Has there been life for 1/4 of the age of the Universe?

quote:

---

Wouldn't panspermia simply move the question of abiogenesis off planet?

---

One "problem" with terrestrial abiogenesis is that it seems to happen so quickly. Once conditions on earth were such that life could exist, life did exist. It seems that life originated quite rapidly (in geologic terms, that is).The "advantage" of panspermia is that it allows the possibility of longer a longer time frame during which life can form. It also allows the possibility of allowing life to form under conditions that would be more favorable to the emergence of life than the early earth.So if someone were simply convinced that it is far too improbable for life to have formed so quickly under the conditions of the early earth, then panspermia would give them a more satisfying possibility.

---

Never believe anything in politics until it has been officially denied. -- Otto von Bismarck

jar asked: to which Hoot Mon replied: Sure. Is it likely that we will ever know for sure what happened? Would it not be more likely that all we learn is how it could happen?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Panspermia certain expands the time window, but does not address the question of abiogenesis.There are two possible answers though (perhaps more than two).It could well be that given the suitable conditions, the transition of non-life to life has a very high probability. I personally think we will find that to be the case. Once the first life is produced in a lab, I expect there will be a flurry of additional methods found. That is only a personal opinion but it is based on what has happened in the past. Almost every advancement in chemistry (and in the end abiogenesis will be a chemistry issue) shows that there are multiple ways to get the same results.A second possibility will be if we find that the conditions that do result in the transition from non-life to life are such that it could not happen on a terrestrial body. For example we may find that a condition of low gravity is needed or an absence of a magnetic field. We may even find that the type of life that results is dependent on orientation of magnetic field or gravity levels.The key event that will support panspermia IMHO will be finding non-terrestrial life forms. It will be particularly interesting if we find life forms that are fundamentally different than the sample we know.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

There are only two possible abiogenic “master”scenarios”:1. Abiogenesis occurred only once in the universe”the single-origin theory”and therefore it happened only on planet Earth.2. Abiogenesis occurs multi-regionally on many bio-friendly planet in the universe with the right start-up conditions.In the first scenario, we have the obvious advantage of confining our search for abiogenic principles to planet Earth. Homegrown life should be a lot easier to explain than life raised somewhere else. This, I suspect, is the preferred scenario of many researchers.In the second scenario, we have the obvious disadvantage of necessarily expanding our search for abiogenic principles to many, many other planets that we have no knowledge of at all. I say this because the second scenario is open to the possibility that abiogenesis occurred extraterrestrially, not on planet Earth. There could be a vast difference between a planet with the right abiogenetic conditions and a planet with only bio-friendly conditions that can support life after it is has been made from scratch somewhere else. Noteworthy here is that, in either scenario, panspermia could be actively spreading life around the universe to bio-friendly planets that lack the necessary start-up conditions to host an abiogenic event.My pick is scenario #2, so I am bothered by too many unknown factors and conditions. Eventually, I think, scientists will have to abandon scenario #1. It seems to me that bio-friendliness does not automatically qualify a planet for hosting abiogenesis. I may be in the minority on this one.”Hoot Mon

