Bad space weather may make life impossible near Proxima Centauri

[Admin]

If you look up in the southern sky you can see the “pointer” stars, pointing towards the Southern Cross.

Bad space weather may make life impossible near Proxima Centauri : Read more

 

[rod]

Proxima Centauri b came up in this discussion too recently, https://forums.space.com/threads/earth-like-planet-found.36677/

Good report on this exoplanet and red dwarf star activity and habitability.

 

[Helio]

Those little stars just don't seem to be very friendly.

The planet may still have an atmosphere if it has things like CO2 in its atmosphere that can transfer heat to the cold side of a tidally-locked planet to keep the atmosphere from freezing itself into oblivion. (see here)

But it will also need a rotating molten core to prevent the stellar winds from stripping the atmosphere away. Even a tidally-locked planet, apparently, can still rotate (orbit) fast enough to produce a magnetic field, but a lot depends on the inner iron core.

 

[rod]

FYI, this exoplanet site shows 4395 confirmed, http://exoplanet.eu/ I ran an MS SQL query and found 469 exoplanets reported around stars <= 0.6 solar masses. Some of them are large, 5 Jupiter masses or more, others very small like Proxima Centauri b and TRAPPIST-1 system. Reports like this article at space.com and reports like ETIs limited mostly to 4 kpc from the galactic center and some 8 billion years ago, e.g. https://forums.space.com/threads/the-milky-way-is-probably-full-of-dead-civilizations.36684/ , are placing serious constraints on the paradigm for abiogenesis and evolution creating a myriad of lifeforms throughout the Milky Way.

 

[Helio]

FYI, this exoplanet site shows 4395 confirmed, http://exoplanet.eu/ I ran an MS SQL query and found 469 exoplanets reported around stars <= 0.6 solar masses. Some of them are large, 5 Jupiter masses or more, others very small like Proxima Centauri b and TRAPPIST-1 system.

Thanks for that analysis. So about 10% found are with red dwarfs.

Was it harder, however, to tickle-out the transit data for those little stars, especially for Kepler? If so, then I suspect the percentage will go up more than that since red dwarfs likely dominant the largest number of stars for all the types.

Reports like this article at space.com and reports like ETIs limited mostly to 4 kpc from the galactic center and some 8 billion years ago, e.g. https://forums.space.com/threads/the-milky-way-is-probably-full-of-dead-civilizations.36684/ , are placing serious constraints on the paradigm for abiogenesis and evolution creating a myriad of lifeforms throughout the Milky Way.

With the discovery of the alkaline vents that have ideal(?) energy flows (matching living cells), etc., then the tantrums of the red dwarfs may not be much of a factor as long as conditions allow both for liquid water and activity to have those vents. Of course, all the chemical compositions would also be required, but this would be a reasonable assumption.

Of course, for evolution to take simple life forms to the surface would likely fail, IMO, given the red dwarfs bad behaviors.

 

[rod]

I was watching SCI channel this evening. There was an ad for a show *A Perfect Planet*, BBC five part series. The narrator (David Attenborough) made it clear that Earth is the only planet known in the universe with life on it by the scientific method.

 

[Helio]

The SM requires that the predictions from hypotheses and theories support or disfavor claims made, but only once those claims have been tested. Have we thoroughly tested for any form of life on, say, only the first 100 billion nearest exoplanets in the MW galaxy? What about exoplanets in some of the other two trillion galaxies? 30 years ago there were narrators I suppose who wrongly applied the SM to claim that there are no exoplanets.

The narrator should learn that “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”. This, IMO, is an excellent example case to emphasize this argument, though it isn’t a law and it can be misused, of course. [ The search for Vulcan is one example.]

 

[rod]

In reference to Helio post #7, the scientific method is rooted in observations of nature obeying natural law, not conjecture or extrapolations claiming life must be there somewhere in the universe too. Necessary demonstration is required by the scientific method. Extrapolating myriad exoplanets out there somewhere have life on them is rooted in abiogenesis, not observations of nature obeying natural law. There is a difference here. The catchy phrase I see repeated on the Forums, “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.” has no real meaning to me when there is no natural world observations following natural law to support the claims.

 

[Helio]

In reference to Helio post #7, the scientific method is rooted in observations of nature obeying natural law, not conjecture or extrapolations claiming life must be there somewhere in the universe too. Necessary demonstration is required by the scientific method.

[my bold] Agreed, but you know I'm not claiming that it must be there but that it might be there, and I give a reasonable argument, IMO. It is a reasonable hypothesis (life elsewhere) that is quite testable, given enough resources and time to do so. Since we haven't even come close to doing those tests, then it is unfair for any to suggest those tests will prove false.

