Meteorites and volcanoes may have helped jump-start life on Earth

[Pogo]

There are many facets in astronomy that once we find one, we find many very quickly. Once upon a time, we knew that some star systems were made up of multiple stars, then later we found that most star systems are multiples. We theorized the existence of brown dwarf bodies, then we found many in a short time, even creating a number of categories. We found Pluto in 1930, thought it was a planet, then demoted it when we found many KB objects. Since the discovery of the first exoplanet, the cataloged number has exploded. It’ll likely take some time, but once we recognize some body that we prove to contain some forms of life, the number of life harboring bodies just may explode (the number, not the bodies). We just need to Figure out what they look like from here.

 

[rod]

There are many facets in astronomy that once we find one, we find many very quickly. Once upon a time, we knew that some star systems were made up of multiple stars, then later we found that most star systems are multiples. We theorized the existence of brown dwarf bodies, then we found many in a short time, even creating a number of categories. We found Pluto in 1930, thought it was a planet, then demoted it when we found many KB objects. Since the discovery of the first exoplanet, the cataloged number has exploded. It’ll likely take some time, but once we recognize some body that we prove to contain some forms of life, the number of life harboring bodies just may explode (the number, not the bodies). We just need to Figure out what they look like from here.

My observation Pogo. The science of how Pluto was found or demoting it because of KBOs, defining brown dwarfs, defining binary and multiple star systems or defining exoplanets that use planetary laws (Kepler for example) to explain what we see, is not the same type of science as abiogenesis. Do we see in nature an abiogenesis law operating in nature today like we see for Kepler laws and Newton gravity using exoplanets? Abiogenesis was established by Charles Darwin in 1882 the warm little pond to create a single, living cell from non-living matter (and used by NASA astrobiology today). As you stated, "It’ll likely take some time". My observation. Abiogenesis has been advocated as science since at least 1882 by Charles Darwin and adopted throughout biology and astrobiology today with various modifications. Some examples I show in this forum discussion. IMO, this is not the same science methodology as defining brown dwarf masses or sizes, defining how we found Pluto, deciding to *demote it* or how exoplanets are defined today and measured using natural laws to show their orbits or explain how they may have formed.

 

[Harry Costas]

The building blocks of elements are formed within the Sun.
Either through Fusion or Fission or by Photodisintegration.
Once these elements are ejected from the Sun, they will do their thing.

One of those things is life on Earth.

 

[rod]

The building blocks of elements are formed within the Sun.
Either through Fusion or Fission or by Photodisintegration.
Once these elements are ejected from the Sun, they will do their thing.

One of those things is life on Earth.

IMO, this works only if there is a *law of abiogenesis defined in science* like the laws used to show fusion, fission, or photodisintegration operating in nature. There is no law of abiogenesis documented that I am aware of.

 

[rod]

FYI, I use this website for studies of Charles Darwin warm little pond. https://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/

There are letters from 1871 showing the warm little pond and some from 1882 where Charles Darwin thought someday, science would define a general law of nature for abiogenesis. As far as I know, there is no law of abiogenesis defined today in science, even with all the efforts since 1882.

"...If it is ever found that life can originate on this world, the vital phenomena will come under some general law of nature— Whether the existence of a conscious God can be proved from the existence of the so-called laws of nature (i.e. fixed sequence of events) is a perplexing subject, on which I have often thought, but cannot see my way clearly— If you have not read W. Graham’s “Creed of Science” it would I think interest you, & he supports the view which you are inclined to uphold.—6", https://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/letter/DCP-LETT-13711.xml, 28-Feb-1882.

 

[Pogo]

My observation Pogo. The science of how Pluto was found or demoting it because of KBOs, defining brown dwarfs, defining binary and multiple star systems or defining exoplanets that use planetary laws (Kepler for example) to explain what we see, is not the same type of science as abiogenesis. Do we see in nature an abiogenesis law operating in nature today like we see for Kepler laws and Newton gravity using exoplanets? Abiogenesis was established by Charles Darwin in 1882 the warm little pond to create a single, living cell from non-living matter (and used by NASA astrobiology today). As you stated, "It’ll likely take some time". My observation. Abiogenesis has been advocated as science since at least 1882 by Charles Darwin and adopted throughout biology and astrobiology today with various modifications. Some examples I show in this forum discussion. IMO, this is not the same science methodology as defining brown dwarf masses or sizes, defining how we found Pluto, deciding to *demote it* or how exoplanets are defined today and measured using natural laws to show their orbits or explain how they may have formed.

I wasn’t comparing Pluto or any of the other points to biogenesis or abiogenesis, I was just noting that many discoveries in astronomy (even Other sciences for that matter), begin with one and quickly expand to many in short order once we know what to look for.