I started out to answer this in a somewhat flippant manner then decided against doing so. My humor may be mistaken as insult and I certainly do not want that to occur.We have a difference of opinion about what constitutes “technically important knowledge.”You seem to be asking for absolutes about inputs and processes and are of the opinion that absence of these absolutes constitutes a lack of technically important knowledge. I agree that such knowledge is important for absolute certainty of the phenomenon.I disagree that our present knowledge shows a lack of at least some of the important technicalities in the phenomenon. Further, I submit that we know enough about the “range” the technical details must reside within, and the “range” of these conditions on an early earth to say that abiogenesis could have occurred on this planet. Better details to follow in the future.If you feel that such absolute knowledge is necessary to posit the probability of abiogenesis occurring here or anywhere then we will have to just disagree. My view is that, at this early stage in our knowledge, lacking as it may be, we have sufficient data to argue the probability that abiogenesis may have occurred somewhere at some time and that one of those places and one of those times most certainly could have been the early earth. Let me push on this a bit. Are you suggesting that panspermia and abiogenesis are mutually exclusive phenomena? If we center on earth then you are correct. Either life was “homegrown” or got “flown in on the wings” of some interstellar traveler. If you are seeing panspermia as some competitive phenomenon to abiogenesis everywhere, then we will have much more to discuss.As for the simplicity of panspermia, well, I see this: you need a suitable planet, abiogenesis must occur, an impact on the planet surface (as one of many examples) must occur, something living must be hoisted into space intact and unharmed with just enough velocity on just the correct trajectory to fall on earth after traveling many eons without any further impact, radiation exposure, nor anything else that would extinguish that life in transit. That is complex.If you want to consider some interstellar “Johnny Appleseed,” I’m afraid the complexities there get even bigger since now we must not only posit a suitable planet and abiogenesis, but the rise of intellect, the formation of a society and a culture with the technology and the motivation to spread its seed. Not impossible by any means, but, a more complex vector indeed.And, since we have, at present, no reason (data/evidence) to suppose either of the above, then these are seen as less likely than the simpler “homegrown” hypothesis. We have quite a detailed definition of what life is (many of them, in fact; some quite different than others) and we have those fuzzy phenomena that challenge those definitions rather pointedly. I am dubious of our ability to ever know what life is in all its various aspects with any certainty. As soon as we have it nailed something will come along to challenge our pre-conception. That’s just life.As for “where” vs “how:” I think this may be backward. If we have a better understanding of a probable “how,” and we are closing in on this rapidly, a probable “where” becomes easier to determine. Even with this, Hoot, we can never know, with the level of absolute certainty you seem to be asking, either how or where. The best we will ever be able to do is say,”this is a strong probable vector” and “this is a strong probable venue.”I’m thinking, however, that you may be looking for more than a mere “definition” of what life is. Are you looking for “purpose,” or “meaning?” Maybe something to justify or refute the metaphysical? If so, I fear any answers you may find in a technical discussion of abiogenesis will leave your questions unsatisfied.

AZPaul3, you can use all the humor you like when responding to me. I usually have to take pains to keep it out of my naratives for the same respectful reasons.Yes, indeed we are in disagreement on what constitutes "technically important knowledge" about abiogenesis. I question the assumption that since life occurs on Earth then it must have originated here. That seems too geocentric to me. Then there is the opposite view: Bingo! Life just happens like a chemical reaction everywhere the reagents are availlable. Hence I question that implicit assumption carried in each of these quotes from respectable scientists: To me, these statements amount to unsubstantiated opinions, but many good scientists invoke them anyway. "...a metabolism will crystalize from the broth." Now, really! If what they say is true then I'll checking every little warm pond I come across for evidence on-going abiogenesis.Moving, on you said: Phenomenology is not my thing, but that's a philosophical matter. I'm not asking for absolutes, just for evidence that abiogenesis was a mechanical process. We don't know that it was, or is, for sure, do we? Maybe it was a encryption process. If it was an encryption phenomenon then, well, then it was about as spooky as Moses receiving the Ten Commandmens. NASA found microbes on a lunar-landing vehicle that were exposed for several years to those harsh conditions. Astronauts brought them back to Earth and cultured them in a lab”they lived!. Sparse evidence, yes, I know, but evidence none the less that microbes can endure outer space. Your understandable need to test for eons will take a little more time, however. No, I'm not looking for a teleological "purpose" or "meaning." I'll leave that to the phenomologists. Most phenomonologist I know want to impose "downward causation" on abiogenesis and biological evolution. Why? I see both occurring in quite the opposite manner”from the bottom up. Maybe this is one reason why abiogenesis is such an enigma.So, AZPaul3, I should ask: Are you a phenomologist? And what is your preferred direction of causation where abiogenesis and evolution is concerned?”Hoot Mon

---

The most incomprehensible thing about nature is that it is comprehensible. ”A. Einstein

Are you saying that encryption is not a mechanical process?

