Another vote for panspermia

[thebigcat]

I realy have no problem in accepting the concepts of Martian Transpermia or Panspermia. That's not the issue I have here. What I see going on is people using flimsy arguements in support of their viewpoints, somewhat similar to the old theory that if you traveled faster than 35 MPH the pressure differential would cause a person to be unable to breathe. That's a load, of course, but to the person who proposed it it made perfact sense. It took building a faster steam locomotive to show that the theory was erronious, just as it's going to take a few little robotic missions to show whether we need to continue discussing these theories. In the meantine they do make for adequate subject matter to anyone seeking to further their career in the field of astromony sciences. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[thebigcat]

Quote: Life developed on Earth because it was in the liquid water zone<br /><br />This is exactly the sort of thing I am talking about when I mention using prejudices to argue a point in the absense of sufficient facts.<br /><br />The "Liquid Water Zone" that stevehw33 mentions is a fallacy. It is the brainchild of an astrophysicist back in the '60s or earlier who porposed that for any star there was a range at which life would be possible because the amount of solar radiation would be just enough to allow for water to exist in a liguid state. He never stated exactly how much of this solar radiation would be required, or what the disdances would be for any given star, let alone our own, but it was presumed that Earth was within this range while Venus was too close while Mars was too far away.<br /><br />We now know that atmospheric makeup is as m <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[newtonian]

earthseed - You have dismissed Fred Hoyle's panspermia model as science fiction. Have you ever read "Evolution from Space," 1981, by astronomer Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe?<br /><br />As is usually true of models involving panspermia and also chemical evolution, some points have good scientific basis while other points do not.<br /><br />Scientists have noted certain complex pre-biotic molecules on meteorites and comets.<br /><br />Hoyle considers the possibiliy that snippets of DNA could have traveled here via that means - and effected both the origin of life and evolution of life.<br /><br />Hence the book's title: "Evolution from Space," which I have read and do own.<br /><br />Hoyle does a better job of disproving prevalent chemical evolution models than of proving panspermia.<br /><br />And some of his conclusions are way out there.<br /><br />As is the case with many sciientific sources, one must sift through erroneous speculations but note valid scientifc observations imbedded within the source.

 

[centsworth_II]

<font color="yellow">"...would certainly never have thought that Saturn could be in the range in which liquid water could exist, but there is now solid evidence that it does indeed exist beneath the water ice surface of Europa..." -- TheBigCat</font><br /><br />Of course, Europa is a moon of Jupiter. But before stevehw33 attacks you for saying "Saturn" rather than attacking the main point of your post, let me say that you do have a good point. <br /><br />Europa MORE LIKLY THAN NOT does have an extensive, "permanent" liquid water zone. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[igorsboss]

I continue to stand by this statement:<br /><br /><font color="yellow">igorsboss:<br />"I think that creating life from non-life is too hard for #1(early life developed on earth) to possibly be true, leaving #2(life from elsewhere) as the only remaining natural conclusion." <br /><br />stevehw33:<br />Illogical. to state that life coming from somewhere else other than the earth is more probable than life developing on the earth is improbable. <br /></font><br /><br />Steve, I appreciate your point of view. It took me some thinking as to how to reply to you meaningfully, without my becomming trollish.<br /><br />Probability is the study of future or unknown events, but <i>probability is meaningless when it comes to analyzing known, past events.</i> The past is the realm of statistics, not probability. Since your claim that the "Eden" model is "illogical" is based on the (improper) use of probability to analyze a past event, I simply dismiss your conclusion.<br /><br />If someone were to calculate, 15 billion years ago, the probability that life would exist on Earth today, that probability would be exactly zero. Real events with zero probability can still happen. Our lives are events which at one time (15 billion years ago) had zero probability.<br /><br />As a proponent of the "Eden" model, I currently seek the truth regarding these points:<br />1) Do any of the individual steps in the "Eden" model's sequence violate natural laws?<br />2) Does the complete "Eden" sequence violate natural laws?<br />3) How well does the "Eden" model fit observed facts?<br /><br />As far as I can determine so far, the "Eden" model does not violate natural laws, and it fits the observed facts.<br /><br />The "Eden" theory is inspired by observational evidence: life existed on Earth very soon after Earth formed. This suggests life's arrival here from elsewhere, rather that spontaneous generation.<br /><br />If you can find way the "Eden" model violates natural laws, or that an observed fact con

 

[thebigcat]

