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

AZPaul3, re: Then you are assuming either that abiogenesis is ubiquitous in nature (i.e., multi-regional) or you are assuming that abiogenesis happened only once”on Earth (i.e., single origin). I think it is important to consider these implied assumptions. I don't like the second assumption. So, if I take the next logical step with the first assumption I must also consider the possibility that those abiogenic conditions were so exotic as to lack resemblance with anything occurring on Earth. But, on the other hand, I really don't see anything wrong with supposing that planet Earth had the right stuff to get life going, in a multi-regional context. From a researcher's standpoint it certainly is the most convenient way to go.”Hoot Mon

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?!

AZPaul3, you ask: ...not to mention Tralfamadore. Actually, I am in pretty fair alignment with your thinking on abiogenesis. My biggest problem is with the common assumption that abiogenesis necessarily had to happen on Earth. That's all. I think it is safer to assume that panspermia accounts for life on Earth, which of course places the abiogenesis problem somewhere else. In my post #49 I specified this: Maybe I am pressing a philosophical point here. One concern I have with an Earthly abiogenesis is that it seems to have happened (on a cosmic timescale) awfully soon after Earth became bio-friendly enough to support life. Gives me the feeling that planet Earth got contaminated from ambient "spores" instead taking the trouble to mother-up her own Thingies. Because we still know effectively NOTHING about how abiogenesis occurred, I think we have to consider the possibility of a multi-regional abiogenesis that did not include Earth as a host. Maybe I will back off my argument after I give Hazen a good reading.”Hoot Mon

Ringo, you wrote: Ineed I have been viewing genes as non-mechanical (i.e., digital) things with memories that survive by jumping from one organism to the next. You prefer to see genes as merely mechanical parts of a biological system, which are necessary to maintain a tradition, or lineage, of performance. You say don’t get so spooky about those genes; the answers to life and it origin will come to be understood mechanically.Maybe your right, and I appreciate the challenge. In this regard, I have made a laboratory observation that seems to support your POV. My laboratory, in this case, is No webpage found at provided URL: John Conway’s Game of Life. You likely know about it, so I won’t belabor its principles”it’s an interesting study of cellular automata. Now, as you may know, several of the start-up pixel arrays will evolve into “blinkers” and remain stable in that configuration, allowing them to alternate “blinks” with each successive generation. You could almost say that a blinker carries “genes” that enable it to “remember” how to blink.No, I really don’t think so. That probably is the wrong POV in the case of Conway’s blinkers. My simple laboratory observation using digits supports your mechanical assertions, because I would have to agree that there is nothing in a blinker other than its mechanical cellular-ness to keep it blinking in Conway's envirnment.”Hoot Mon

So, finally we approach the topic. It seems to me the question should be: once conditions on earth became hospitable to life, why wouldn't life arise? What would stop it?If we understand "effectively NOTHING about how abiogenesis occurred", as you claim, how can you assign a probability to it? Unless we do know something about how abiogenesis might have occurred, we have no way of calculating the timing of the process.So which is it? Do we know nothing about it? Or do we know enough to say, "It couldn't happen here," or, "It couldn't have happened that early"?

---

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

Ringo, re: My position is that we don't know enough about abiogenesis itself to say that it could or couldn't happen on Earth. I'm bothered by our ignorance of any principles that allow abiogenesis to occur artificially. From my POV, we are a long way from knowing EFFECTIVELY what happened to bring life to Earth. Do you know of any scientific principles that explain abiogenesis? I'll give the principles of carbon chemistry and cellular organization; those seem perfunctory to me. Is there a known thermodynamic principle? Electromagnetic? Pressure? Radiation? Genetic? Ecological? So what are the effective principles of abiogenesis?”Hoot Mon

How are these perfunctory (whatever that means in this context)? It does take several years of hard study to get a working knowledge of either. And, after all, living things are chemical in nature.With zillions of possible organic molecules to choose from, why would anyone expect the abiogenisis problem to be easy? If no working model has yet been found, all one can conclude is that no working model has yet been found.

I know what your position is. I'm asking: How do you arrive at that position? If "we" - i.e. you - don't know the potential pathway(s) for abiogenesis, how can you conclude that it is improbable? I'm looking at it from the opposite direction: Do you know of any scientific principles that prevent abiogenesis?We know that all living creatures are made up of chemical elements. We know that those chemical elements can combine together in various ways, based on the principles of thermodynamics, electromagnetics, etc. The question is: Why wouldn't a particular arrangement of chemicals - e.g. us - "come together", given the appropriate conditions?Consider my Tinker-Toy analogy. The onus is not on me to find a phantom "principle" that allows building a replica of the Eiffel Tower. The onus is on you to show a principle that prevents that construction.

