter over long distances from observing the new planets we're discovering in the galaxy.

 

But yes, if the stuff is floating around all over the place, not only is it more likely there's other critters out there, but they may be related....

 

 

Like many of the ideas that mattered in the American Revolution, extraterrestrials got their start in antiquity. The Greek philosopher Epicurus speculated that the universe must be infinite, eternal and abounding in 'worlds' just like our own. :phones:

Buffy

[Maine farmer]

I occasionally view of "Ancient Aliens" on The History Channel, and it sometimes causes me to break out into loud laughter.  My favorite quote from that show that I always hear is "Alien researchers say, "Yes."  I am just waiting for them to use that to promote some kind of product, kind of like the "4 out of 5 dentists" phrase.

 

Some of the reason I enjoy that program , besides the entertainment value, is that I am thinking, "What if some of it is actually true?"

[Buffy]

Oh gosh, I live for this guy with the Minbari hairdo...

 

 

 

The third planet is incapable of supporting life, Our scientists have said there's far too much oxygen in their atmosphere, :phones:

Buffy

[hazelm]

Back before my science brain awakened, I once read a theory stating that a comet had crashed into planet Earth and left behind rocks which contained early forms of iife.  These rocks landed on -- where else? -- Africa.  At the time it seemed a bit preposterous.  I was asking did Africa even exist that far back.  I went no further but now i ask:  Isn't it  fact that some time after our planet was formed, a comet did strike again?   And isn't it possible that this is indeed the connection?

 

Wild as some theories - especially mine --   are,  I like leaving everyone free to dream up their own ideas.  You just never know, do you?

[Buffy]

Well, one theory about why we have water is that comets in very large numbers crashed into the Earth in its youth, providing ample opportunity for such a transfer, much earlier than what you're thinking about. 

 

That theory has fallen by the wayside as an explanation for why we have water because people have done the math and we've got more water than we should if that was the delivery mechanism. But it's undoubtedly true that we got hit by lots and lots of comets early on, quite likely somewhere in there by objects that had an origin outside our solar system.

 

Four billion years is a really long time.

 

 

Fate laughs at probabilities.:phones:

Buffy

[hazelm]

Well, one theory about why we have water is that comets in very large numbers crashed into the Earth in its youth, providing ample opportunity for such a transfer, much earlier than what you're thinking about. 

 

That theory has fallen by the wayside as an explanation for why we have water because people have done the math and we've got more water than we should if that was the delivery mechanism. But it's undoubtedly true that we got hit by lots and lots of comets early on, quite likely somewhere in there by objects that had an origin outside our solar system.

 

Four billion years is a really long time.

 

 

Fate laughs at probabilities. :phones:

Buffy

 

I did not know that theory about why we have water has been tossed aside.   I always wonder about the 'where's" we ask and answers we sometimes reject. .  I think of the elements.  e.g.  Iron may not have existed as "iron" at the Big Bang or whatever beginning.  But didn't the makings of that iron (and other elements) already exist in the hydrogen and helium?  And the same story for the materials that ended up as organic and the start of life? 

 

Just pondering a bit.

Edited September 12, 2017 by Buffy
Fixed your quoting

[Buffy]

I did not know that theory about why we have water has been tossed aside.

This surprised me too, but I heard Alex Filippenko describe the problem on a new episode of (I think) the Science Channel show The Planets. I've met Alex, and he's a good guy. Very funny too! :cheer:

 

 

I always wonder about the 'where's" we ask and answers we sometimes reject. .  I think of the elements.  e.g.  Iron may not have existed as "iron" at the Big Bang or whatever beginning.  But didn't the makings of that iron (and other elements) already exist in the hydrogen and helium?  And the same story for the materials that ended up as organic and the start of life?

Most models of the big bang only result in hydrogen, helium, lithium and beryllium, the four lightest elements. Everything else has to come from mooshing those into stars and having intense gravity create heavier nuclei, and after supernova-ing: spitting them out to make planets in subsequent solar systems.

 

That's just the current theory though, and who knows what we'll find out next! :cheer:

 

 

It's amazing to me that we humans have the intellectual capacity to ask deep questions and to devise methods for learning how the universe works and how its contents evolve with time, :phones:

Buffy

[hazelm]

This surprised me too, but I heard Alex Filippenko describe the problem on a new episode of (I think) the Science Channel show The Planets. I've met Alex, and he's a good guy. Very funny too! :cheer:

 

 

 

Most models of the big bang only result in hydrogen, helium, lithium and beryllium, the four lightest elements. Everything else has to come from mooshing those into stars and having intense gravity create heavier nuclei, and after supernova-ing: spitting them out to make planets in subsequent solar systems.