Wonderful post, igorsboss. <br /><br />Let's treat the whole thing as an excercize in forensics. We have an event which we know occured, but we don't know how or where or when, and we are not going to concern ourselves with why. Philosophy is useless, theology is worse. <br /><br />We need to concern ourselves with facts, and here are some:<br /><br />1) Life exists<br />2)Either it has always existed or it originated at some point.<br />3)It exists on Earth.<br /><br />It is at this point where we start adding observations and making hypotheses based upon them. Care to make some? Be my guest. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[centsworth_II]

<font color="yellow">"igorsboss: <br />"I think that creating life from non-life is too hard for #1(early life developed on earth) to possibly be true, leaving #2(life from elsewhere) as the only remaining natural conclusion." <br /><br />stevehw33: <br />Illogical. to state that life coming from somewhere else other than the earth is more probable than life developing on the earth is improbable."</font><br /><br /><br />Igorsboss' statement is perfectly logical, although just an opinion. Fossil evidence on Earth appears to show the appearance of life in as little as a few hundred million years. This may mean that the process from sterile world to life is this quick but there remains the possibility that the emergence of life is actually a much longer process lasting a few billion years. If that is the case, life could not have originated on Earth according to the fossil record as it is currently understood.<br /><br />There is a middle ground. More and more complex organic molecules are being found in the comets and clouds of solar and interstellar space. Perhaps (dare I say probably?) some of the ingredients for life were created over billions of years and delivered to the Earth. Not life, but the pieces of life with 'some assembly required'. <br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[centsworth_II]

<font color="yellow">"Look, if life is improbable in the first case, and then the improbabilities of panspermia are applied, it becomes ever so much less probable." -- stevehw33</font><br /><br />Saying a process may need a billion years to take place as opposed to 100 million years is not the same as saying it is improbable. In fact one could imagine a process that is inevitable and common throughout the universe but which simply takes one billion years to take place. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[igorsboss]

<font color="yellow">If rolling snake eyes is unlikely, then rolling two of them back to back is even less likely, as it's the product of the probs.</font><br /><br />It's <i>According to Hoyle</i>, not Hume.<br /><br />The dice have already been rolled. All bets are now closed. Probability is moot, because the die has already been cast.<br /><br />* Rolling snake eyes once violates no natural law.<br />* Rolling a sequence of two snake eyes also violates no natural law.<br />* I started with $10, I rolled twice, and now I have $90,000. How?<br /><br /><font color="yellow">Most people who are educated</font><br /><br />Oops... Tread lightly here, sir. I've a BA in Math.

 

[newtonian]

Igorsboss - Probability is not moot for past events. It is just as accurate as for future events.<br /><br />All you have shown is that improbable events occur - which is, of course, true.<br /><br />Consider the arrowhead as an example. It is found by an archaeologist, so it already has been formed.<br /><br />The question is: how has it been formed?<br /><br />Archaeologists assume that it is by intelligent design. <br /><br />But why?<br /><br />Probability!<br /><br />It is far less probable that the arrownhead was formed by chance than by non-ingtelligent geological processes.<br /><br />This was the point Hoyle and Wickramasinghe made in their book "Evolution from Space," 1981.<br /><br />In summary, we have noted:<br /><br />"In their new book Evolution From Space, the noted British astronomers Sir Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe assert that the chances of life’s springing from some ancient random mixing of chemicals are so “outrageously small” as to be absurd “even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup.” They write that “Darwinian evolution is most unlikely to get even one polypeptide [chain of essential life substances] right, let alone the thousands on which living cells depend for survival. This situation is well known to geneticists and yet nobody seems to blow the whistle decisively on the theory.”<br /><br />Why have scientists aware of this failed to “blow the whistle”? “If Darwinism were not considered socially desirable . . . it would of course be otherwise,” answers the book. When an entire society “becomes committed to a particular set of concepts, educational continuity makes it exceedingly hard to change the pattern,” it adds. “You either have to believe the concepts or you will be branded a heretic.”" - "The Watchtower," 3/15/83, p. 7.<br /><br />It was, in fact, probabiliity that forced these two scientists to look elsewhere for the origin of life:<br /><br />"Sir Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe, admittedly were ‘driven by logic’ to conclude th

 

[igorsboss]

