how did life begin?

[metatron]

Actually can someone refresh me again on how exactly a sun produces different elements.

 

Might as well start at the beginning

 

 

 

I believe it occurred during the implosion of certain massive stars that reach a mass that causes a fusion of lighter atoms into heaver elements. This star creates a rich and diverse disc of elements that form second generation stars and planets. The differing elements form as the first generation stars form shells or layers inside the star just before it super novas, these layers form the periodic table of elements. Heaver elements forming the deeper the layers. It has been theorized that gold may have formed by the collision of two neutron stars.

[Sayonara]

I agree' date=' there is no logic in the belief that life came from outer space and then arrived here on earth.

Life is a purely natural occurrence on this planet, just as in the formation of the mineral kingdom.

The only ingredient for life arriving from outside, was energy in the form of light waves.[/quote']

You are talking about something unknowable in definite terms.

[YT2095]

personaly, I think in terms of probability with regards to this question.

 

with a possibly infinate universe and number of planets capable of sustaining life (as we understand it) given enough time and chemical mixtures and variety, life to me seems mathematicaly inevitable. in fact so much so that I`de consider it Very Strange if life DIDN`T exist somewhere (not that I`de be here to feel much of anything, but ignoring that fact).

[metatron]

You are talking about something unknowable in definite terms.

 

 

The reason I used the mineral kingdom as a comparison is because we are aware of the varying conditions and elements that occur within the lithosphere that cause the formation of these mineral assemblages.

 

We also understand that within a simple cell are certain metabolic process occurring as a dynamic interaction that also reflects the earthly environment at large, so life reflects not an unknowable but a known.

 

Quote; This is also the axiom of the "bootstrap" physicists, according to whom a particle is completely defined by the set of interactions in which it participates.”

 

In other words when you look deeply inside a particle, mineral, cell, animal, rock, or person you can see back to the environment in which it emerged.

[Cathy Pa]

I agree' date=' there is no logic in the belief that life came from outer space and then arrived here on earth.

Life is a purely natural occurrence on this planet, just as in the formation of the mineral kingdom.

The only ingredient for life arriving from outside, was energy in the form of light waves.[/quote']

 

Perhaps that is right, but since the universe is much older than Earth is, isn't it possible that life would have had a better chance of starting elsewhere first? And if so, then the possibility of some sort of "seeding" would seem to be at least a possibility?

[Bettina]

Sounds like view from someone who is trying to reconcile two different beliefs, which is not good science.

 

Please post me a link that shows that life on earth could have ONLY come from earth.

And...also, tell me why having an open mind like the International Society of Philosophy and Cosmology, (see my above link) is considered "bad science".

 

Bettina

[Ophiolite]

I see very little evidence for life developing on other planets and then "seeding" this one.

1. Abundant pre-biotic material in interstellar dust clouds

2. Complex organics in comets.

3. Abundant pre-biotic material in meteorites

4. Match between IR signature of dust clouds and dust coated bacteria

If your paradigm rejects an extra-terrestrial origin for life, you don't spend much research gelt looking for evidence.

Second, there are no planets that have been seen to have had life remotely near us.

Spurious argument. One of the reasons for postulating an extra-terrestrial origin is that it helps get around the odds against abiogenesis by providing a larger environment in which to work. Life still requires suitable conditions. The Earth is the only planet we know that is definitely within the HZ, but we do have Mars and the putative bacteria on AH8001, not to mention the suggestive Viking results. It has been postulated that Earth life could have originated on Mars been transfered by impact.

At any rate, you are missing the central point. We are originating life, by this hypothesis in space.

It just seems much more likely that life started on this planet rather than on another and then somehow got caught on a comet (hmm) and then somehow made it to a hospitable plantet (passed jupiter) and somehow did not burn up in the atmosphere and lived it lived through the whole ordeal without leaving a trace of evidence anywhere.

"It just seems much more likely..." Do you really want to use 'seems' as scientific justification.

"somehow got caught on a comet (hmm)" You don't appear to have to good a grasp of the origin, character and evolution of interstellar clouds, star and planet formation, impact dynamics, or any of the other details that make this not only posible, but likely.

"and not burn up in the atmosphere". Again, you seem unaware that the internal temperature of a fist sized bolide does not rise significantly during entry. Burning up is not an issue. (Most of the material will burn up, because its the wrong size, but only a tiny percentage needs to make it through.)

"without leaving a trace of evidence anywhere." We are the evidence.

[Mokele]

My only problem with theories of the extra-terrestrial origin of life is that they don't really answer how life began, but rather they "pass the buck" to other locations which may have had more hospitable environments. Whether life arose on Earth, Mars or somewhere else, it still had to arise somehow, and from my POV that's much more pertinent to the topic that journeys life may have taken after originating.

