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

There are no calculations. None that can be called realistic, anyway.
We know the chemistry, we know a bit about the probabilities of certain reactions, we know under what conditions abiogenesis could have occurred. All the above debatable as to specific details. We know that abiogenesis could have occurred under such conditions.Note: I did not say abiogenesis did occur under these conditions.We do not know if the process, if it occurred, took 15 minutes, 15 years, 15 million years, 150 million years or what. An education assumption that follows from the knowledge we do have is that it could have happened and that there appears to be some considerable time (tens of millions of years) for it to have happened.We take a geocentric view because a reasonable assumption, again from the knowledge we presently possess, is that such a scenario is more likely, if the process occurred, to have occurred on this planet. Not with any certainty, to be sure, and open to some reasoned and some wild speculation on other venues, all of which present their own additional sets of problems with added complications.For instance, panspermia does not answer the abiogenesis question so much as it pushes it back further in time onto another planet somewhere. Not that this is negated by any stretch, just that we are reluctant to assume that abiogenesis occurred somewhere else, then traveled here over vast stretches of space and time, when we know that the conditions here were already adequate for the process. Without some evidence that panspermia is not just possible, but is a better vector for the existence of life here than it having been “homegrown,” we are reluctant to entertain the more unlikely, more complex scenario over the geocentric venue.Those of us who have studied the issue in considerable detail do indeed expect that “those wonderfully warm ponds to puddle up all over the universe” on other planets in this galaxy and many, many other galaxies. This leads to all kinds of off-topic discussions like what terms to put in the Drake equation, the values of those terms, the Fermi Paradox and so on. We’ll leave that to other threads.

Not "took place," but "could have occurred." We do not know anything...?Certainly you are not one to argue from ignorance.If the body of knowledge surrounding present theories of this subject do not constitute, in your opinion, "anything technically important" then I cannot help you further. And, please, do not infer from this that anyone sees our research as complete or without controversy in details. However, a reasonable person, given the body of knowledge, much of it referred to above in this thread, cannot conclude we do not know anything technically important on the matter. I am surprised. Did I say "first on earth" or "could have occurred" on earth?
Should one infer that I spoke of all life in the universe or life's presence on this planet alone?Given the alternative theories within the subject, many of them in this and other threads on this forum, Occam's Razor is helpful. Since the conditions for abiogenesis may have been adequate on this planet, and since the technical issues of abiogenesis are the same no matter on what planet it may have happened, then, without further evidence to show a more viable vector, the assumption that abiogenesis occurred here takes precedence over other theories that require additional or unsupported assumptions, such as eons of interstellar travel.Does this "prove" anything? No. But it allows us to lend additional credence to the more viable options. This is what makes Occam’s Razor such a useful scientific principle. From my original post (emphisis added):

quote:

---

Not with any certainty, to be sure, and open to some reasoned and some wild speculation on other venues, all of which present their own additional sets of problems with added complications.

---

You do not see the added complexity of a theory requiring you to travel through eons of space and time versus the same one without having to travel through eons of space and time? Say it ain't so. We will disagree here. No trump. There are as many solutions to the Fermi Paradox as there are forms of the Drake equation.This is also off-topic thus we must let it be.

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.

If you're a philosopher then you waste considerable time contemplating the meaning of, "What is a car?" If you're a politician you waste considerable time contemplating what the meaning of the word "is" is. It all works out in the end. Badly, but it does work out.Sorry.

So be it. “Must have” is a bit strong. “May have” is indeed more realistic. Having said that, the data points we do have indicate “homegrown” as being more than a “weak” probability. Almost sounds like an article of faith, Hoot? Given our history with geocentrism skepticism is warranted, but, at this point we cannot discount the probability and it appears to be a rather strong probability at that. I agree that some of the more enthusiastic statements are not warranted. We still have much to discover before we give in to hyperbole. Yet, it appears from recent data that the l parameter of Drake could use a bit of an increase. I’ve been doing that for years. I thought I actually found one once, but before I could get it out of the pond some amoeba came along and devoured it. On a planet already full of life such an event (probably still happening, BTW) would quickly become an h’ors d'oevres.In speaking of abiogenesis you said, What does this mean? How would that have been encrypted? By whom? Actually, I’m a Republican. (ducking)And a mighty disappointed one at that.To be verbose or not to be verbose, that is the question -
Whether ”tis nobler on the thread to suffer
The slings and arrows of outraged Admins,
Or to wax poetic against a sea of philosophers,
And by opposing, disparage them.Top-down is fine for programming in C++, but for describing the formation of natural bio-systems it sucks.I am a hard-core reductionist. Synergy be damned, we are only the sum of our parts without meaning and with only the one purpose - to procreate. We, and all life we see, are the evolved survival and replication vessels for that self-replicating chain of molecules that kicked off this whole “Life” thing billions of years ago.That we have used our evolved survival advantage of sentient intellect to posit meaning and music and metaphysical gods only serves to make the journey that much more fun.I actually remember what a phenomonologist is. I had to look it up to remember the specifics though. Strange how those memory circuits, unused for decades, spring back to life when the right cells are fired.I know that a chair is not really a chair until we see in our minds the utility, the concept, of “chairness.” I know phenomenology is much more than this simplistic explanation. And, finally, I know that, just as decades ago, I still don’t give a flying flip.Edited by AZPaul3, : Why? What do mean by asking why? Cause I wanted to that's why. Go away!