---

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

Ringo, re: I-I-I don't know about that. You're asking me to prove a negative. Besides, I never said abiogenesis could NOT have taken place on Earth, only that we simply don't know enough about to it make that claim. Come on, either you have principles that help explain abiogenesis or you don't. I think the onus is on you to show the positive side of this issue. So I'm back to my orginal position: If you don't know how abiogenesis took place or anything about it's necessary pre-conditions then you are not a a good position to say whether or not it could have happened on Earth.”Hoot Mon

No. You're asserting a negative and I'm trying to find out why you think it's negative.I'm saying, "Here we have a pile of Tinker-Toys and here we have an Eiffel Tower made of Tinker-Toys." You're saying, "We don't know enough about Tinker-Toys to know whether or not we can build an Eiffel Tower out of them." I'm saying, "Look at the Eiffel Tower. It's right there. We can see that the pieces can go together like that. All we're missing is the exact order to assemble them."If you claim that the letters "w", "o", "r" and "d" probably can't come together to form a word, then the onus is indeed on you to show us why. And I keep asking you: How do you know we don't know "enough"? How much is "enough"? How are you calculating "enough"? We have the principles of chemistry. What more do you want? And what I'm asking you is: what puts you in the position of being able to make that claim?

---

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

Woodsy, re: Well, I'm all for any good research on the problem of abiogenesis. I think there ought to be more funding for it. I'm just concerned that some of the key assumptions going forward are in need of further examination. That's fair, isn't it?My original motivation on this subject comes from a feeling (or a senior's attitude) that we ought to know more than we do about biological life and where it came. For me, it's a puzzling thing; we know a great deal about biology, chemistry, and physics, but we're not there yet, effectively...even with " zillions of possible organic molecules to choose from."”Hoot Mon

Ringo, re: Hey, maybe we're there already. I'm cheering for the chemists, with big expectations. (The proof is in the pudding.) By standing opposite you in this discussion. Does that necessarily disqualify me?”Hoot MonEdited by Hoot Mon, : doddles

I don't care what might disqualify you. I'm asking what qualifies you: I'm asking on what calculations you base your claim that abiogenesis "probably" didn't take place on earth.

---

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

Ringo, re: I never said that. Show me the post.My career in science started in 1960. I have had a good look it. I can't find a single principle in biology, chemistry, or physics that helps me understand how life crawled out of that magnanimous goo, wherever it may have puddled up . Around 1976 I first got excited about Prigogine's dissipative structures”"order out of chaos" and all of that. Maybe he's got the abiogenic answers, I thought; Lyapounov's function looked pretty ripe to me. Information theory and ecological ascendency also had a grip on me; still does, but I can't take them to the bank. Fullerenes and Penrose's microtubules...nope, no answers there. All those quasi-mechanical Tinker Toys were not enough to build even a convincing proto-prototype of life. But then there are those airy genes with their penchant for jumping around in space and time. Barbara Mcclintock first caught them jumping in 1942; and a decade later DNA was discovered. Selfish genes, cooperative genes, healing genes, killer genes”now those are interesting! Still, I remain dead in water when it comes down to explaining abiogenesis. If you are not so perplexed and have some abiogenic principles to reveal, then I'm your ready reader. Please show me your cards and tell why they trump my hand.”Hoot Mon

For example, here: and here: and here: I can go back further if you like, but that seems to be your theme song. It was statements like that which gave me the impression that you think earth-bound abiogenesis "improbable". What does "safer to assume" mean, if not probability-eise?Do you or don't you think that abiogenesis "probably" took place elsewhere? Because if you're comparing the "likelihood" that abiogenesis took place in my back yard with the "likelihood" that it took place in the Crab Nebula, I'd like to see the basis for that comparison.There is a candlestick-shaped wound on the victim's head and the victim's blood is on the candlestick. So what if the candlestick is available at Wal-Mart for $9.95? We would need compelling evidence before we could conclude that this is not the crime scene.You're saying that "we don't know enough" to determine that this is the crime scene. That's backwards. The victim is here and the weapon is here. This is the crime scene until the evidence shows otherwise. "We don't know enough" isn't evidence.I'll ask again: If you claim "we don't know enough" about abiogenesis to decide it happened here, how much is "enough" and how do you decide how much is "enough"? Then it's a good thing nobody is asking you to. I have already said: the "abiogenic principles" are the principles of chemistry. You've been saying all along that you don't have a hand....

---

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