 

Plus, there's the issue of testability. We can amass evidence that shows extra-terrestrial origins of life to be possible, but, so far as I can think (which isn't that far on this subject since it's not my field) the only way to actually *test* the hypothesis would be to find life elsewhere and compare it with life on Earth for evidence of common origins (like if the codons translate the same way).

 

Mokele

[Ophiolite]

I think the 'pass the buck' counter argument is awkward to deal with. What the panspermia argument does is help us out if we are concerned about the odds of quite complex life (and I consider prokaryotes complex) arising in a quite small window of opportunity, that may be well under 200 million years. I am certainly not saying this is impossible, only that the difficulties are diminished if we have more space and more time to play with. (Edit: and a wider range of environments)

As regards testability we need only look to our own Oort cloud. If the hypothesis is valid we should find dormant organisms in the comets. The present probe (name escapes me) that will impact a comet, permitting remote sensing of its interior chemistry will not be all that helpfull. We need a manned or AI landing on, and diverse sample collection from, a long period comet to nail it.

[metatron]

I think the 'pass the buck' counter argument is awkward to deal with. What the panspermia argument does is help us out if we are concerned about the odds of quite complex life (and I consider prokaryotes complex) arising in a quite small window of opportunity' date=' that may be well under 200 million years. I am certainly not saying this is impossible, only that the difficulties are diminished if we have more space and more time to play with. (Edit: and a wider range of environments)

[/quote']

 

 

It seems obvious to me that life is meant to form separately evolving systems. If it where possible for life to drift around in space it would cause more destruction that creation. Complexity and stability is the key to the evolutionary process. If an alien bacteria or virus made it to earth it would be comparable to an extinction level asteroid impact.

 

You cannot calculate the odds of a process taking place when you are at the same time stating you do not know the process.

Just because you do not understand an origin you are shifting it to the heavens.

 

This is mythological thinking.

 

Pansperermia is no different than saying aliens built the pyramids or Nazca lines.

[Ophiolite]

Not at all. It is saying that we have an larger arena in which the processes that consitute abiogenesis may operate. It is useful to discard this terra-centric viewpoint that constrains main stream thinking on this point.

Life could just as easily (I would say more easily) have originated elsewhere. If it did we have mechanisms for transfering it to Earth. It is possible, and therefore merits attention.

[metatron]

I can’t see this as worthy of attention, but fair enough there is always a chance that an assumption may lead to an unexpected direction, as long as one keeps all options open and lets the information lead us more than the original a pre-conceived notion.

[Ophiolite]

It's worthy of attention because of the wealth of circumstantial data pointing in that direction.

[-Demosthenes-]

Please post me a link that shows that life on earth could have ONLY come from earth.

Cute.

1. Abundant pre-biotic material in interstellar dust clouds

...

3. Abundant pre-biotic material in meteorites

...

Prebiotic matter is not organic, it's mostly methane, ammonia, hydrogen, and water, non of this is "alive" in any sense. So these foreign objects (comets, ect.) contributed chemicals ("prebiotic matter") rather than life. Which brings us back to this point:

My only problem with theories of the extra-terrestrial origin of life is that they don't really answer how life began, but rather they "pass the buck" to other locations which may have had more hospitable environments. Whether life arose on Earth, Mars or somewhere else, it still had to arise somehow, and from my POV that's much more pertinent to the topic that journeys life may have taken after originating.

I agree.

...We are the evidence.

"We" as in life, could be used as evidence for any opposing theory as well, as long as it's end result is life ("us").

If your paradigm rejects an extra-terrestrial origin for life, you don't spend much research gelt looking for evidence.

I admit I haven't dedicated my life comparing the theories and the mechanics of the theories involved, but I believe that I have sufficient information to have an educated opinion.

...

2. Complex organics in comets.

...

4. Match between IR signature of dust clouds and dust coated bacteria.

...

Could you please explain these?

[metatron]

panspermia is in conflict with every phase in the origins of order in the cosmos.

 

Systems evolve from within systems, in a nested hierarchy…….. One stabilizing the other.

 

 

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?t=11027

[Cathy Pa]

Has anyone here considered the possibility that Earth could have been seeded with the beginnings of life forms on purpose?

 

Not necessarily by God, but, if the universe is something like 20 billion years old and Earth only 4 billion years old, wouldn't it be possible that an alien life form could have evolved in another part of the universe that had the capability and the desire to spread life around a little?

[Mokele]

This is mythological thinking.

 

Pot, this is the Kettle calling with information about your external hue.

[Bettina]

I admit I haven't dedicated my life comparing the theories and the mechanics of the theories involved' date=' but I believe that I have sufficient information to have an educated opinion.

[/quote']

 

Instead of saying "cute" Could you post your information? I would appreciate it.

 

Bettina

[metatron]

These are two books everyone should read in order to separate pseudoscience from the latest view points emerging from system science.