Ahh . there we have it! I had a feeling we had a big disconnect in our conversation and now there it is!Please understand I do NOT believe, by any stretch, that abiogenesis is a one-time, single, only, one-per-universe event.My reading of Drake suggests that abiogenesis can and has occurred in significantly more than one venue in our galaxy. One of these occurrences may have been earth.I find nothing that precludes it and I find considerable, though not conclusive, data that leans in that direction. Thank you. I’m glad you enjoyed it. I enjoyed it when I wrote it. The process of abiogenesis probably does not yield a prodigious mass of self-replicating thingies right away. So the fortuitous creation of one on our present earth would be pretty much a lone event per occurance, in my opinion. True, it would attempt to replicate and may indeed succeed in producing a couple dozen kid-thingies, but, on our planet the ubiquitous nature of life, all looking for lunch, leaves the Thingy Family with not much chance of making it through the lunch hour, let alone long enough to be discovered and certainly well before any significant evolution. Such chance chemical combinations would not happen often, like daily or even yearly, but I find no reason to believe they cannot still be taking place. Speculation? Yes. But not without foundation. Your condolences are appreciated.So just what does it mean for abiogenesis to be an “encryption process?”Edited by AZPaul3, : Like I said last time, the reason for this edit is because I WANTED TO. Let me alone!Edited by AZPaul3, : How many time do I have say this? I WANTED TO! THAT'S WHY!Edited by AZPaul3, : To fix a boo-boo. There. Ya happy?

Ehh . problem. If the processes of abiogenesis continue on a world such as ours the new species of Thingy Originalus (T.O.) would not be “living creatures,” but merely a self-replicating chain of nucleotides (maybe). Biopoiesis is thought to be that first step to be achieved in the process of abiogenesis. Though fatty acids seem to spontaneously form shells or bubbles, and T.O.s could certainly get themselves trapped within them, these would not really be cells as we know and love them. Considerable evolution would still be necessary for these pre-proto-living T.O.’s to achieve the status of “life” (still yet to be defined). They would, however, make an excellent addition to an appetizer plate for any existing living Thingy Evolveous such as, perhaps, us. My suggestion would be to get yourself a copy of Hazen’s “Gen-e-sis.” He does a good job of intelligently speculating, with logical foundation (still no absolutes here, Hoot), the various chains of events as we presently can see them. He does so with each of the various theories presently considered front runners. Because after studying the literature from Miller,DeDuve thru Schaefer,Fegley adding in Hazen, Orgel, and just a whole big bunch more over the last 25+ years, I still find nothing that precludes such from being possible. And stronger still, I find that as we progress in the science, the stronger appears the probability. All open to change as we progress, of course.

Me thinks you have the wrong impression of the history, here. The goal is to see if (a big “if”), life could have developed here on this planet. That is why the study of abiogenesis exists. That is the motivation behind the science of abiogenesis. Whether what has become familiar to us as the processes of abiogenesis, can be defined and are real. Not whether some early earth was required for some separately devised thing someone called “abiogenesis.”In the beginning there was the earth with all kinds of life around. “So, like, how did this get here?” we asked. Of the many speculative answers that came forward was one that said maybe, just maybe, it could have originated here. Ok, so how? When? And etcetera.From there we get into what, to our limited experience, seems to be necessary for this to have occurred. What kinds of conditions would be, not just necessary, but conducive? What chemicals would be necessary? What energies? How?We seem to have a lot of water around and we know it’s been here quite some time. What does this do? Does this help or hinder the prospects of life originating here, this planet, our home, earth? It turns out that liquid water is an especially fortuitous matrix upon which to conduct chemical reactions, most especially organic reactions. It’s simple basic chemistry, whether on this planet or anywhere else, for that matter. Water is, of all the fluids, the absolute best at being a host for organic reactions. Bar none. Fact, no maybe’s, no doubts.Ok, that’s good. What else do we need and how do we get it? We need some basic organic molecules, like say, amino acids. The Miller-Urey experiments shocked the discipline. Could it be that right here on our planet, our home, earth, that these molecules existed naturally? After a few decades of “was it really a reducing atmosphere or not?” wrangling, it turns out the early earth had indeed a very good reducing atmosphere and Schaefer-Fegley resulted in quite a few of the necessary aminos from scratch. Again, fact, no maybe’s, no doubts.We also learned that we get organic compounds falling in on this planet every day from way out there. Can we assume this is a new phenomenon and did not occur 4.3 billion years ago? Not realistically, no.Fatty acids form bubbles on their own, RNA can self-catalyze on its own and there is a major thermodynamic excess readily available. All fact, no maybe’s, no doubts.So now we have an excellent host medium, the required chemicals in abundance, a promising self-organizing organic reaction, a pre-proto shell in which keep our booty and lots of free energy hanging around. All in existance on an early earth. Now what?The ultimate question (has nothing to do with “42”). Could life have originated on earth?That’s where we’re at now. How does it all fit together and does it really work? We don’t know . yet. May indeed be. Patience, patience, Hoot. It’s been a long haul, I know, and we have much further to go. Much has been learned in the last 50 years and, if you’re a Ray Kurzwiel fan, ya gotta know that knowledge will more than double in the next 15!

