Bad space weather may make life impossible near Proxima Centauri

[rod]

Helio's thinking in post #25 is interesting. I note "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)."

The Precambrian fossils indicate communities of living things that were buried, often rapidly, *not a record of a single, first cell that continued to evolve into all life from non-living matter in a prebiotic soup*. There is no single, fossil record containing the common ancestor of all life - something that should be clearly presented to the public and is not in post #25. Likewise the Precambrian has microbe fossils preserved and reported, some dated more than 4 billion years old using radiometric methods. Stromatolites are found, and seaweeds reported to be one billion years old. All of these communities I mention that are found in the Precambrian strata are also found today on Earth thus living fossils showing no macro evolutionary transformation. The fossil record has many areas of living communities that were rapidly buried, e.g. Cambrian explosion fossils or the extensive record of plants and trees, something that Charles Darwin acknowledged as problem for his theory. I use other sources that document all of this but the GRAPES policy for this site would be violated if I posted the specifics so I do not.---Rod

 

[KC Strom]

Thank you for the replies. Essentially I am just fishing a bit (perhaps baiting). I was waiting for a comment that Abiogenesis is favored over divinity because it "fits better" with the scientific method. Like many I am just pursuing understanding of our universe and humanity's place within it. Getting my arms around potential bias is helpful to me. I have no axe to grind or pre-determined answers.

 

[Helio]

We probably should request a moderator to bump abiogenesis off Proxima Centauri and move it to an Earth thread.

...*not a record of a single, first cell that continued to evolve into all life from non-living matter in a prebiotic soup*.

So how many of those cells would become fossilized in this early environment and where do we look when only a few rocks on Earth are that old, due to plate tectonics, erosion, etc.? I don't know the answer but it would be too small a fraction to want to type. Again, AEEA (Absence of evidence, isn't evidence of absence).

Using a SETI analogy, we have over 4000 exoplanets, out of trillions, so why aren't any talking to us. Even if there are 4000 fossils of the original living organisms left out of trillions that multiplied, they will not only be hard to find but they may no longer have survived 4 billion years of things like impact, volcanos, erosion, plate tectonics taking them down into magma, etc.

The Fermi Paradox makes more sense than no evidence of the a 4 billion year old super tiny fossil.

The fossil record has many areas of living communities that were rapidly buried, e.g. Cambrian explosion fossils or the extensive record of plants and trees, something that Charles Darwin acknowledged as problem for his theory.

Yes, because fossils were extra rare in his day and they were understood that well. Smith didn't help establish the association of fossils with sedimentary layers (ie age) until just before Darwin's day.

I use other sources that document all of this but the GRAPES policy for this site would be violated if I posted the specifics so I do not.---Rod

If it's scientific (objective) and testable, is it a violation?

 

[Helio]

Thank you for the replies. Essentially I am just fishing a bit (perhaps baiting). I was waiting for a comment that Abiogenesis is favored over divinity because it "fits better" with the scientific method.

Right. I spend more time in this forum than I should, perhaps, partly because I want to defend the scientific method from the whims of philosophy, religious influences, but also from those who want to use science in ways that counter it's true purpose and limits. Science is objective-based, thus it is great and weak at the same time.

I believe most science supports all true religious claims. Since science is self-correcting (its strength) and makes wrong turns, but it can't be seen as any absolute (it's weakness). Religion and perhaps areas of philosophy can address absolutes (their strength) but they can't dismiss science when a scientific claim counters one of theirs. Sometimes new, or old, interpretations are suddenly enhanced by scientific discovery.

Abiogenesis is another one of those examples where philosophy or religion are needed to help address our lack of objective evidence. But the SM isn't completely irrelevant here as microbiology, physics, and other disciplines can help define what to look for, or perhaps it is better stated that science can help us to not waste time looking for certain things regarding abiogenesis, as there is an endless number of wrong directions.

 

[rod]

FYI. Here is what I see in these 30 posts. Using the scientific method (SM):

1. No abiogenesis has been documented taking place in nature or presently in lab experiments where non-living matter evolves into life. Charles Darwin letter acknowledged this in his time concerning inorganic matter evolving into life (not observed), still the same today.

2. Precambrian fossils are now well documented and examples are found living today - and no change. Here is an example from a source I use citing a report from March 2017. ["Recently, evolutionists discovered “microfossils up to almost 4.3 billion years old” in Canada.1 Their article states: “It shows that some microbes have not changed significantly” since Earth’s early times, Papineau said. Earth formed about 4.5 billion years ago and the oceans appeared about 4.4 billion years ago. If the fossils are indeed 4.28 billion years old, that would suggest “an almost instantaneous emergence of life” after ocean formation, Dodd said.1 It is significant that these fossil microbes apparently didn’t change after four billion years—but evolution implies many, many changes over millions of years. If evolution involves substantial change, then why are these ancient microfossils so similar to modern microbes?]

We see no indication that the microbes evolved from a single common ancestor and the researcher said , "If the fossils are indeed 4.28 billion years old, that would suggest “an almost instantaneous emergence of life” after ocean formation, Dodd said.1" The report shows the fossils appear suddenly and abruptly.

3. Using 4,000 exoplanets or trillions and trillions of exoplanets does not show life evolved on any via abiogenesis or presently any exoplanets have life on them. Presently we do not see this in nature.

Here is my view on much of what is said in this discussion. Charles Darwin letter(s) are driving the interpretations, not the scientific method. Does this indicate a bias view? Yes in my opinion. At present, we simply do not observe abiogenesis operating in nature today and we do not see a single, common ancestor in the Precambrian but many communities of life that appear suddenly and do not change over time, various examples still living today.

 

[KC Strom]

Thank you for the thoughtful responses. So now, I guess, we (I) wait. Wait for evidence. That said, I'm beginning to think it took combined efforts to to bring life along. Gut feel.

 

[Helio]

FYI. Here is what I see in these 30 posts. Using the scientific method (SM):

1. No abiogenesis has been documented taking place in nature or presently in lab experiments where non-living matter evolves into life. Charles Darwin letter acknowledged this in his time concerning inorganic matter evolving into life (not observed), still the same today.

I think his argument came after Spencer's book that advocated for abiogenesis. Their views were considered opinions and, as in philosophy and religion, can only receive the help, and hurt, from the SM when claims within the idea or opinion can be tested objectively. Sometimes a great deal of work (science) must be conducted to warrant such testing.

AEEA. The absence of evidence is not, in this case, evidence for absence. This is true partly because if, on occasion, today new microscopic life forms, it will be consumed immediately. This was Darwin's view (Feb 1, 1871) and I suspect it still applies.

I think we agree that abiogenesis itself (event) is more a belief than hard science. There is science in the background working to make a specific, and working, model, but we would all hear about it, I assume, if that day ever happens. Much like SETI getting a clear signal from Proxima wherever, if that day ever comes.

If the fossils are indeed 4.28 billion years old, that would suggest “an almost instantaneous emergence of life” after ocean formation, Dodd said.1 It is significant that these fossil microbes apparently didn’t change after four billion years—but evolution implies many, many changes over millions of years. If evolution involves substantial change, then why are these ancient microfossils so similar to modern microbes?]

But does evolution, which certainly sees change, always require "substantial change"? If not, IMO, then this is merely circumstantial evidence, not worthless but not condemning neither.

The report shows the fossils appear suddenly and abruptly.

Yes, but aren't such things considered quite rare? IOW, sudden and abrupt changes aren't any requirement for or against abiogenesis, right?

Using 4,000 exoplanets or trillions and trillions of exoplanets does not show life evolved on any via abiogenesis or presently any exoplanets have life on them. Presently we do not see this in nature.

This is misleading. It's not that it demonstrates no abiogenesis, but rather not obvious and easy-to-observe evidence for life. We can barely see any of those 4000 and we expect trillions and trillions more, some may have life, all may have none. But AEEA applies here. We've only just begun.

As I mentioned, 25 or so years ago we had no, not one tiny spec, of objective evidence there were any planets beyond Pluto. We did have strong opinions which inspired those first discoveries. Some likely said there were none, but how silly do they look now?

People had looked for a planet beyond Uranus, but with no luck.

But AEEA. When Leverrier at the Paris observatory advanced the complicated math of Laplace in orbital calculations for Uranus, he told his director that the other planet causing the perturbations would be about 5 degrees in a certain direction from Uranus.

Guess what happened? Nothing! [Hard to imagine.] For whatever reason his observatory wouldn't look, Leverrier had to ask a German astronomer, who wasn't even his friend, to look. Neptune was discovered the first night he (Galle) and his assistant looked. [Leverrier later became the director, but he wasn't a very nice guy, apparently, which may have explained some of the resistance to look.]

Here is my view on much of what is said in this discussion. Charles Darwin letter(s) are driving the interpretations, not the scientific method. Does this indicate a bias view? Yes in my opinion.

I just don't suspect Darwin's view on abiogenesis, in response to other contemporary evolutionists, is having any driving influence on the science that is developing in the direction abiogenesis should go. I'm not saying they will ever get there, but relying on serendipity likely won't do it, though it could, I suppose.

At present, we simply do not observe abiogenesis operating in nature today and we do not see a single, common ancestor in the Precambrian but many communities of life that appear suddenly and do not change over time, various examples still living today.

Agreed, those are important observations, but they don't carry much water that would put out the fire to discover abiogenesis, if it's there.

In my view, philosophy and religion will never have much of a role to play in affecting science (ie SM). It may have a big role to play with scientists. It's interesting how many Noble prizes have been given to citizens of Israel vs. most other countries. I don't know it this is a fair example, but it's no less interesting.

 

[Catastrophe]

"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. "

"simply reverse the clock" accentuation is mine.

It is totally unscientific to "reverse the clock" like this. Vide the necessity to introduce inflation.

There is no scientific reason whatsoever to assume that regression is linear. Just as likely (or more likely) is the idea that regression is not linear or at least partially tangential. This could mean that the (possibly non existent) BB is relegated to an infinite time ago.

Cat

 

[Helio]

[Cat. You may want to move this post to the even longer pome I did. I will try and make them short but it’s hard sometimes to do so.]