 

That's just the current theory though, and who knows what we'll find out next! :cheer:

 

 

It's amazing to me that we humans have the intellectual capacity to ask deep questions and to devise methods for learning how the universe works and how its contents evolve with time, :phones:

Buffy

Right.  our ability to think and know and plan and dream and all the other conscious activities that cannot be seen or measured or cut open for examination are far more fascinating than our original formation as a material creature.  But, of course, there first had to be an awakening - life.

 

Back to those light elements, that is what I mean when I say all that followed came out of the activity of those.  I shall have to tell you my theory of where we came  from.  Later.  Meanwhile:    "mooshing"?  <G>

 

There is a book called "Origins" by Neil DeGrasse Tyson and Donald Goldsmith.  In it is a chapter discussing the theory of how our planet got water.  I just laid it out to re-read that when I get time. 

[exchemist]

Right.  our ability to think and know and plan and dream and all the other conscious activities that cannot be seen or measured or cut open for examination are far more fascinating than our original formation as a material creature.  But, of course, there first had to be an awakening - life.

 

Back to those light elements, that is what I mean when I say all that followed came out of the activity of those.  I shall have to tell you my theory of where we came  from.  Later.  Meanwhile:    "mooshing"?  <G>

 

There is a book called "Origins" by Neil DeGrasse Tyson and Donald Goldsmith.  In it is a chapter discussing the theory of how our planet got water.  I just laid it out to re-read that when I get time. 

Have you read it yet? I am interested. I read at one time most of the water came from outgassing of volcanoes in the early Earth. Later, I think,  then there was an idea a lot of it must have come from comets, which now I see is falling from favour again.

 

Regarding the origin of life, I suppose I am interested in how the building blocks first got assembled. From that point of view the Panspermia theories are really just kicking the can down the road, because even if life did not truly arise here on Earth, it arose somewhere, by some process that it would be good to understand.   

[hazelm]

I have read it once.  I need to go back to it.  But that has to wait a bit.  Right now I am playing catchup.  Every once in a while I get overwhelmed with too many "must do's".  You know the feeling?

[scherado]

I have read a few guesses over time.

 

Here is one (most recent) from Naked Earth (subtitle: The New Geophysics), by Shawna Vogel, pages 179-180:

.

According to [Carl] Woese's evolutionary tree, the most primary of the present-day bacteria lie within a group called the achaebacteria. All achaebacteria thrive in intense heat, and most derive their energy from breaking chemical bonds. The bacteria that inhabit the undersea hot springs fall into this group. Woese believes that these modern speies evolved from a similar type of ancient bacteria that probably grew at temperatures near the boiling point of water and may have drawn its energy from the sulfurous compounds spewing out of hydrothermal vents. If that's true, the bacteria seen at vents today could be the closet descendent we know of the original forms of life on earth. That would imply that the earth's unique way of venting its heat had a tremendous impact on that dawning era when life was first gaining its toehold on the planet.

 

Even if sulfur-loving bacteria were the first creatures to appear on earth, though, this is still not the complete solution to the origin of life. "There's still left the question of how does all that information get into the first little cell," says [John] Corliss, who is now at the Goddard Space Flight Center in Maryland working on one aspect of this problem. How did life take the complicated step from a batch of chemicals in the prebiotic soup to an organized entity that could reproduce itself? That has proved to be the most difficult question for researchers to answer.

.

I'm agnostic with respect to this theory and all others. I have thought, prior to reading this book, that one possibility is that life pervades the Universe and it is quite "cheap."

 

When we have fully explored our solar system, we might get an answer or, at least, a clue.

[exchemist]

I have read it once.  I need to go back to it.  But that has to wait a bit.  Right now I am playing catchup.  Every once in a while I get overwhelmed with too many "must do's".  You know the feeling?

Yes indeed, take your time, I'm not trying to hassle you, just curious. 

[hazelm]

Yes indeed, take your time, I'm not trying to hassle you, just curious. 

I have re-read the thread.  We started with origin of life and added origin of  water.  Since this chapter I mentioned is titled Life in the Universe but goes into origin of water, which was it you wanted me to extrapolate?  I thought it was how water appeared on Earth  but should check.  I have a feeling the two will come together.

 

I should get to that this weekend - I hope.

