09 Jan 11
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/01/110107145634.htm
Scientists reproduce left handed molecules of life artificially in the lab duplicating the left handed molecules found in some meteorites, lending strong evidence prebiotic molecules later incorporated and almost exclusively used on Earth life came from interstellar space.
Scientific explanations of the origin of life on Earth are getting closer to being fulfilled.
- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12469
10 Jan 11
Originally posted by sonhouseUnlikely.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/01/110107145634.htm
Scientists reproduce left handed molecules of life artificially in the lab duplicating the left handed molecules found in some meteorites, lending strong evidence prebiotic molecules later incorporated and almost exclusively used on Earth life came from interstellar space.
Scientific explanations of the origin of life on Earth are getting closer to being fulfilled.
There have been dozens if not thousands of claims that life was not made on Earth but came from space. Most often, these claims also include arguments that life is so complex that it could not possibly have grown on Earth itself. These claims all fail to answer one crucial question:
How did life arise out there in space, then? If it was impossible for it do do so here on Earth, why is it not equally impossible on Planet X or in deep (-frozen!) outer space?
Until that question is answered, all such theories must be regarded as nothing but wild speculation, and most likely obstructive speculation at that.
Richard
10 Jan 11
1 edit
Originally posted by Shallow BlueI think it is very likely because there are a lot of planets X around. I am not saying that it must come from out-of-space, but to say it is just a wild speculation I don't agree. Moreover, I don't see the need why you should first know the complete picture ("How did life arise out there in space, then?" ) before you can accept such a theory. If there is enough evidence based on meteorites found on earth (but I am not the person to judge this), then we should accept this and then try to figure out how life was initiated in space.
Unlikely.
There have been dozens if not thousands of claims that life was not made on Earth but came from space. Most often, these claims also include arguments that life is so complex that it could not possibly have grown on Earth itself. These claims all fail to answer one crucial question:
How did life arise out there in space, then? If ...[text shortened]... ded as nothing but wild speculation, and most likely obstructive speculation at that.
Richard
10 Jan 11
1 edit
Why would life on Earth be LESS likely to have originated on Earth than elsewhere?
Earth has had liquid water from its early history. The vacuum of space doesn't. Not only that, NO type of liquid can exist in a vacuum!
Surely one of the minimum requirements for abiogenesis is the presence of liquid water! (not to mention life could not continually thrive after abiogenesis in the absence of liquid water! ) .
So this is a good reason to doubt that life was more likely to have originated from the vacuum of space (or from a planet or moon that has no liquid water) than from a surface of a planet that has liquid water such as the Earth.
I have heard of the theory that life first formed on another planet or large moon with liquid water and was then spread to Earth via rocks containing microbes thrown to escape velocity by meteor impact and then those rocks slamming into the Earth with those microbes somehow surviving that!
I think the people that came up with that have no understanding of Occam’s razor. The least assumptive hypothesis (and therefore the best) is that life “got here” simply because it originated here.
10 Jan 11
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonThere are a few points:
Why would life on Earth be LESS likely to have originated on Earth than elsewhere?
Earth has had liquid water from its early history. The vacuum of space doesn't. Not only that, NO type of liquid can exist in a vacuum!
Surely one of the minimum requirements for abiogenesis is the presence of liquid water! (not to mention life could not continuall ...[text shortened]... hypothesis (and therefore the best) is that life “got here” simply because it originated here.
i) What is the beginning of life? cells, amino-acids, DNA, RNA.
ii) One should be careful when using Occam's razor. The universe has an uncountable number of planets. So even if the creation of life might be might be very small on an individual planet (maybe smaller than on earth), the event of the creation of life on any of these planets might be much higher in total, relative to the creation of life on the planet earth alone. Occam's razor is often misused to conclude that a simple mechanism is more likely than a complex one, but in a chaotic system this doesn't always make sense, because there are an uncountable number of unlikely complex mechanisms. In the middle ages, scientists thought that the earth was the center of the universe, because in their vision, this was the most pure/simple vision. So you could argue that had Occam's razor at their side. Now we know it is more complicated!
- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12469
11 Jan 11
Originally posted by TitusvEYes, but uncountably many minus one of those planets are so far away from Earth that the odds of life in whatever form arriving safely on Earth through the vacuum of space is infinitesimal. The one exception is Earth itself, of course.
ii) One should be careful when using Occam's razor. The universe has an uncountable number of planets. So even if the creation of life might be might be very small on an individual planet (maybe smaller than on earth), the event of the creation of life on any of these planets might be much higher in total, relative to the creation of life on the planet earth alone.
Meanwhile, I have yet to hear of a cogent reason to assume that life did not arise here, on Earth.
Richard
11 Jan 11
Originally posted by Shallow BlueI don't think the article was asserting life formed on other planets and spread here, I think they were saying life chemicals, precursors to life, form in outer space and these complex molecules drift around the universe and provide a kickstart to the production of life on at least one planet in the cosmos.
Yes, but uncountably many minus one of those planets are so far away from Earth that the odds of life in whatever form arriving safely on Earth through the vacuum of space is infinitesimal. The one exception is Earth itself, of course.
Meanwhile, I have yet to hear of a cogent reason to assume that life did not arise here, on Earth.
Richard
If that is the case, it bolsters the idea that life abounds in the universe, begging the Fermi question, if there are all those advanced civilizations out there, why haven't we seen any yet.
11 Jan 11
Originally posted by sonhouseIndeed. That is what I pointed out with my point i). I also don't think that that real living organisms travelled with meteorites, but maybe the first amino-acids etc
I don't think the article was asserting life formed on other planets and spread here, I think they were saying life chemicals, precursors to life, form in outer space and these complex molecules drift around the universe and provide a kickstart to the production of life on at least one planet in the cosmos.
If that is the case, it bolsters the idea that ...[text shortened]... uestion, if there are all those advanced civilizations out there, why haven't we seen any yet.
11 Jan 11
3 edits
Originally posted by TitusvE“...i) What is the beginning of life? cells, amino-acids, DNA, RNA. ...”
There are a few points:
i) What is the beginning of life? cells, amino-acids, DNA, RNA.
ii) One should be careful when using Occam's razor. The universe has an uncountable number of planets. So even if the creation of life might be might be very small on an individual planet (maybe smaller than on earth), the event of the creation of life on any of these So you could argue that had Occam's razor at their side. Now we know it is more complicated!
cells; or at least “photocells” (the distinction being blurred) . Amino-acids, DNA and RNA don't by themselves really count as what we normally mean by “life” unless you are talking about viruses (which I personally think should be classes as “living” despite the general opinion to the contrary) but viruses cannot reproduce without cells.
“...ii) One should be careful when using Occam's razor. ...”
yes, I know. I have studied logic.
“...The universe has an uncountable number of planets. So even if the creation of life might be might be very small on an individual planet (maybe smaller than on earth), the event of the creation of life on any of these planets might be much higher in total, relative to the creation of life on the planet earth alone ...”
As Shallow Blue has indicated, there is the thorny problem of the chances of life surviving the trip from another planet to Earth esp if it come from another planet other than in our own solar system! Could life really survive being thrown into space by an impact AND then survive such a long trip without liquid water AND then survive being baked as it enters the Earth's atmosphere AND then survives the impact ? -that is assuming a lot! Also, even if it DID come from another planet, it couldn’t have come from more than, say, 140 million light years away because, even if it travelled as fast as 1% the speed of light towards Earth (unlikely) and somehow survived the impact at that massive speed (unlikely) , the age of the universe (just under 14 billion years old) isn't old enough to have allowed time for it to reach Earth from that distance soon after Earth's formation so “...The universe has an uncountable number of planets...” is not what is relevant here but how many suitable planets (one’s with liquid water) were there before Earth within, say, a 140 million light year radius (and not planets outside that radius) is what is relevant to that hypothesis -and that totally ignores the problem of the fact that the further that planet is away from Earth, the lower the chances that a lump of rock from it containing life would just happen to head exactly toward Earth!