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Ringo, you asked: I don't know. Do you?”Hoot

How could it not be?What is being changed by the "encryption" process? Are we not just talking about arrangements of chemical elements bonded together into molecules? Wouldn't "encryption" just be a different mechanical arrangement?You just seem to be trying to overcomplicate the situation by introducing some woo-woo factor that we can never understand.It's just Tinker-Toys. Lots and lots of Tinker-Toys.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

OK Ringo, re: I have one for you.Please imagine a single-celled organism, let's say a paramecium, with everything it needs to go mechanically on its way. Being alive it also has genes, of course, and so it behaves like a healthy protist under your microscope. Now, let's say you remove this paramecium and alter it in a particular way: you keep everything mechanically intact and retain the same amount of molecules everywhere, including all the nucleotides on the DNA in its nucleus. BUT you remove the genes by changing the order of those nucleotides on the chromosomes. The empirical result is that the organism is materially identical to what it was before...with one exception: its code got scrambled.Now, put that paramecium back in the water and watch how well it does. It won't be pretty, even though all of its materials remain intact.”Hoot Mon

What do you mean by "remove the genes"?You say "by changing the order of those nucleotides on the chromosomes" but that's just a mechanical rearrangement. The organism is not "materially identical" - it has the same materials but in a different arrangement.The "code" is the arrangement of the molecules, is it not?How is that not mechanical?

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Ringo, you wrote: Well, you can remove the music from a magnetic tape by mechanically scrambling its recording, too, but that does not make the music mechanical. I would say that a magnetic tape recorder is mechanical, all right, but the music is really something else. If you erased "Jingle Bells" from your magnetic tape by mechanically scrambling its recording, the song will continue to exist. Right? Obviously, "Jingle Bells" is far more durable than those mechanical recording devices, since it was written before they were invented.”Hoot Mon

Yes it does. The magnetic "code" on the tape is converted to electrical impulses in the player, which are converted to compression waves in the air, which are converted to vibrations in the ear, which are converted to electrical impulses in the nervous system. All mechanical. Of course, but you haven't demonstrated the existence of an equivalent to a "song" in out genetic makeup. It seems like you wish it was there, but you can't show any evidence of it or even any rationale for why it should exist.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Ringo wrote: The "song" is the "gene," isn't it?...if you will allow me the stretch. Do you deny the fact that you carry around genes in your body that have survived for many more years than even the mammals, fish, and insects can claim on an evolutionary timescale? Either those hox genes exist or they don't. Yes, they need mechanical things to stay "alive," but how do you explain their supra-mechanical durability? I don't know of anything else in nature that hangs quite that way. A rock does not have genes to store its mechanical information, and it is helpless to resist its own emphemerality. A frog, on the other hand, gets to have sex for the sake of its genes...going forward in its offspring...am I wrong about that?I correspond with some scientists who do not aknowledge genes; they call them "lineages" and "traditions" instead. These scientists are usually predisposed to phenomenology and ontology, requiring them to take on an experiential POV: since the genes themselves don't have experiences they don't exist in nature. Case closed. Is that the way you see?My life would be a lot simplier and more convenient if I could close the case that easily.”Hoot Mon

No. The song is the magnetic pattern on the tape. Whether or not it transcends the tape is irrelevant. The only way that the song can be transmitted - i.e. communicated - is in some physical form. The pattern exists - because it has been replicated mechanically from parent to child over the generations. Once again, you haven't demonstrated that there is any "supra-mechanical durability". You have not demonstrated any discontinuity in the mechanical generation-to-generation replication of the genes. If you mean that the genes don't have any existence "outside" the molecules that comprise them, yes, that's the way I see it. (I am certainly willing to be wrong about that. It's just that you haven't presented anything but woo-woo in support of your position.) It seems to me that you're trying desparately to see something that isn't there. Your life would be a lot simpler if you would look at what is there.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC