Stars with superpowered magnetic fields could narrow the search for alien life

[billslugg]

At the upper end, 6e26 ions/s, would be 1,000 moles per second of the atmosphere. Roughly 15 kg/s. Mass of atmosphere is 5.5 quadrillion tons, or 5.5e15 tons, or 5.5e18 kg.
To lose our entire atmosphere would require 12 billion years.

 

[rod]

Some interesting discussion on exoplanets orbiting stars that may have strong stellar winds and cause problems for their atmospheres, and by extension - abiogenesis taking place on those exoplanets (something not observed or confirmed) and perhaps life evolving on those exoplanets going deep underground to continue their natural evolution into some other type of lifeform. I post these notes from Charles Darwin 1871 and 1882 letters. I read those and apply to abiogenesis doctrine today and how abiogenesis moved from Earth to the exoplanets far away.

| Darwin Correspondence Project

www.darwinproject.ac.uk

| Darwin Correspondence Project

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.

Some of the discussion posted about life evolving on exoplanets could be true, if a general law of nature for abiogenesis was defined and confirmed like Charles Darwin wanted or hoped to see. So as a reminder, since 1882, this general law of nature for abiogenesis remains to be published and validated. IMO, the topic of abiogenesis in our solar system or exoplanets, remains speculation.

 

[Helio]

Abiogenesis is taken as axiomatic. Life is observed to be chemicals that behave in specific processes that yield productive results at the expense of energy sources. It’s not too hard to assume, rightly or not, that certain things had to be just right to trigger life.

Abiogenesis was not necessary for Darwin’s theory as his Origins was of species, not life. The pond view is more poetry than science. His grandfather, Erasmus, wrote a short poem of evolution mentioning life from water.

I consider abiogenesis, unless discovered, much like I see the events in BBT at t= 0, meaning science can’t address either of these with any clarity. And neither of these are part of the theories others which them to be.

 

[billslugg]

The way I look at it, abiogensis had to have happened somewhere or we would not be here. The Earth is just as likely as anywhere else. If you don't believe in Earthly abiogenesis then you have to believe in panspermia. In that area there are some new chemicals showing up out there but so far, no living cells.
Abiogenesis or Panspermia, two peas in a pod. Take your pick. Take both if you want. No reason both could not have happened. This would account for California.

 

[rod]

Abiogenesis is taken as axiomatic. Life is observed to be chemicals that behave in specific processes that yield productive results at the expense of energy sources. It’s not too hard to assume, rightly or not, that certain things had to be just right to trigger life.

Abiogenesis was not necessary for Darwin’s theory as his Origins was of species, not life. The pond view is more poetry than science. His grandfather, Erasmus, wrote a short poem of evolution mentioning life from water.

I consider abiogenesis, unless discovered, much like I see the events in BBT at t= 0, meaning science can’t address either of these with any clarity. And neither of these are part of the theories others which them to be.

Helio, some interesting comments here. Nature shows life comes from life as Louis Pasteur demonstrated. What you said about abiogenesis "...meaning science can’t address either of these with any clarity."

The references I provided to Charles Darwin warm little pond in his 1871 letter shows effort was underway to show how life evolves naturally from non-living matter, but no progress had been made.

"...But if (& oh what a big if) we could conceive in some warm little pond with all sorts of ammonia & phosphoric salts,—light, heat, electricity &c present, that a protein compound was chemically formed, ready to undergo still more complex changes, at the present day such matter wd be instantly devoured, or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed.— Henrietta makes hardly any progress, & God knows when she will be well."

We have this situation in 1871 for abiogenesis, and today, the abiogenesis axiom is extended to other planets too while clarity remains to be presented.

 

[Helio]

The way I look at it, abiogensis had to have happened somewhere or we would not be here.

Doesn't this make it axiomatic? [I've always felt shaky with this term.]

Abiogenesis or Panspermia, two peas in a pod. Take your pick. Take both if you want. No reason both could not have happened. This would account for California.

Panspermia simply makes abiogenesis an extraterrestrial event, likely in our solar system. This would allow, perhaps, more cosmic rays, etc. that Earth may not have had at the right time. But Earth seems more favorable, IMO, to the birth place for lots of reasons, yet until abiogenesis can be understood, then it's hard to say.

 

[Helio]

Nature shows life comes from life as Louis Pasteur demonstrated. What you said about abiogenesis "...meaning science can’t address either of these with any clarity."

Yes. It's like saying a snowball grows as it rolls down the hill, but not mentioning what caused it to roll in the first place. The rolling action is different than the initial impulse action. Each must be taken separately until it can be well-defined in order to put them together. We don't have any solid hypothesis for abiogenesis, which means a model we can test in the lab. But we see, obviously, the rolling action of snowball life.

The references I provided to Charles Darwin warm little pond in his 1871 letter shows effort was underway to show how life evolves naturally from non-living matter, but no progress had been made.

I still suspect this is more about poetry than science since he never, AFAIK, hinted he had any idea what came out of the "pond", or that anyone had any idea. Today isn't all that much different, surprisingly, though we now have a great deal more science on processes that will help. [This assumes it wasn't a supernatural event. A natural event seems far more credible than otherwise, but science (so far) can't rule it out, though, once again, we must consider that initial "impulse" (at t=0) that established all the forces and parameters to allow such an event.]

[Added: Since it seems obvious to most that science should be able to discover one or more abiogenesis processes eventually, then philosophy and religion are seen as being on thin ice to argue against this likelihood. One is more logical than the other, which affects how others see the philosophical, or religious, arguments.]

"...But if (& oh what a big if) we could conceive in some warm little pond with all sorts of ammonia & phosphoric salts,—light, heat, electricity &c present, that a protein compound was chemically formed, ready to undergo still more complex changes, at the present day such matter wd be instantly devoured, or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed.— Henrietta makes hardly any progress, & God knows when she will be well."

We have this situation in 1871 for abiogenesis, and today, the abiogenesis axiom is extended to other planets too while clarity remains to be presented.

I'm unclear what your saying here. It's logical to assume new life forms (abiogenesis) will only get destroyed by existing life, thus we are implying that the conditions for abiogenesis exists today. We should have the ability to see this happen, but perhaps we don't know yet where to look with this level of scrutiny and expenditure.

 

[rod]

Yes. It's like saying a snowball grows as it rolls down the hill, but not mentioning what caused it to roll in the first place. The rolling action is different than the initial impulse action. Each must be taken separately until it can be well-defined in order to put them together. We don't have any solid hypothesis for abiogenesis, which means a model we can test in the lab. But we see, obviously, the rolling action of snowball life.

I still suspect this is more about poetry than science since he never, AFAIK, hinted he had any idea what came out of the "pond", or that anyone had any idea. Today isn't all that much different, surprisingly, though we now have a great deal more science on processes that will help. [This assumes it wasn't a supernatural event. A natural event seems far more credible than otherwise, but science (so far) can't rule it out, though, once again, we must consider that initial "impulse" (at t=0) that established all the forces and parameters to allow such an event.]

[Added: Since it seems obvious to most that science should be able to discover one or more abiogenesis processes eventually, then philosophy and religion are seen as being on thin ice to argue against this likelihood. One is more logical than the other, which affects how others see the philosophical, or religious, arguments.]

I'm unclear what your saying here. It's logical to assume new life forms (abiogenesis) will only get destroyed by existing life, thus we are implying that the conditions for abiogenesis exists today. We should have the ability to see this happen, but perhaps we don't know yet where to look with this level of scrutiny and expenditure.

Helio, I cited part of the 1871 letter, Henrietta was experimenting to show how life can evolve from non-living matter in 1871 but with no success and in 1882 (28-Feb-1882 letter), Charles Darwin admitted no worthwhile evidence had been presented for his idea. How his letters of 1871 and 1882 is poetry remains a mystery to me, but we do know that Charles Darwin desired to trace all life on Earth back to the last common ancestor, a single, living cell that all life on Earth today and in the fossil, record evolved from (descended from). Apparently, Charles Darwin thought in his 1871 letter that non-living matter could evolve into life in a warm little pond, perhaps a single cell but would be eaten by other life on Earth in his day. Everything I have in my home database on the abiogenesis axiom in science indicates that abiogenesis cannot take place on Earth today because of our N2O2 atmosphere. It is consigned to the remote past using very different conditions than on Earth today and I will add, astronomy now says much violent catastrophism operating too is needed in the abiogenesis axiom.