The catchy phrase I see repeated on the Forums, “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.” has no real meaning to me when there is no natural world observations following natural law to support the claims.

I disagree. We haven't even scratched the surface of what is out there, so the philosophical arguments are just that - philosophical. We can't use any segment of science to argue a real conclusion if that science has only just begun. We have a huge absence of any evidence, pro or con, thus we can't say we have evidence of absence.

We can say there is no evidence yet for life, but it's unfair to draw any reasonable conclusion at this point. That's all I'm saying.

Those who want us to be convinced there can't be other life out there will suffer a major credibility loss if simple microbes or fossils are found underneath the surface of Mars, or in the liquid waters of Europa. Then there is all those other habitable planets we will, now obviously, will find in the decades to come.

 

[rod]

Helio, ref your post #9. The question is how many negative tests does it take to falsify that life evolved on other planets, including Mars? My answer, the hypothesis can never be falsified it seems, only one positive test is needed to affirm the teaching and the hypothesis is clearly rooted in abiogenesis. Here are some notes from a source I use. "Even Charles Darwin spoke about this matter in a letter and in some of his other writings: Though no evidence worth anything has as yet, in my opinion, been advanced in favor of a living being being developed from inorganic matter, yet I cannot avoid believing the possibility of this will be proved some day in accordance with the law of continuity.1 The intimate relation of Life with laws of chemical combination, and the universality of latter render spontaneous generation not improbable.2 It is often said that all the conditions for the first production of a living being are now present, which could ever have been present. But if (and oh what a big if) we could conceive in some warm little pond with all sort of ammonia and phosphoric salts,—light, heat, electricity present, that a protein compound was chemically formed, ready to undergo still more complex changes, at the present such matter would be instantly devoured, or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed . . .3”

Others today are viewing abiogenesis differently vs. extending it to other planets in the solar system or exoplanets around the universe. "Of course, there have been many attempts ... to explain the origin of life, but each has major problems. So much so that Dr. James Tour, professor at Rice University, says that scientists are “clueless” about how life first emerged—and he claims that, in private, many other scientists agree with him. Dr. Tour says the whole idea of life from non-life is “highly improbable,” and “that current research into the origins of life fails to explain not only the formation of the first cell, but the parts that make up the cell, such as carbohydrates, proteins and nucleic acids such as RNA and DNA.”

So, if life is not found on Mars now or in the past (e.g. ALH84001 meteorite), will abiogenesis be falsified? My opinion, falsification of abiogenesis will never happen or belief in life on other exoplanets---Rod

 

[Helio]

Helio, ref your post #9. The question is how many negative tests does it take to falsify that life evolved on other planets, including Mars?

What percent of all imaginable tests have been conducted on exoplanets for, say, the nearest 10,000 lyrs? We have only just begun our tests for Mars. It is only clear that there's not much, possibly no, life-forms on the surface. We haven't studied in the ice that much, if any.

I recall reading once that the largest mass on Earth isn't trees, flora or fauna, but bacteria. That's because they have been found very deep underground -- "eating" rocks! There is strong evidence for briny sub-surface regions on Mars, which should be investigated extensively, as well as other regions, to be able to give a very plausible "no" to life. This will take decades of effort, though perhaps only this year if they find evidence for current or past life?

We really don't know the history of Mars enough to know if circumstances were favorable or unfavorable for life. Mars should not be where it is, according to some. It should be bigger, just look at Jupiter. Models seem to have a problem with Mars ( Mercury more so), IIRC.

My answer, the hypothesis can never be falsified it seems, only one positive test is needed to affirm the teaching and the hypothesis is clearly rooted in abiogenesis.

Yep, and we don't have labs capable of addressing all the variables to simulate a trillion planets and their makeups. But, in principle, it is falsifiable and there are reasonable hypotheses for abiogenesis though some slack may need to be given it in that it lacks some formality as to any proposal yet that gives specific steps that is demonstrable.

Here are some notes from a source I use. "Even Charles Darwin spoke about this matter in a letter and in some of his other writings: Though no evidence worth anything has as yet, in my opinion, been advanced in favor of a living being being developed from inorganic matter, yet I cannot avoid believing the possibility of this will be proved some day in accordance with the law of continuity.1 The intimate relation of Life with laws of chemical combination, and the universality of latter render spontaneous generation not improbable.2 It is often said that all the conditions for the first production of a living being are now present, which could ever have been present. But if (and oh what a big if) we could conceive in some warm little pond with all sort of ammonia and phosphoric salts,—light, heat, electricity present, that a protein compound was chemically formed, ready to undergo still more complex changes, at the present such matter would be instantly devoured, or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed . . .3”

Thanks for sharing that. I don't recall reading that he said it but you may have read the poem I posted recently from his grandfather (Erasmus) that said something similar, but basic.

[We should keep in mind that his "Origin of the Species" book was never about how the first species formed but how species become other species via evolution.]

Others today are viewing abiogenesis differently vs. extending it to other planets in the solar system or exoplanets around the universe. "Of course, there have been many attempts ... to explain the origin of life, but each has major problems. So much so that Dr. James Tour, professor at Rice University, says that scientists are “clueless” about how life first emerged—and he claims that, in private, many other scientists agree with him. Dr. Tour says the whole idea of life from non-life is “highly improbable,” and “that current research into the origins of life fails to explain not only the formation of the first cell, but the parts that make up the cell, such as carbohydrates, proteins and nucleic acids such as RNA and DNA.”

I would bet a donut that most scientist would easily disagree. When one requires a few billion years for their test sample to take shape, it's tough to impose on them a few years instead.

This is another reason why any signs of life elsewhere will greatly improve a way for abiogenesis. I favor the idea of abiogenesis, but I also kinda hope we don't learn how to make life from chemicals; altering DNA is scary enough.

So, if life is not found on Mars now or in the past (e.g. ALH84001 meteorite), will abiogenesis be falsified? My opinion, falsification of abiogenesis will never happen or belief in life on other exoplanets.

Agreed. Science, religion and philosophy are in this game, pro or con. It may take a long time to be able to make more reasonable judgements, unless life is found on Mars, or elsewhere, and it can be shown it didn't come from one of our hurled rocks long ago.

Also, it may be that the level of intelligence for any advanced species will never have the time, during its existence, to even be able to resolve the abiogenesis question. What if going to a thousand exoplanets is required first to discover all the missing pieces? What if this limitation is intrinsic to the design parameters at the time of the BB? Just playing with my thoughts.

 

[rod]

FYI, my observation concerning testing standards used in post #11. I note some comments made. “What percent of all imaginable tests have been conducted on exoplanets for, say, the nearest 10,000 lyrs?” “Yep, and we don't have labs capable of addressing all the variables to simulate a trillion planets and their makeups.” “What if going to a thousand exoplanets is required first to discover all the missing pieces?”

Comparing to past astronomical history like Claudius Ptolemy in the geocentric solar system, Copernicus, Tycho Brahe, Galileo, Kepler, and Newton, the testing standards presented in post #11 are clearly very different than what brought about the paradigm change from geocentric to heliocentric solar system.

 

[Helio]

FYI, my observation concerning testing standards used in post #11. I note some comments made. “What percent of all imaginable tests have been conducted on exoplanets for, say, the nearest 10,000 lyrs?” “Yep, and we don't have labs capable of addressing all the variables to simulate a trillion planets and their makeups.” “What if going to a thousand exoplanets is required first to discover all the missing pieces?”

Comparing to past astronomical history like Claudius Ptolemy in the geocentric solar system, Copernicus, Tycho Brahe, Galileo, Kepler, and Newton, the testing standards presented in post #11 are clearly very different than what brought about the paradigm change from geocentric to heliocentric solar system.

But modern science has one foundation -- objective evidence. Subjective evidence or ideas play a role since the ideas behind any hypothesis is subjective but must be supported by objective evidence.

Abiogenesis lacks the objective evidence we would normally expect. It certainly has a ton of objective evidence indirectly (ie chemistry and biochemistry) but it seems to me that this is a more indirect form of objective evidence. Nevertheless, the idea of abiogenesis is so compelling and so impactful that it's only logical that science would pursue it, which it has.

Ptolemy wasn't really introducing any sort of a modern theory. His goal was to match the appearances and produce reliable tables for astrology (used for things like medicine), hence he was forced to add the odd equant for every planet (which produced an elliptical-style orbit).

Copernicus, however, saw unification in his model vs. Ptolemy, which is what you want to see in a theory. It was also elegant, but elegance isn't a must.

But both were still scientific models and exposed to falsification. The Venus phases killed Ptolemy's model.

But consider Cop's model. He was not accepted for many decades primarily because, for one big reason, his model would not produce the expected parallax we should see for stars given our huge swing around the Sun.

Can we not say that his real counter was simply, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"? Of course, but it was beyond the ability of science, even in Galileo's day with those little scopes, to obtain that difficult bit of evidence necessary to help confirm stellar parallax.

Similarly, science needs to have "bigger and better telescopes" to produce those missing pieces of the puzzle for abiogenesis, if indeed they exist.

 

[rod]

Helio, your post #13 to me still mixes apples and oranges. Copernicus made specific predictions that were testable including Mars would be closer to Earth at opposition than the distance between Earth and the Sun. Tycho Brahe worked diligently to overthrow Copernicus here looking for Mars parallax at opposition that he was never able to measure. Tycho was confident that Claudius was correct, Mars was always farther away from Earth at opposition than the distance to the Sun. Owen Gingrich et al wrote papers on this. In 1672, Cassini and Richer did observe the Mars parallax using better telescopes that opened up the distances between the planets in the solar system. In my post #10, I quoted from a letter of Charles Darwin and he said "Though no evidence worth anything has as yet, in my opinion, been advanced in favor of a living being being developed from inorganic matter..."

Charles Darwin *warm little* pond using abiogenesis does not have the same standards of prediction as Copernicus presented or the same verification standards. That to me is very obvious and Charles Darwin comments *Though no evidence worth anything has as yet...* still stands as not observed in nature obeying natural law. Biogenesis is observed. The paradigm you are using is very different and has different standards of acceptance and testing than what Copernicus did. I feel this must be clearly presented to the public.

I do agree with this statement. "But modern science has one foundation -- objective evidence." The heliocentric solar system is rooted in *objective evidence* and specific predictions.

 

[Helio]

Helio, your post #13 to me still mixes apples and oranges. Copernicus made specific predictions that were testable including Mars would be closer to Earth at opposition than the distance between Earth and the Sun. Tycho Brahe worked diligently to overthrow Copernicus here looking for Mars parallax at opposition that he was never able to measure. Tycho was confident that Claudius was correct, Mars was always farther away from Earth at opposition than the distance to the Sun.

If tweaked for elliptical orbits, the kinematic structure of Tycho's model has not, surprisingly, been disproved. The differences between a modified Cop model and a modified Tycho model could be made to be zero, IMO. But Tycho's model was deemed absurd (it is) by many especially Galileo, who pushed Cop's model, and Tycho was not alive to defend his. [Then, science was more about fitting things as they appeared rather than applying things like universal gravity, which required Newton to come along.]

I do recall reading something about Tycho's efforts regarding Mars parallax, so maybe you can help me with this. Even if he was wrong as to the importance of what he hoped to find, it would still be interesting to read of his efforts.

Mars oppositions do vary annually, namely its distance and the Sun's distance aren't consistent on an annual basis. Perhaps he was thinking otherwise?

Charles Darwin *warm little* pond using abiogenesis does not have the same standards of prediction as Copernicus presented or the same verification standards. That to me is very obvious and Charles Darwin comments *Though no evidence worth anything has as yet...* still stands as not observed in nature obeying natural law.

Are you suggesting that the problem with abiogenesis is that it is not obeying natural law? Isn't that the point of investigating abiogenesis - to discover what takes place that will advance our knowledge of natural laws?

Also, what natural law demonstrates that abiogenesis can't exist. Restating this, can natural laws be used to falsify abiogenesis? The answer is no else little or no effort would be given it.

The search for abiogenesis is like SETI's search, where we make the unknown knowable rather than remain unknown. There's no guarantee either search will prove fruitful, but science doesn't stop for just a few "ifs and buts".

Biogenesis is observed. The paradigm you are using is very different and has different standards of acceptance and testing than what Copernicus did. I feel this must be clearly presented to the public.

So what fault do you find with my stellar parallax (lack thereof) argument for Copernicus using the absence of evidence line? How is the lack of stellar parallax different for abiogenesis?

 

[rod]

Concerning Tycho and his Mars campaigns, here is a report with pdf, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998JHA....29....1G/abstract

"So what fault do you find with my stellar parallax (lack thereof) argument for Copernicus using the absence of evidence line? How is the lack of stellar parallax different for abiogenesis?"

Stellar parallax had specific math with geometry predicting this would be observable. Unlike abiogenesis, this specific prediction was documented using the telescopes in 1838 and since then, astronomers could calculate this prediction and look for it. The baseline of Earth's orbit around the Sun is also a specific measurement.

Where is the specific prediction or predictions for abiogenesis like the math of stellar parallax calculations? It should be pointed out that stellar parallax uses known natural law *defined by specific math* to make the measurements too. Abiogenesis does not have a specific math model that predicts in a warm little pond for example, how long will it take for the living cell to evolve?

Helio, your example of stellar parallax can be calculated, defined, and *observed* within a short period of time, repeatedly vs. abiogenesis that has not been observed operating in nature since Charles Darwin's letter in 1800s and lacks a specific time interval for verifying abiogenesis at work in nature on Earth today or perhaps somewhere else in the universe.

Helio, you already agreed that abiogenesis cannot be falsified where the stellar parallax can be if not seen and this is true for other predictions of the heliocentric solar system like Tycho Brahe's Mars campaign to refute Copernicus. There is a huge difference here between the *sciences* in my view.