 

 

 

 

Carl Sagan

The Demon-Haunted World : Science As a Candle in the Dark

 

The Web of Life :

A New Scientific Understanding of Living Systems

[reverse]

This star creates a rich and diverse disc of elements that form second generation stars and planets.QUOTE]

 

ok. so we know that at least the basic elements of life are made off planet.

 

now what.

 

how do we get a planet?

[-Demosthenes-]

Instead of saying "cute" Could you post your information? I would appreciate it.

 

Bettina

Post #23 I did, and in #39 I talked about it a little. If you are talking about something else, then more explanation is needed.

[metatron]

This star creates a rich and diverse disc of elements that form second generation stars and planets.QUOTE]

 

ok. so we know that at least the basic elements of life are made off planet.

 

now what.

 

how do we get a planet?

 

 

Planets form from accreted star dust after the formation of the central second generation stars.

 

The planets closest to the center accrete heaver elements' date=' while the outer planets form from the lighter elements being blown outward by solar winds.

 

Keep in mind we only have our own solar system as an example.

 

Life will form in what has been dubbed the “Goldie locks zone" close enough to the sun to form liquid water instead of ice, and far enough to keep the water under the boiling point.

 

This zone will insure the formation of oceans, the cradle for the first single cell life to form.

 

Complex organic molecules do form in space and fall to earth.

 

The primordial ocean chemistry is now set for the formation for the first simple cells.

 

 

At this point science is at loss at explaining what brought these complex self-contained self-replicating system together.

 

However I will venture a possibility; Their seems to have been an almost complete over-sight of two other factors for the beginning of life. One that could energize and kick start this metabolic process and the other that would stabilize it into a self-replicating structure.

 

[Electromagnetism and Light waves']

[reverse]

What a beautiful explanation.

 

As I look up at all the points of starlight tonight,

I wonder how many goldilocks zones exist around every one of those suns.

 

it seems life is not rare but almost........ inevitable.

 

Next question.

 

(it is a question of some gravity).

 

Gravity, how important is gravity in separating the gas form the water from the rocks...and will life form at those points of separation.

[metatron]

Gravity to me represents the way the universe at large balances itself , being a ubiquitous force keeping all other forces interacting in the most basic of way's. This is the main way the universes communicates information across empty space.

 

As for as separating the gas from the rocks, pressures deep within the primordial earth resulting from gravitational forces would certainly separate out the water.

 

The very early earth probably was completely covered by water, the first cells appeared almost immediately, I tend to see this layer of water and simple cells as more of an differentiated catalytic layer, somwhat like the ozone layer although much more complex. More closely related to the planet system rather than to a biological system. We always tend to think of these first cells in terms of what they are going to become rather than what they represented at the time, just another layer of organization between many others.

 

The next stage occurs as these micro-organisms start changing the chemistry of the lithosphere [the rock below]

 

These micro-organisms fix calcium carbonate into the sea floor. These layers then became subducted into oceanic plate margins.

These subduction zones became engines powered by the highly reactive carbonate rocks that initiated the system of plate tectonics, that subsequently led to the development of shallow inland seas that spawned the first complex life. This life then evaded the continent creating the ecosystem we see today.

[Halucigenia]

Life will form in what has been dubbed the “Goldie locks zone" close enough to the sun to form liquid water instead of ice, and far enough to keep the water under the boiling point.

The Goldielocks zone is a bit too anthropocentric for me. It smacks of us being in a special place in the Universe. I don’t see why life could not develop outwith this zone, for instance in liquid seas under the ice on a body like Jupiter’s moon Europa. Or is this within the Goldielocks zone?

 

However I will venture a possibility; Their seems to have been an almost complete over-sight of two other factors for the beginning of life. One that could energize and kick start this metabolic process and the other that would stabilize it into a self-replicating structure.

 

[Electromagnetism and Light waves]

As long as there is a source of energy' date=' it does not have to be light, and a source of nourishment i.e. minerals, or organic chemical compounds I would think that it would be possible for life to begin and survive (think of the black smokers at mid ocean ridges here on Earth).

What Electromagnetism has to do with it I do not know. Metatron I have tried reading your post linked to above but can't find an explanation there.

nor why you think that "panspermia is in conflict with every phase in the origins of order in the cosmos."

These are two books everyone should read in order to separate pseudoscience from the latest view points emerging from system science.

Carl Sagan

The Demon-Haunted World : Science As a Candle in the Dark

The Web of Life :

A New Scientific Understanding of Living Systems

I have read Carl Sagan, loads of good science there. I have also read Frijof Capra and enjoy some of his theories. I can see that you do have a good understanding of science in some respects but some of your posts do look like pseudoscience.

This is mythological thinking.

Pot' date=' this is the Kettle calling with information about your external hue.[/quote']

I totally agree Mokele