 

[rod]

Helio, you said in post #32, "Yes. It's like saying a snowball grows as it rolls down the hill, but not mentioning what caused it to roll in the first place."

IMO, the snowball grows as it rolls downhill because of well-defined natural law operating and well-defined physics that answer this. Charles Darwin in 1882 desired to see such a well-defined natural law for abiogenesis but did not have that law to show in nature. Today in biology and astrobiology we have the abiogenesis axiom inserted in lieu of well-defined natural law explaining abiogenesis.

 

[Helio]

Helio, I cited part of the 1871 letter, Henrietta was experimenting to show how life can evolve from non-living matter in 1871 but with no success and in 1882 (28-Feb-1882 letter), Charles Darwin admitted no worthwhile evidence had been presented for his idea. How his letters of 1871 and 1882 is poetry remains a mystery to me, but we do know that Charles Darwin desired to trace all life on Earth back to the last common ancestor, a single, living cell that all life on Earth today and in the fossil, record evolved from (descended from).

Okay, I see now that their little efforts for abiogenesis, apparently, were suppositional efforts. Were these the first known attempts for abiogenesis?

Apparently, Charles Darwin thought in his 1871 letter that non-living matter could evolve into life in a warm little pond, perhaps a single cell but would be eaten by other life on Earth in his day. Everything I have in my home database on the abiogenesis axiom in science indicates that abiogenesis cannot take place on Earth today because of our N2O2 atmosphere. It is consigned to the remote past using very different conditions than on Earth today and I will add, astronomy now says much violent catastrophism operating too is needed in the abiogenesis axiom.

If abiogenesis, however, happened at ocean vents, then there might be a way to observe it today.

 

[rod]

Okay, I see now that their little efforts for abiogenesis, apparently, were suppositional efforts. Were these the first known attempts for abiogenesis?


If abiogenesis, however, happened at ocean vents, then there might be a way to observe it today.

I do not know if the info in the 1871 letter represented the first attempts at abiogenesis, Louis Pasteur did his work, perhaps someone else was attempting to show life evolve spontaneously in those days. Helio, you stated, "If abiogenesis, however, happened at ocean vents, then there might be a way to observe it today."

I have seen no reports showing observable abiogenesis today in the oceans like Louis Pastuer demonstrated for life coming from life. Warm water and water with flowing currents would likely quickly disperse any chemicals said to be evolving into some form of life, a single cell for example. If you find a specific publication that claims abiogenesis can be seen taking place, somewhere in Earth's oceans today, I would appreciate this posted on the forums.

 

[Helio]

IMO, the snowball grows as it rolls downhill because of well-defined natural law operating and well-defined physics that answer this. Charles Darwin in 1882 desired to see such a well-defined natural law for abiogenesis but did not have that law to show in nature. Today in biology and astrobiology we have the abiogenesis axiom inserted in lieu of well-defined natural law explaining abiogenesis.

But absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Not having complete knowledge of all the science is not required of science. Theories serve a specific aspect of describing natural phenomena, which allows folks like engineers to apply them.

Charles Darwin's "Origins" was a remarkable set of arguments for the "snowball rolling down the hill", which never addressed, and was never required to address, abiogenesis (the initial "impulse"), AFAIK.

He (and Wallace) added two tenets to the existing evolution theories of his day: passive and natural (not supernatural) processes. The more popular theories of his day favored an active process to work with purpose (teleology). Although these scientists likely felt Darwin's work was grand -- his 1250 copies sold out in a matter of a few hours (or less) -- they stayed with the traditional models. The change favoring Darwin's theory came when genetics could explain how one tiny change in a trait could be passed on to offspring without the problem of blending, etc. The "purposeful" element got moved to a time when all those prior forces and parameters were first established (initial impetus), IMO.

Perhaps we can liken the inability of Darwin to explain how traits are passed-on to the inability of Copernicus to demonstrate stellar parallax. Had parallax been observable in the early 17th century, his heliocentric model would have been accepted before Galileo could falsify the Ptolemy model. [Might as well have three lines of analogy... ]

Even today, abiogenesis, of course, is not required to make great use of Darwin's theory, with all the subsequent improvements. A lot can be done with a rolling snowball, apparently. So I don't see any reason to disagree with biologist's use of the abiogenesis axiom. The science can be easily treated separately. Do you see it otherwise?

 

[Helio]

I have seen no reports showing observable abiogenesis today in the oceans like Louis Pastuer demonstrated for life coming from life. Warm water and water with flowing currents would likely quickly disperse any chemicals said to be evolving into some form of life, a single cell for example. If you find a specific publication that claims abiogenesis can be seen taking place, somewhere in Earth's oceans today, I would appreciate this posted on the forums.

There is some work, including a video, on how the energy levels at ocean vents, and other seemingly favorable circumstances, are fitting for singular cells. I skipped HS biology so I won't dive into much, but this idea is interesting. Yet it's, of course, suppositional since no known test of how this would work has come forward, at least nothing with any success, else the world would be shouting it, no doubt.

 

[rod]

But absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Not having complete knowledge of all the science is not required of science. Theories serve a specific aspect of describing natural phenomena, which allows folks like engineers to apply them.

Charles Darwin's "Origins" was a remarkable set of arguments for the "snowball rolling down the hill", which never addressed, and was never required to address, abiogenesis (the initial "impulse"), AFAIK.

He (and Wallace) added two tenets to the existing evolution theories of his day: passive and natural (not supernatural) processes. The more popular theories of his day favored an active process to work with purpose (teleology). Although these scientists likely felt Darwin's work was grand -- his 1250 copies sold out in a matter of a few hours (or less) -- they stayed with the traditional models. The change favoring Darwin's theory came when genetics could explain how one tiny change in a trait could be passed on to offspring without the problem of blending, etc. The "purposeful" element got moved to a time when all those prior forces and parameters were first established (initial impetus), IMO.

Perhaps we can liken the inability of Darwin to explain how traits are passed-on to the inability of Copernicus to demonstrate stellar parallax. Had parallax been observable in the early 17th century, his heliocentric model would have been accepted before Galileo could falsify the Ptolemy model. [Might as well have three lines of analogy... ]

Even today, abiogenesis, of course, is not required to make great use of Darwin's theory, with all the subsequent improvements. A lot can be done with a rolling snowball, apparently. So I don't see any reason to disagree with biologist's use of the abiogenesis axiom. The science can be easily treated separately. Do you see it otherwise?

"The science can be easily treated separately. Do you see it otherwise?"

Abiogenesis and macroevolution using the fossil record can be separate. However, astrobiology and biology today, both are rooted in the origin of life using the abiogenesis axiom, not special creation. We cannot read today about the search for life on some other world like Mars, Enceladus moon, or exoplanets without the abiogenesis axiom used. Charles Darwin in 1882 desired to see a general law of nature developed to show this. As far as I know, there is no *law of abiogenesis* documented in nature today like Newton's laws of motion or planetary motion laws using elliptical orbits.

Edit. I think simple observations like what I said here should be clearly explained to the public when presenting science looking for ET phoning home

 

[Helio]

"The science can be easily treated separately. Do you see it otherwise?"

Abiogenesis and macroevolution using the fossil record can be separate. However, astrobiology and biology today, both are rooted in the origin of life using the abiogenesis axiom, not special creation. We cannot read today about the search for life on some other world like Mars, Enceladus moon, or exoplanets without the abiogenesis axiom used. Charles Darwin in 1882 desired to see a general law of nature developed to show this. As far as I know, there is no *law of abiogenesis* documented in nature today like Newton's laws of motion or planetary motion laws using elliptical orbits.

Edit. I think simple observations like what I said here should be clearly explained to the public when presenting science looking for ET phoning home

I don't see how abiogenesis is in anyway important to modern evolution. We don't need to know anything about pre-protostars to establish stellar physics of existing stars, or abiogenesis to discover life on, say, Mars.

I think the need to discover a working model of abiogenesis is also unnecessary to favor microevolution. Whether it was a natural or supernatural event will have no, or very little, impact on existing micro or macro evolution theory.

Is it helpful to remind the public? Ok, I agree it is, but it must be presented in a way that doesn't challenge well-established theories because it should be clear that abiogenesis is outside any theory, for now.