 

[Helio]

Concerning Tycho and his Mars campaigns, here is a report with pdf, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998JHA....29....1G/abstract

Thanks. I found that I do have part of that document, but I'm not able to download it so I just have about a dozen pages, which may be all I need (Pg 29 on, I think).

Stellar parallax had specific math with geometry predicting this would be observable.

That's clearly true today, and it was well known how parallax works. But the problem was that Copernicus had no means whatsoever to demonstrate whether or not stars were so far away that they couldn't demonstrate parallax no mater what was done in his day. He published in 1543, as you know, and it wasn't discovered for almost 300 years (Bessel, 1838, as you mention later).

In his day, it was almost ludicrous to suggest those lights on the celestial sphere were at a distance beyond what could be measured to have parallax for the Copernican model. The maximum allowable distance required is about 300 billion miles to allow a 1 arcminute (human eye resolution) parallax. [This assumes the current value for Earth's orbit, which might be overstated by 2 or 3x.]

You may recall that when Ptolemy was asked why he assumed an inner orbit for Venus (vs. outside the Solar orbit around Earth), he said that God wouldn't waste all that space. Imagine how much more odd it would have seemed to everyone back then to suggest such stellar distances and all that wasted space.

It was a fair argument against Copernicus, IMO. So what I'm saying is that 300 years from now, science could conceivably, like improved telescopes and careful observations, have something that could make that leap to demonstrate abiogenesis as a valid idea, if not hypothesis.

Unlike abiogenesis, this specific prediction was documented using the telescopes in 1838 and since then, astronomers could calculate this prediction and look for it.

Hopefully you see from above that that Copernicus had little reason to hope this would happen since no telescope was even remotely suggested in his day. Tycho, with the use of multiple observers had his best measurements (Mars of course) at 1/2 arcminute. What would be required is something closer to 0.3 arcseconds, about 100x better than the best method known.

Where is the specific prediction or predictions for abiogenesis like the math of stellar parallax calculations? It should be pointed out that stellar parallax uses known natural law *defined by specific math* to make the measurements too. Abiogenesis does not have a specific math model that predicts in a warm little pond for example, how long will it take for the living cell to evolve?

I get that it would be great to have a mathematical (the language of science) approach to abiogenesis, but there is no law that says a certain amount of math is required for a given hypothesis. There is, no doubt, biochemists who can give you lots of mathematical analysis regarding things such as the need for energy flow, which is a match, apparently, between cells and the alkaline vent fluxes.

Helio, your example of stellar parallax can be calculated, defined, and *observed* within a short period of time...

But you know this wasn't true for 300 years. I'm not saying the math for parallax wasn't available back then, indeed they both had it and used it Some probably said it falsified his model, though in a day and age where science wasn't about falsification but rather it was more about applying purpose (teleology) to scientific ideas.

But let's imagine we did have a mathematical equation we could use to observe for abiogenesis itself. But let's also imagine that those observations aren't infinite in scope (pun intended ). 300 years from now, it may be abiogenesis has long been demonstrated as having been a viable idea. Or, it maybe some other things will surface to argue against it more strongly.

..., repeatedly vs. abiogenesis that has not been observed operating in nature since Charles Darwin's letter in 1800s and lacks a specific time interval for verifying abiogenesis at work in nature on Earth today or perhaps somewhere else in the universe.

Darwin is another good example of what I'm saying.

His work was highly respected, all his books (1250 printed in the first edition, IIRC) sold out the first day, much to his surprise. But evolutionists of his day rejected his paradigm because he did not, and could not, demonstrate a biological mechanism to explain how traits are passed. He missed recognizing, or not even seeing, Mendel's results. Darwin also had no math to get to where he needed to go.

But, as with Cop's model, things happened over time that made that which was impossible in his day to advance his model, with Kepler's ellipses added, to finally become mainstream science. Also true for Darwin, of course.

Helio, you already agreed that abiogenesis cannot be falsified...

Well, I was agreeing that not finding life on Mars would not falsify abiogenesis. Whether or not a theory, or hypothesis, or a seemingly great idea, can find acceptance depends on the objective evidence. At some point in the future, we may learn enough to not bother trying to falsify it once we have shipped it off to the town I like to use for such things --Sillyville. Abiogenesis, I doubt, will end up there.

...where the stellar parallax can be if not seen and this is true for other predictions of the heliocentric solar system like Tycho Brahe's Mars campaign to refute Copernicus. There is a huge difference here between the *sciences* in my view.

It should be noted that stellar parallax also supports the Tychonic model, demonstrating that science is more than just the math, but math is the key conversation piece.