<font color="yellow">Igorsboss - Probability is not moot for past events. It is just as accurate as for future events.</font><br /><br />Calculations can't change the past, and the future is not ours to see.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">Consider the arrowhead as an example. It is found by an archaeologist, so it already has been formed. The question is: how has it been formed? Archaeologists assume that it is by intelligent design. But why? Probability!</font><br /><br />Nope. It's by correlation, and that's statistics. The distribution of the location of the arrowheads is positively correlated with those of pottery shards, cooking fires, and human habitation.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">"Sir Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe, admittedly were ‘driven by logic’ to conclude that there must be a Creator.</font><br /><br />I'm restricting my comments to natural, falsifiable theories. Any theory which breaks natural laws is false. Any theory with a supernatural component is beyond my ability to argue. I acknowledge that there are many, many theories which begin with a "Creator". I'm not saying any of them are right or wrong; I merely abstain.<br /><br />I'm willing to defend the "Eden" hypothesis. My goal is merely to bring it to the table as a natural, falsifiable theory. I am not attempting to conclude it as fact, because there is not enough evidence for anyone to do so.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">Scientists Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe estimate that the odds against life’s vital enzymes forming by chance are one in 10^40,000 (1 with 40,000 zeros after it). Scientists Feinberg and Shapiro go still further. In their book Life Beyond Earth, they put the odds against the material in an organic soup ever taking the first rudimentary steps toward life at one in 10^1,000,000." - "Awake!," 4/8/90, p. 7.</font><br /><br />The odds you quoted are probabilities based on emperical statistics and probabilistic assump

 

[newtonian]

Igorsboss - First, while I study your post:<br /><br />What is the Eden theory?<br /><br />I agree that calculations cannot change the past - of course.<br /><br />Are you proposing that the laws of chemistry were different when life arose on earth?<br /><br />I will respond better after I study your post, and also this thread. <br /><br />I also need to read the Scientific American article.

 

[igorsboss]

<font color="yellow">What is the Eden theory?</font><br /><br />See all my posts in this thread. The Eden theory is in my first post.<br /><br />Eden Theory:<br />Life arose on Eden, a parent garden world. While teeming with diverse life forms, Eden was shattered by a collision, seeding Earth's primordial nebula with life. Eventually rock-eating organisms seeded Earth. Subsequent mutation and natural selection created terrestrial biodiversity.<br /><br />This explains the paradox that life existed on the very early Earth, even though Earth's early chemical make-up might not have been suitable for the creation of life from non-life. Eden had that most special environment, about 10BYA.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">Are you proposing that the laws of chemistry were different when life arose on earth?</font><br /><br />No, of course not. I assume that the fundamental physical and chemical laws are timeless.<br /><br />However, the presence of life implies more biochemical activity. That is, the <i>conditional</i> probability of protien synthesis is dramaticly higher <i>given</i> the presence of ribosomes and RNA.

 

[earthseed]

The simple fact is we do not know how life formed. Therefore any so-called "calculation" of the odds of life forming is totally bogus. The fantastic figures quoted above assume life arose by random collision of molecules, and only serve to demonstrate that this is not the case.<br /><br />Life arose by following a chemical pathway, of which all traces are gone. The laws of chemistry have not changed, but the laws of biology did - any complex chemicals that may be precursors to life are now systematically removed by bacteria. Today's environment is totally different that the one in which life arose.<br /><br />We can reasonably calculate probability for interstellar panspermia because the required steps are known, and these odds are very low (but not zero). But we do not know what steps, or how many steps, are required for life to form in 200 million years (not exactly an instant in time), no comparable calculation is possible. A twenty year old book by two phsyicists on a subject outside their field (biology and genetics) has nothing to tell us on this matter. Their theories are utter rubbish from beginning to end.<br /><br />

 

[newtonian]

igorsboss - You have my apology for not having read the thread and the first post more carefully.<br /><br />Your model sounds tenable, feasable, reasonable.<br /><br />Ditto your post.<br /><br />And it is comparable to Hoyle's version of panspermia found in "Evolution from Space."<br /><br />There are reasons why I prefer the Biblical model of creation - however, when it comes to the actual origin of life, i.e. micro-organisms, there is no direct mention of this in the Bible.<br /><br />There is however, a hint which can be harmonized with your model:<br /><br />(Genesis 1:2) 2 Now the earth proved to be formless and waste and there was darkness upon the surface of [the] watery deep; and God’s active force was moving to and fro over the surface of the waters.<br /><br />The holy spirit is informationally directed invisible energy. <br /><br />And it is linked with the origin of life, e.g.:<br /><br />(Psalm 104:30) . . .If you send forth your spirit, they are created; And you make the face of the ground new.<br /><br />In other words, one interpretation of this would include terraforming.<br /><br />And here is how this compares favorably with your model:<br /><br />The seeding of earth by panspermia, including your model, would naturally fall on the surface of waters which covered the early earth.<br /><br />And darkness would be more favorable for these seeded compounds to survive. <br /><br />UV irradiation, for example, destroys most complex biomolecules.<br /><br />That being said, I do not know that molecules as complex as RNA were seeded on earth rather than being created from less complex pre-biotic molecules seeded by panspermia.<br /><br />And, while micro-evolution is proven, macro-evolution is not proven.