We make no such assumption. Nothing in abiogenesis (outside enthusiastic hyperbole) limits what we find only to earth. Remember we are attempting to see if we can develop a realistic workable system that could have led to the development of life on this planet given the conditions known to have existed on earth about 4.3-4.4 billion years ago.If we find such a scenario we can confidently say that the life on this planet could have been homegrown. That is all.That the work we do has some applicability to like-configured planets in our galaxy, indeed in the entire universe, will be intellectual icing on our scientific cake. Rather taste icing, fraught
with its own exciting philosophy-busting implications, but frosting none the less. Not that exotic. If we find an abiogenic solution it will be one that works (or better, would have worked) on this planet. That is the purpose of abiogenic research. To find a workable, logically consistent, theory that shows the life on this planet could have been homegrown.If we cannot find one, but instead find a workable, logically consistent theory that shows life on earth could not have been homegrown, then we have an even bigger task ahead of us - to find home cause this ain’t it. I still get the feeling you think life’s creation was a single one-time event.Maybe on this planet it was. We shall see. But I know of nothing that precludes such a process or some other natural process from creating life on any suitable planet anywhere in the galaxy. Because of its chemical properties carbon is probably the life-form substance of choice in most bio-systems (assuming we ever find any others). Sulfur may not be as stable a platform as carbon for building a bio-system but from what I get from the chemists it is a (far out) possibility.Why do you insist that life creation here on earth negates the same anywhere else? Who says life could not have naturally arisen on earth and on Alpha Centauri-7 and on Vulcan and Magrathea and Gallifrey and Alderaan all independently (forget that last one, it’s already a gonner)? Edited by AZPaul3, : I wanted to fix some boo-boos. Is that OK? Do we have to broadcast it all over the b*^@#*ed internet?!

Ahh, but we will be the computers and the computers will be us. Nano-infested human cyborgs complete with the entire world's knowledge and a 'soul' I can share with anyone I so desire. My bones will be wrapped in carbon composites. My synthetic heart will be forever powered by ATP produced from my diet of fried chicken and chocolate ice cream while my synthetic digestive tract takes only what I need, ditches the fat and the cholesterol in little pellets that I poop, while my synthetic blood collects what little oxygen there may be left on the planet to power me all day long in one breath while I peruse the GlobalNet with my thoughts. Imagine all the spam?Speaking of the "Game of Life," have you tried using rule 245/24? Makes some purrty pictures. Start with a 5x5 block. The symmetry is amazing. Then do the same with some asymmetrical form. You still get a discernible “eye” in the center. Now try 2 symmetries on the same page and see what happens to the eyes as they merge. Then 2 asymmetries. Then the biggie: try one of each. Interesting stuff. Proof that simple deterministic rules can yield . what? Randomness? At least something very close.Your contention that a ”language’ of abiogenesis is needed may be correct, but, if so these same simple rules would apply equally well anywhere, including earth? Yes? Edited by AZPaul3, : well, let me see. Hmmm, I fixed a boo-boo, then I fixed another boo-boo, then I added something.

I wanna push on this just a bit, if I may. There is no direct feedback from protein function or anywhere else into the genome on a cellular or individual basis. But, taking a rather Dawkinesque view of “population” there is one really, really big feedback mechanism indirectly into the genome. Natural Selection.This doesn’t help in explaining how the first rudimentary processes of “code/language” in those first pre-proto RNA thingies got started, but it does propose a mechanism for the further development of that language once the process started. If that's the case then you're in some good company there, Hoot. As long as they weren't among my fellow Repulicans then I quess it's alright.

All it shows, as if we didn't already know, is that simple rules can lead to complex form, even random looking form.Forget the website. Get your own...free.http://www.xs4all.nl/~jbontes/Happy Holidays.