how did life begin?

[reverse]

and from the boys at NASA...

 

Who also support some of your ideas, as you well know..

 

http://www.resa.net/nasa/origins_life.htm

[mustang292]

I believe that there are probably only a couple of chemicals that are needed to mix at the right temperature to create life.

 

I also believe that life formed multiple times around the earth which lead to different evolutionary patterns, which lead some people to think Darwin was wrong.

[Bettina]

I believe that there are probably only a couple of chemicals that are needed to mix at the right temperature to create life.

 

I also believe that life formed multiple times around the earth which lead to different evolutionary patterns' date=' which lead some people to think Darwin was wrong.[/quote']

 

Send me a link to this thinking please........I'm interested in all avenues.

 

Bettina

[Mokele]

I also believe that life formed multiple times around the earth which lead to different evolutionary patterns, which lead some people to think Darwin was wrong.

 

IMHO, it's highly unlikely that life originated more than once on Earth, regardless of whether it formed on Earth or came here, mostly because of the codon sequence. Your genes are translated into protiens 3 bases at a time, and each combo of 3 bases (called a codon) gives a specific amino acid, and these amino acids are linked up in the sequence of the codons indicating them, forming a protien. The codons are very specific about which amino acid they code for, but, so far as we know, there is no actual *reason* why GCC codes for alanine rather than leucine. The most likely explanation is that, when protien synthesis was just appearing, this code just happened to be the one that was arrived at.

 

However, all life on earth uses the same code. Given that there's no *reason* for this code, and that instances where they no longer have to make their own protiens (such as mitochondria) lead to diversions from it, it's very, very likely that all life on Earth arose from a single common ancestor (regardless of how that ancestor showed up on Earth)

 

Mokele

[mustang292]

Originally posted by Bettina

Send me a link to this thinking please........I'm interested in all avenues.

 

Here's a little bit. I'll try and get you more later. Keep in mind that I think Darwin is right. He just didn't take into account that life can erupt multiple times. http://www.livinguniversebooks.com/DarwinWasWrong.htm

[reverse]

I believe that there are probably only a couple of chemicals that are needed to mix at the right temperature to create life.

 

I also believe that life formed multiple times around the earth which lead to different evolutionary patterns' date=' which lead some people to think Darwin was wrong.[/quote']

 

well Civilization seems too have generated in five distinct places...so I’m open to the basic structure of life being generic and location producing simultaneous variations.

[Hellbender]

well Civilization seems too have generated in five distinct places...so I’m open to the basic structure of life being generic and location producing simultaneous variations.

Civilization yes, but self-replicating molecules?

[Bettina]

Originally posted by Bettina

 

Here's a little bit. I'll try and get you more later. Keep in mind that I think Darwin is right. He just didn't take into account that life can erupt multiple times. http://www.livinguniversebooks.com/DarwinWasWrong.htm

 

I like it. It doesn't detract from the possibility that life came from outer space. It just states that when it arrived and flourished. It could never be totally eliminated. It survives.

 

Bettina

[reverse]

Civilization yes, but self-replicating molecules?

 

I said I'm "open" to the idea not "sold" on the idea.

(It is an interesting concept).

[Ophiolite]

Last I checked' date=' the extreme temperatures caused by friction from reentering the atmosphere would pose a pretty big barrier to any organic compounds coming from space...

.[/quote']With respect you have not been checking in the right places or very recently. You might even wish to revisit this thread an read one of my earlier posts. There is no problem for pre-biotic material to reach planetary surfaces without burning up. You can employ one of two mechanisms:

1. In the interior of impacting bolides, which do not heat up significantly. (Most meteorite interiors are close to the temperature of interplanetary space when they impact.)
   
2. Small particles make a soft impact on the upper reaches of the atmosphere and remain aloft for years until they form a nucleus for water condensation, at which point they may be carried towards the surface.
   

I'm pretty sure there have been experiments that have shown that lightning strikes, combined with the methane rich atmosphere that precluded our nitrogen rich atmosphere in the early days of earth, and other naturally occuring elements can cause chemical reactions that form organic compounds though.

The Urey-Miller experiments were flawed in that they were based on a methane and ammonia rich atmosphere. We now believe that the early atmosphere was largely carbon dioxide and nitrogen.

There cannot be anyone working in this field today who does not accept that a significant proportion of the pre-biotic organic material was delivered to the Earth as noted above.