“...Occam's razor is often misused to conclude that a simple mechanism is more likely than a complex one ...”
yes, I know. I have studied logic. Occam's razor merely recommends that we should be more certain of the theory/explanation that makes the least unnecessary assumptions to account for all that is observed. That's why I said in my post “The least assumptive hypothesis (and therefore the best) is that ...” and NOT “the simplest....”.
12 Jan 11
2 edits
Originally posted by Shallow Blueyes, its a nonsense, for it simply puts the problem of the spontaneous generation of life, from non living matter to another location somewhere in the universe, not only that but we are now supposed to believe that this spontaneous generation of life managed to survive the hostility of space, enter through our atmosphere and begin to multiply and diversify. Neither logical, reasonable, nor scientific; the utter folly of the materialist has led him to unsound pseudo science. I have asked the moderators to move it to spirituality where such unsubstantiated believe may be discussed with like minded individuals
Yes, but uncountably many minus one of those planets are so far away from Earth that the odds of life in whatever form arriving safely on Earth through the vacuum of space is infinitesimal. The one exception is Earth itself, of course.
Meanwhile, I have yet to hear of a cogent reason to assume that life did not arise here, on Earth.
Richard
12 Jan 11
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThis is not spirituality, this is a scientific study. We are not saying absolutely in a scientific sense that life was spread to our planet through meteorites. Simply that the precursors of life, amino acids, have already been detected by astronomers in vast clouds of material spewed out by dying stars.
yes, its a nonsense, for it simply puts the problem of the spontaneous generation of life, from non living matter to another location somewhere in the universe, not only that but we are now supposed to believe that this spontaneous generation of life managed to survive the hostility of space, enter through our atmosphere and begin to multiply and div ...[text shortened]... to spirituality where such unsubstantiated believe may be discussed with like minded individuals
The main idea there is life on earth was kick-started by the introduction of amino acids and other complex molecules by said meteorites, not coming from interstellar distances but by much closer planets already in the solar system. This infers a widespread seeding of pre-biotic material in many solar systems in the universe, thus negating the need for ultra long distance travel by meteorites coming from interstellar distances.
This therefore infers that if shown to be true here, that life did in fact form from the combination of amino acids and other organic molecules into more complex molecules that reached a critical point going from non-living to living early forms of life even before our era of cells with internal structures. If all that is true then the implication would be life exists almost everywhere in the universe where conditions are favorable, like our goldilock orbit around a stable sun allowing for liquid water.
There have to be an untold number of other planets in our incredibly huge universe that duplicates more or less the conditions here on Earth which clearly favors life.
You might call that simply another religious view but it is more like a prediction based on what we know. A true religious view would not be changed by further introduction of scientific fact that would refute this argument. Refutation of this argument would alter our views in a scientific way and show the way to what would then be the more proven view, whatever that would be, letting the chips fall where they may.
A religious view would not be swayed by such new data, simply repaving old dogma with renewed conviction. That does not happen in science. There certainly would be holdouts who would stick with the old view but they eventually die, leaving the newer data to win out. That simply cannot happen with religious views.
Science can change, religion cannot.
12 Jan 11
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI would agree that that particular hypothesis (the one that says that life travelled here from space; not to be confused with the http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/01/110107145634.htm hypothesis ) has no good bases but it still just doesn't compare with a religious belief for it is nothing like a religious belief because at least it doesn't assume something totally mystical such as a supernatural agent!
yes, its a nonsense, for it simply puts the problem of the spontaneous generation of life, from non living matter to another location somewhere in the universe, not only that but we are now supposed to believe that this spontaneous generation of life managed to survive the hostility of space, enter through our atmosphere and begin to multiply and div ...[text shortened]... to spirituality where such unsubstantiated believe may be discussed with like minded individuals
Any scientific hypothesis, even the stupid or baseless ones ( I have heard a few ) , just doesn't compare with religious faith.