 

[earthseed]

The reasonable "Eden" model proposed by Igorsboss has very little relation to Hoyle's "Evolution from Space". "Eden" proposes that bacteria arrived on Earth from another solar system, probably in a single event. This replaces bacteria arising on Earth, but the rest of evolutionary development is unchanged. Hoyle, on the other hand, believes any form of evolution is not possible, and that all evolutionary change was caused by genetic material arriving from space. So Igorsboss seeks to explain one event about which little is known, while Hoyle attempts to overthrow all of evolutionary biology.<br /><br />Hoyle's theory (supposedly) began from an observation that the spectra from a part of space resembled that obtained from bacterial cells. With better observations, that has since been shown to be false. He has no training in biology, and clearly no understanding of it, yet he seeks to prove the entire work of evolutionary biology to be wrong. There is absolutely no evidence of large (or any) quantities of genetic material arriving from space, and no reasonable hypothesis how this could even be possible.<br /><br />To sum up, we start with a false observation, invoke bogus science, provide no evidence, and propose no possible mechanism. The term used for an author of this kind of nonsense is "crank".

 

[igorsboss]

<font color="yellow">Your model sounds tenable, feasable, reasonable.</font><br /><br />Thanks. That's all I ask...<br /><br />Obviously, Genesis inspired the parent garden planet name. I picked that name because of the idea that we were expelled from Eden.<br /><br />Personally, I think the real origin of life story is just as unknowable as the pre-big-bang state of the universe. These two events are about as miraculous as science gets.

 

[earthseed]

There is a big difference between the unknown and the unknowable. We have some idea what conditions were like on early Earth, and what chemicals were available. We know some of the chemistry involved. While finding direct evidence (eg. fossils) is unlikely, better understanding of biochemistry may eventually lead to insights on how life formed.<br /><br />This is very different from a theoretical event that by definition has nothing preceeding it.

 

[newtonian]

earthseed - On your last post - I agree.<br /><br />We do know much about early earth history and about chemistry - which is one reason to opt for panspermia models, or creation.<br /><br />We also have much to learn!<br /><br />On your other recent posts: Since you have attacked Hoyle I will defend - that's just my nature.<br /><br />Sure Hoyle was wrong about some things - although our state of knowledge does not allow us to prove where or even if he was wrong about specific details he postulated in his book (with Chandra Wickramasinghe) entitled "Evolution from Space."<br /><br />The problem with your last posts, for example, is that you are lumping all of Hoyle's statements into one theory and stating said theory is false.<br /><br />It is, I agree, partly false.<br /><br />It is, however, also partly correct.<br /><br />And large portions of it are unknown for sure and just as tenable as other models, including Igorsboss's model.<br /><br />I will specify some details where I believe Hoyle is either correct, or at least tenable.<br /><br />Since you stated that Hoyle had no training in biology, whatever that means, I will start with some information he presented involving biology.<br /><br />Specifically the way the 10^40,000 probability was calculated.<br /><br />This is from chapter 2 of "Evolution from Space," entitled Enzymes and other biochemicals."<br /><br />“In particular, the enzymes are a large class of molecule that for the most part runs across the whole of biology, without there being any hint of their mode of origin. There are about two thousand of them. Enzymes are polypeptides (proteins) that specialize in speeding up biological reactions, which they do with far greater efficiency than man-made catalysts. They act both to build up and to break down a wide range of biosubstances..<br /> The surface shapes of enzymes are critical to their function.” - “Evolution from Space, 1981, p. 23<br /><br />Hoyle then goes on to explain Figure 2.1 (p. 24) which depicts one criti

 

[thebigcat]