 

[Atlan0001]

Science fiction often imagines intelligent creatures evolving into beings of pure energy. Well, mind-wise, we are already there, as Stephen Hawking liked to put things. But so is the lowest forms of life that mesh with and into quantum mechanics on the one hand and within us, particularly mind-wise -- well some of us -- on the other.

We are spatial creatures, creatures of space, spatially minded. The Earth was never big enough for us. Alone, it was never enough for such energies as life possesses and would expand into. Only the universes are big enough. Only the universes were ever big enough right from the local start billions of years ago. Earth being just a stepping-stone not only up and out but in parallel process down and in (quantum mechanically).

As Michio Kaku said, we humans may have increased in numbers 1,000,000-fold over the last two-million years, but we have increased in energy 2,000,000-fold average per every man, woman, and child living on Earth over the last two-million years (more than a million-fold of that increase in just the last 80 years). A translation of what we are to what we were two million years ago, multiply 8,000,000,000 people times 2,000,000-fold and you may get a most simplistic idea of where we stand regarding the Earth alone. You may get an idea, too, of why Earth alone was never going to be enough for life (its energies, survival and prosperity) right from the beginning.

 

[rod]

I wasn’t comparing Pluto or any of the other points to biogenesis or abiogenesis, I was just noting that many discoveries in astronomy (even Other sciences for that matter), begin with one and quickly expand to many in short order once we know what to look for.

Okay Pogo, I understand your position and thanks for clarifying. My point is that these *short order* discoveries followed science that used well defined laws and many repeatable observations of nature *in the present*. Charles Darwin in my post #30 quote (1882) looked for a general law of nature that would describe and predict abiogenesis of life from non-living matter. Such a law in science is not defined today so the abiogenesis field is wide open, thus some look at life evolving in stars, others look to gas clouds with COMs that evolve into life later on some planet that evolves from the gas or meteorites or asteroids, etc. That is said to be science but clearly is unconstrained compared to what gave rise to other discoveries like brown dwarfs for example or exoplanet orbits. This distinction I feel should be clearly presented to the public concerning origin of life studies rooted and founded in abiogenesis.

 

[rod]

Science fiction often imagines intelligent creatures evolving into beings of pure energy. Well, mind-wise, we are already there, as Stephen Hawking liked to put things. But so is the lowest forms of life that mesh with and into quantum mechanics on the one hand and within us, particularly mind-wise -- well some of us -- on the other.

We are spatial creatures, creatures of space, spatially minded. The Earth was never big enough for us. Alone, it was never enough for such energies as life possesses and would expand into. Only the universes are big enough. Only the universes were ever big enough right from the local start billions of years ago. Earth being just a stepping-stone not only up and out but in parallel process down and in (quantum mechanically).

As Michio Kaku said, we humans may have increased in numbers 1,000,000-fold over the last two-million years, but we have increased in energy 2,000,000-fold average per every man, woman, and child living on Earth over the last two-million years (more than a million-fold of that increase in just the last 80 years). A translation of what we are to what we were two million years ago, multiply 8,000,000,000 people times 2,000,000-fold and you may get a most simplistic idea of where we stand regarding the Earth alone. You may get an idea, too, of why Earth alone was never going to be enough for life (its energies, survival and prosperity) right from the beginning.

Atlan0101, perhaps someone will come up with a general law of nature that describes abiogenesis and how life evolves from non-living matter, in a variety of conditions (including not beeing seen operating today in nature) and perhaps inside a star as some reports indicate . Charles Darwin looked for that general law of nature in 1882 but did not find it.

 

[billslugg]

Bear in mind that abiogenesis had to have happened somewhere at least. It may have happened on Earth or Earth may have been seeded. But life had to have originated somewhere. Intelligent creator won't fit because how was the Creator created?

 

[Harry Costas]

Hello Billslugg
What you say is logical.
Like I said before.
Amino Acids the building blocks of DNA are found naturally in the universe.
They have a property where they are able to join and colonize.

Give them a few million years and possible primitive kind of life.
Chemosynthesis is a probable start.

 

[rod]

Bear in mind that abiogenesis had to have happened somewhere at least. It may have happened on Earth or Earth may have been seeded. But life had to have originated somewhere. Intelligent creator won't fit because how was the Creator created?

billslugg, looks like the same struggle Charles Darwin expressed in his letters I showed. There is no general law of nature that describes abiogenesis thus it does not have to take place at all unlike gravity between the Earth and Moon system or an apple falling from a tree to the ground. Asking how an intelligent creator was created sounds like good science but this can be turned around. This is like asking how energy was created when the 1st law states it cannot be created or destroyed. Neither question provides a general law of nature for abiogenesis to take place. Charles Darwin was looking for that, IMO his approach was scientific on his part vs. discussions about how a creator was created thus the only alternative is we must assume abiogenesis is true in nature. Charles Darwin apparently wanted to see a general law of nature that describes how life can evolve from non-living matter to place abiogenesis on solid science ground like Newton's laws of motion or gravity. That has not happened to date in science.