[scherado]

I have re-read the thread. We started with origin of life and added origin of water. Since this chapter I mentioned is titled Life in the Universe but goes into origin of water, which was it you wanted me to extrapolate? I thought it was how water appeared on Earth but should check. I have a feeling the two will come together.

 

I should get to that this weekend - I hope.

.

Origin of life

 

1. Earth there

2. Off-Earth material; comet, anything pulled into the gravitational extent of our solar system.

3. Planted by intelligent beings; They being very highly advanced.

4. God

 

Did I leave anything out?

 

This is one of the ultimate questions.

Edited September 21, 2017 by scherado

[hazelm]

Scherado, you are asking for what you are not going to get.  Your questions fit but the answer is "not yet".  We cannot prove what is "out there".  If you will Google "Drake Equation", you will see why.  It doesn't work because we do not know enough.  All we have is theories and theories are not facts.  This book deals with facts as we know them.  So, we have to say what the authors say:  "How did life begin on Earth?"  And you've already hit the nail on the head with:

 

"I'm agnostic with respect to this theory and all others. I have thought, prior to reading this book, that one possibility is that life pervades the Universe and it is quite "cheap.""

"When we have fully explored our solar system, we might get an answer or, at least, a clue."

 

Drake Equation takes care of your second statement.  We can't do it yet.  As for  your first statement, the authors admit that one thing makes if very likely that life exists on other planets in our galaxy.  The basic form of life which consists of hydrogen, oxygen, carbon and nitrogen just happen to also be the four most common elements in the universe.  Wouldn't that make you speculate that life does exist elsewhere - life very similar to what you find on Earth?  Perhaps IF some other elements has not overwhelmed those in other areas.  Here we use Copernicus's lesson:  "We are not special"  meaning that our four basic elements are not necessarily those of life elsewhere in the universe.  Or that other early life formed differently for some reason.

 

So, because - as the non-solution to Drake Equation shows - we cannot prove anything about life "out there" - and remembering Copernicus -  we start with life on Earth.  That gets to your (and everybody else's) question:  How did inanimate matter "sprout" (my  term) organic life?  Again, we do not know.  And another question comes first.  Original life on Earth was anoxic and we ave oxygen.

 

Problem:  Atmospheric oxygen was the greatest pollutant to ever occur on Earth.  Worse,  oxygen kills.  So, how did we manage to not just survive but actually require oxygen to survive?  The original primitive organisms on Earth were anoxic.  Oxygen should have killed off all life on earth.  So, what happened?  They either adapted or died.  Is this the first evolution?  Creatures who should not have survived in that atmospheric oxygen adapted and survived.  Now, strangely, we cannot survive without oxygen.

 

Actually, there are still forms of life that must hide from oxygen or die.  Every animal's stomach (including our own) harbors billions of organisms that thrive in that anoxic atmosphere.

 

Now I must take a break and come back with the Bombardment and another theory.  I shall return anon.

[hazelm]

More:  And then there were the Bombardments which we all know too much about to even mention.  Asteroids, meteors, comets.  Life was destroyed by some of the collisions and might have been planted also.  Especially by the comets.   Cometary bombardments provided Earth with lesser elements needed for life.  And comets brought water for our oceans and material from which life could begin.   Life itself may have arrived in these comets but, due to the low temperatures , this is arguable.

 

So we are left with "did life begin on Earth, helped along by materials brought in bombardments or was life itself brought to Earth?  In my world, everyone is entitled to a theory so long as it adds up as well as does 2+2.  :-)  What we know is that there followed tranquility.  But the mystery still exists.  The authors say "Great rewards lie in store for those who can resolve this mystery.

 

There is no mention of "highly intelligent, highly advanced beings" planting life here.  Nor is there any mention of a god creating life.  The book starts by mentioning religious groups who fight scientists over the ideas but that is another story.  There is only Darwin's "little warm pond" which I think has been tried but not yet succeeded.  And (not in this book written in 2004) the idea of volcanic source of life.  There is much  more about possibilities but we can't cover it all.  From here I think we approach the idea of life forming in oceans.  I have not yet re-read that.  I'm eager to do so asap.  But, again, I suspect you have already read a lot of this theory of hot springs deep in the ocean around which life forms. We shall see if there is anything new. 

 

Only --- heaven  help us --- we still have not answered the question of how inanimate materials gave us life forms.   We shall see if the authors talk about that.  I suspect it comes in the future.

 

Until later.  I do hope some of this is worth reading.