Newtonian, Hoyle was not just wrong about some things, he was spectacularly wrong. He's the guy in the FedEx commercial for crying out loud. He coined the term "Big Bang" as a snide jab at those who challenged his Steady State theory and did so to millions of Britons on his BBC radio show. He was the stereotypical English Expert On Everything who is actually merely fond of the sound of his own voice. <br /><br />ETA: Additional on further thought is that Hoyle use an arrowhead in his illustration. This is an object which we know to be of intellegent manufacture. What if I use a hexagonal basaltic column structure such as Giant's Causeway or any other phenomenon which before the advent of geological science was deemed to be "most likely of intellegent manufacture" but which we now know to be the result of natural processes?<br /><br />In all of this posturing and speculating I still see nothing to make me disbelieve in the viability of either the Panspermia or Martian Transpermia Theories. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[earthseed]

Newtonian, the question is where do the individual probability estimates come from? It appears that Hoyle believes that enzymes form by randomly combining amino acids. That is not how the enzymes in your body are created. Nor is it how they evolved. We can observe the process that occurs in our bodies, but we cannot observe what happened in the distant past, or even know exactly what conditions were present. If there is a chemical pathway that leads to the formation of an enzyme, then calculations based on random events are not relevant.<br /><br />I strongly disagree with the logic of "We do know much about early earth history and about chemistry - which is one reason to opt for panspermia models, or creation." No, that is not a reason, because we know even less about panspermia, and can know nothing about creation. Panspermia must stand on its own merits, not on a hatchet job against life forming on Earth.

 

[newtonian]

TheBigCat - We just had an interesting article on the Giant's Causeway.<br /><br />The arrowhead is assumed to be by intelligent design because it is more likely to have been formed that way.<br /><br />Hoyle notes that enzymes are also more likely to be formed by intelligent design.<br /><br />What I was citing was not speculation or posturing - it was based on observations of enzymes and receptors and also the origin of life synthesis experiments carried out by scientists.<br /><br />I believe Hoyle makes a good case for directed panspermia - though I do not know to what extent informational molecules were seeded onto the earth by comets, meteorites, dust, etc. or even by God.<br /><br />I agree posturing is irrelevant, and speculation is merely of interest. What we really need is relevant observations. Hoyle does cite a number of these.<br /><br />How do you feel enzymes were formed?<br /><br />Which came first: the enzyme or the receptor?

 

[newtonian]

earthseed - Excellent post. You posted:<br /><br />1. "It appears that Hoyle believes that enzymes form by randomly combining amino acids. That is not how the enzymes in your body are created."<br /><br />Sorry, but what often happens when you post a quote is that you miss the context - yet to quote the whole context would be against copyright laws - so this problem occurs often.<br /><br />Hoyle started with the simplest way of calculating the probability. <br /><br />However, in the context he admits various factors that would either raise or lower the probability.<br /><br />I'm sure you realize that earth was not comparable to a human body with DNA sequences coding for specific proteins, along with complex translation and mechanisms, to form enzymes and other proteins.<br /><br />Unless, btw, you believe in a Gaiea (sp?) hypothesis which the earth very much alive before proteins were created. <br /><br />I doubt you believe that!<br /><br />Hoyle actually candidly admits a number of things which change the probability. <br /><br />While 10^40,000 may well be a good ball park estimate (to nearest thousand powers of 10), I prefer to use an estimate for one statistical protein, i.e. one which contains no information useful to life - and the estimate for this of 10^113, and I will post later why this is so much more difficult than Hoyle's estimate of 10^20 for a protein. [Hint: All left handed polaraized (chiral) amino acids from a racemic (non polarized, zero chirality) organic soup of amino acids; and only the 20 amino acids necessary for life from a mixture containing all possible amino acids [most of which are not useful to life; i.e. not just optical isomers as in chirality but also all other types of isomers in the mixture].<br /><br />For this post I will quote just one of the things Hoyle admits will make it easier to produce the 2,000 enzymes for life:<br /><br />"Another way we might seek to argue would be to assert that not all the enzymes are independent of each other,

 

[bonzelite]

newtonian, your posts are very amazing and engaging.

 

[thebigcat]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>The arrowhead is assumed to be by intelligent design because it is more likely to have been formed that way. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Giant's Causeway is so named because to the inhabitants of the region it seemed that the only way the structure could have been formed was by the hand of a giant, and they invented a fanciful myth of the giant and his wife to provide motivation for his actions, and until science proved otherwise, it <b>was</b> more likely to have been formed that way.<br /><br />Likelyhood is useless unless ones is applying the strict laws of probability, at which point it is <b>nearly</b> useless.<br /><br />An arrowhead is assumed to be by intellegent design because it is <b>KNOWN</b> to have been formed that way. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>