 

[rod]

Hello Billslugg
What you say is logical.
Like I said before.
Amino Acids the building blocks of DNA are found naturally in the universe.
They have a property where they are able to join and colonize.

Give them a few million years and possible primitive kind of life.
Chemosynthesis is a probable start.

If chemosynthesis is assumed, this must now form the general law of nature for abiogenesis that Charles Darwin was looking and hoping for in his letters. Do you have that law of nature for abiogenesis published? We have many books on Newton's laws of motion, looking for this general law of nature for abiogenesis to convert non-living matter into a living cell that can reproduce, grow, and evolve.

 

[rod]

I looked up chemosynthesis using MS BING. "the synthesis of organic compounds by bacteria or other living organisms using energy derived from reactions involving inorganic chemicals, typically in the absence of sunlight. Compare with photosynthesis"

Chemosynthesis is not a general law of nature that describes abiogenesis.

 

[billslugg]

We know for a fact that abiogenesis has occurred or we would not be here discussing it. The only question that remains is exactly how did it occur.

 

[rod]

We know for a fact that abiogenesis has occurred or we would not be here discussing it. The only question that remains is exactly how did it occur.

billslugg, that is very interesting how abiogenesis is a *fact* that took place. I read some of Charles Darwin letters and did not find such assertions in his writings Here are some things I recently learned.

Darwin Correspondence Project

Read and search the full texts of more than 12,000 of Charles Darwin’s letters, and find information on 3,000 more. Discover complete transcripts of all known letters Darwin wrote and received up to the year 1878.

www.darwinproject.ac.uk

My note Charles Darwin hoped that someday evidence would be shown for life evolving from non-living matter but in his time, none was known that was *worth anything* and the *law of continuity* would provide this, also a general law of nature for abiogenesis. None of this in science is proven at present. There is no general law of abiogenesis seen operating in nature. So, here is a summary of four points in these letters that I learned. 1. A warm little pond is postulated for the origin of life on Earth but Charles Darwin thought if abiogenesis operating in a warm little pond in his time, perhaps such life evolving from non-living matter would be quickly destroyed by existing life and eaten. 2. No good evidence for abiogenesis taking place in Charles Darwin time seen in nature. 3. The law of continuity is needed for abiogenesis to work apparently, and 4. Someday a general law of nature developed to describe and show abiogenesis like other laws of nature, for example the laws of motion or law of gravity. Apparently all four I list here are missing in science today, even with natural law operating in nature in a uniform manner, i.e., *law of continuity*. When I consider point #1, it is good IMO to avoid catastrophism that wipes out abiogenesis creating life from non-living matter at the very beginning otherwise many abiogenesis events must be envisioned to replace the earlier efforts that failed. These are four points I learned by reading some of Charles Darwin letters on the warm little pond and origin of life on Earth.

ref - https://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/letter/?docId=letters/DCP-LETT-7471.xml&query=warm little pond#hit.rank2

ref - https://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/let...711.xml&query=general law of nature#hit.rank1

 

[Atlan0001]

"Intelligent creator won't fit because how was the Creator created?" What was it Winston Churchill said about enigmas within paradoxes, or something like that?

Anyway a matter of the philosophy of physics:

In that old movie 'The Ten Commandments' the 'Voice' tells Moses (Charlton Heston) "I Am" (essentially "I Am" what "I Am" (so don't play Me, you won't like the job))! Therefore 'what', not necessarily 'who'. Charlton Heston (er, Moses) could -- just barely possibly -- have been communing with the universe, the cosmos, the Cosmic All as a distinct form of life, a base fundamental form, on an infinite (infinitesimal) / infinitesimal (infinite) scale, therefore a ["Creator" Life] since it reproduces itself brand spanking new and old as the hills (so to speak), instant to instant, moment to moment, eternity in a 0-point (portal) of time (an isolated solitary . . . THE 'Soliton' of solitons).... for all we know. Again, Schrodinger as Bill said elsewhere, "It is and it isn't at the same time."
----------------------------------

("Yesterday upon the stair I met a man who wasn't there. He wasn't there again today. Oh, how I wish he would go away..." 'Antigonish' by William Mearns (anti . . . gone (like "antimatter" being "anti-gone" (which I insist upon)); just in case someone didn't get it)).

 

[Harry Costas]

Abiogenesis
Two Greek words
From Birth

 

[Torbjorn Larsson]

i doubt we are going to make significant progress on resolving this mystery until we have had the opportunity to thoroughly explore Mars and maybe a gas giant's moon for the presence of life forms.

Using biology instead of biochemistry helps - phylogenetic trees place the split between geology and biology in deep ocean hydrothermal vents,