 

[rod]

Helio, interesting thinking in your post #17. There are misconceptions in my view. I find this wrong concerning Tycho's solar system model. You said, "It should be noted that stellar parallax also supports the Tychonic model, demonstrating that science is more than just the math, but math is the key conversation piece."

This source disagrees, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018arXiv180203313G/abstract

The report states "The giant stars of the Copernican hypothesis stood in contrast to the more commensurate star sizes found in Brahe’s own hypothesis, a hybrid geocentric (or geo-heliocentric) hypothesis in which the Sun, Moon, and stars circled an immobile Earth, but the planets circled the Sun (Figure 1). Brahe’s hypothesis was observationally and mathematically identical to the Copernican hypothesis insofar as the Sun, Moon, and planets were concerned. However, since the Earth did not move relative to the stars in Brahe’s geocentric hypothesis, there was no expectation of annual parallax, and thus no need for the stars to be distant in order to explain the absence of observable parallax. Brahe had the stars located a bit beyond Saturn. And, since the stars were roughly similar to Saturn in both distance and in their appearance in the night sky, they had to be similar to Saturn in physical size, too. In Brahe’s hypothesis, the sizes of the Earth, Sun, Moon, and planets were commensurate, with the Moon being smallest and the Sun being largest, as opposed to the case in the Copernican hypothesis, where every last star dwarfed Sun, Moon, and planets (see Figure 2).3"

Stellar parallax has a time dependent calculation that abiogenesis converting non-living matter into a living cell does not have, thus the 300 years of not observing the annual parallax is not the same methodology as you indicate in your post for abiogenesis not observed today. From the source I cited, "Brahe’s objection was rooted in the stars. In the heliocentric theory the stars had to be very distant in order to explain why Earth’s annual motion around the Sun produced no corresponding visible annual changes in their appearance—no “annual parallax”. For instance, stars were not seen to grow brighter when Earth happened to move toward them as it journeyed around the Sun, nor were they seen to grow dimmer when it moved away from them. The explanation for this was that the orbit of the Earth was like a point in comparison to the distance to the stars—negligible in size."

Abiogenesis does not have any parallels with the expected annual parallax for how long it takes for abiogenesis to take place to create a living cell. Even though for nearly 300 years no one could directly observe stellar parallax (not until 1838 for the star 61 Cygni), they understood the heliocentric solar system provided an annual parallax change that someday could be measured and thus was repeatable and verifiable over a short time period. This is not the same as open ended time for abiogenesis that is used to claim non-living matter will eventually evolve into a living cell under condition(s). Abiogenesis also has a big problem with water too.

From a source I use, "We need much more than liquid water to survive! In fact, water is an enemy of chemical evolution, because it hydrolyzes the large molecules needed."

In abiogenesis research, what impact does water have in the tests and what are the chemical results or is water shut off in the lab testing? I point this problem out because I do not see the issue clearly defined or presented in many other sources.

 

[Helio]

" Brahe’s hypothesis was observationally and mathematically identical to the Copernican hypothesis insofar as the Sun, Moon, and planets were concerned. However, since the Earth did not move relative to the stars in Brahe’s geocentric hypothesis, there was no expectation of annual parallax, and thus no need for the stars to be distant in order to explain the absence of observable parallax.

Ah, Tycho chose to fix the stars in the Earth's frame. I had forgotten that, but when I said that both Cop's and Tycho's models require modification for accuracy, the stars would need to be in the reference frame of the Sun as well.

This explains why Tycho never seemed to bother with any 6-month (or 3-month) parallax measurements, but used night time hours only. It's likely, IMO, that he did try some stellar parallax measurements just in case he found something. [Perhaps you know of these efforts?] He admitted that the Copernican model was more elegant and, in his opinion, required fewer epicycles. But, the lack of stellar parallax, would go against Cop and would favor his model. Unless, of course, they could somehow grasp the possibility of stars at a minimum of 25 trillion miles away. He also would have likely chosen the bright stars, assuming brightness was a function of distance. This would really eliminate all hope, even using his scaled system that was 20x too low already.

Stellar parallax has a time dependent calculation that abiogenesis converting non-living matter into a living cell does not have, thus the 300 years of not observing the annual parallax is not the same methodology as you indicate in your post for abiogenesis not observed today.

Yes, they could say that if the Earth moves relative to the stars, then parallax is a must even if giant telescopes would be required. Mathematics would not be required only evidence of stellar movement relative to background stars. The math would advance it where we could calculate the distance, but only if the Earth's orbital radius was known.

This, admittedly, seems to be an advantage that we seem not to have for abiogenesis, but I'm not sure if that is true since I'm not a scientist in the mircrobiology field. I am confident that there are some guiding principles, like energy flux, can be used to point the search in the right direction.

My general view, however, is that we can't dismiss the idea the abiogenesis will be demonstrated in the near or distant future.

If we consider the possibility of someday finding clear evidence of life having formed on another planet (Proxima Centauri, though unlikely), what will that say about those that have opposed any possibility for abiogenesis?

From the source I cited, "Brahe’s objection was rooted in the stars. In the heliocentric theory the stars had to be very distant in order to explain why Earth’s annual motion around the Sun produced no corresponding visible annual changes in their appearance—no “annual parallax”. For instance, stars were not seen to grow brighter when Earth happened to move toward them as it journeyed around the Sun, nor were they seen to grow dimmer when it moved away from them. The explanation for this was that the orbit of the Earth was like a point in comparison to the distance to the stars—negligible in size."

Thanks for that quote. It goes to my point that stars needed to be much closer to fit the worldview of those days.

Abiogenesis does not have any parallels with the expected annual parallax for how long it takes for abiogenesis to take place to create a living cell.

The reason, IMO, is that abiogenesis is a proto-hypothesis. It's a very reasonable idea that lacks a hard and rigorous hypothesis.

So perhaps we use the Aristotle model instead. He offered a crude model since he was convinced the Earth was a sphere and worked outward from there, and it matched the appearances, but simple observations showed his circular with equal revolving rates failed, hence Ptolemy tried to fix it. Though it was testable, it needed a lot of attention and tweaks, which is my point that time changes scientific models or proto-models.

It always comes down to observations (objective evidence) that improves an idea that might, or might not, become a formal hypothesis. It's unfair, IMO, to expect anything rigorous at this point. Not having things like parallax in our system's modeling is not a fair analogy.

Science, in general, needs to observe patterns before producing any hypothesis. The planetary motions presented obvious patterns. Abiogenesis is a nascent hypothesis because the patterns we see (DNA, RNA, etc.) don't directly point to the kind of pattern that would make abiogenesis a formal, thus testable, hypothesis.

 

[rod]

Helio, some interesting points you made in post #19. Here is one source I used in our discussion, 'Scientists Are “CLUELESS” About Origins of Life, Says Top Chemist and Nanotechnologist', https://thenewamerican.com/scientis...f-life-says-top-chemist-and-nanotechnologist/, Dec-2020.

The article reported ""The professor elaborated on the implausibility of current origin-of-life theory in March, writing: While organisms exploit chemistry for their own ends, chemicals have never been seen to assemble themselves into an organism. Origin-of-life research keeps attempting to make the chemicals needed for life, and then to have those assemble toward something to which they are inherently indifferent. But try as they might, without preexisting life no researchers have ever seen molecules assemble into a living cell, or anything even remotely resembling a living cell..."

I agree with this and Charles Darwin did not see life evolve from inorganic matter in a warm little pond either in his letters. The report also commented "Reporting on the story, the College Fix writes that students “across America are taught an origin of life story that goes a little something like this: billions of years ago, energy from the sun, lightning, and Earth’s heat combined with the planet’s early atmosphere of hydrogen, methane and other gases, creating chemical reactions that formed molecules in a primordial soup that eventually produced a cell, in other words, life.”

Direct observations of abiogenesis on Earth today do not seem possible (primitive, early earth conditions some 4 billion years ago apparently required) but stellar parallax observations can be seen in the present world. Copernicus and Tycho Brahe clearly understood this (stellar parallax could be seen in the present, not something restricted to immense ages ago and special early earth conditions), so did others in the debate between geocentric solar system and heliocentric solar system teachers.

 

[Helio]

Helio, some interesting points you made in post #19. Here is one source I used in our discussion, 'Scientists Are “CLUELESS” About Origins of Life, Says Top Chemist and Nanotechnologist', https://thenewamerican.com/scientis...f-life-says-top-chemist-and-nanotechnologist/, Dec-2020.

I doubt he knows all scientists well-enough to be sure of that accusation, but it's clear nothing, I assume, has been presented to say he is wrong. Assuming they are clueless isn't the same as claiming they are. Perhaps one or more of thousands of scientists is on the right trail now, but is unsure at this point if they are or not.

Perhaps SETI offers the better analogy since the Drake equation isn't the normal math required. Some have argued it's not a formal equation after all since it is just giving the areas for guessing.

SETI may be, only now, getting close to tweaking their research, but until they find something they won't be sure.

The article reported ""The professor elaborated on the implausibility of current origin-of-life theory in March, writing: While organisms exploit chemistry for their own ends, chemicals have never been seen to assemble themselves into an organism. Origin-of-life research keeps attempting to make the chemicals needed for life, and then to have those assemble toward something to which they are inherently indifferent. But try as they might, without preexisting life no researchers have ever seen molecules assemble into a living cell, or anything even remotely resembling a living cell..."

Right, and similarly, we have no broadcasts from other exoplanets... for now.

I'm not understanding where you want to go with this? If you are only arguing that we shouldn't give abiogenesis much hope since it lacks formal scientific structure, along with math, then you are making a subjective argument. It then becomes a matter of degree as to what level of hope one wishes to give abiogenesis. You aren't really that wrong to suggest it has little hope, but only because that is an opinion. Others who have greater hope, on the other hand, aren't wrong either.

It's a work in progress - a proto-hypothesis, perhaps. I haven't seen anything in any field, including philosophy and religion, that makes great arguments against abiogenesis. There is no math that can falsify this idea. [If there is it would be big news.] Also, evolution isn't anathema to most people's faith.

I agree with this and Charles Darwin did not see life evolve from inorganic matter in a warm little pond either in his letters. The report also commented "Reporting on the story, the College Fix writes that students “across America are taught an origin of life story that goes a little something like this: billions of years ago, energy from the sun, lightning, and Earth’s heat combined with the planet’s early atmosphere of hydrogen, methane and other gases, creating chemical reactions that formed molecules in a primordial soup that eventually produced a cell, in other words, life.”

Yeah, that's not the way I would put it, nor you, but worldviews weigh heavy in today's textbooks, unfortunately. They may be right, but why not suggest they aren't, at least. Probably some authors do.

Heck, I'm just hoping they will get the Sun's color right for a change. [There has been great progress with this, actually, and more through osmosis than my rants.]

Direct observations of abiogenesis on Earth today do not seem possible (primitive, early earth conditions some 4 billion years ago apparently required) but stellar parallax observations can be seen in the present world. Copernicus and Tycho Brahe clearly understood this (stellar parallax could be seen in the present, not something restricted to immense ages ago and special early earth conditions), so did others in the debate between geocentric solar system and heliocentric solar system teachers.

Labs, however, can simulate all those conditions, if they are determined, right? It's not astronomy with nearly ageless objects bobbing about. The math is quite simple (trig) for these models, but not all developing science comes with simple or hard math, which is why they can be called "developing".

 

[rod]

Helio in post #21 said "Labs, however, can simulate all those conditions, if they are determined, right?" The point of the article I cited shows this has not happened at this time so *developing* according to your comments, definitely not confirmed or observed operating in nature today. However, stellar parallax does not need this (lab simulations projecting past conditions billions of years ago). Stellar parallax can be verified and validated in the natural world today and has been repeatedly since 1838. Even the stellar parallax of 61 Cygni, first determined in 1838 was revisited and measured again recently, 'Resolving long-standing mysteries about the first parallaxes in astronomy', https://phys.org/news/2020-11-long-standing-mysteries-parallaxes-astronomy.html

So far the lab simulations for abiogenesis lack this standard of verification using the natural world vs. the simulation.

 

[Helio]

The point of the article I cited shows this has not happened at this time so *developing* according to your comments, definitely not confirmed or observed operating in nature today. d of verification using the natural world vs. the simulation.

Right, "developing" means it isn't developed but is in the process towards becoming developed, though with no guarantee it will become developed. In this case, the end result will be far more substantial in "necessary demonstration" than say a Theia impact hypothesis. Indeed, if life can be actually demonstrated to come from any sort of chemicals and special environment, abiogenesis will be a fact. The real hypothesis will be what really happened once we know it can happen. [This is another reason why I discount the idea that abiogenesis is a formal hypothesis.]

The parallax analogy isn't a fair one, which is why I favor a SETI-type analogy.

 

[KC Strom]

So, what then makes Abiogenesis any more plausible than the other potential sources of life that are being kicked around?

 

[Helio]

So, what then makes Abiogenesis any more plausible than the other potential sources of life that are being kicked around?

I assume you mean other sources to be life that arrived from elsewhere (e.g. Mars; panspermia). But at some point we will be back to just two reasonable possibilities: abiogenesis or divine intervention. Or is there another reasonable option?

Several centuries ago abiogenesis would have been laughable (shipped off to Sillyville). Evolution teaches simple things can indeed advance into more and more complex life forms, in spite of things like entropy. Thus, if you rewind time, what happens?

When Lemaitre realized that GR (General Relativity) presented an expanding universe -- solving the problems both Einstein and deSitter were having with their models -- it was only logical to look at the expansion over time then simply reverse the clock to see what physics says. Hence came the "primeval atom", now called the Big Bang.

Similarly, if we rewind the clock to what may have been the first living things, then rewind it a little further, we will have the Big Bang of biology - abiogenesis (or divinity).