0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
inside the orbit of Mars, made of carbonaceous chondritic material, large enough to heat up enough to release water, and not so large that it melted.
You asked about Antarctica. It is almost completely covered in a giant glacier.
The mutation age for Photosystem I, assuming a typical rate of mutation, is enormous - over 10 billion years.
Only a natural nuclear reactor is plausible to create such great mutation.
The large majority of biochemists study the biology of today. A minority studies the last 3.5 billion years. Only a few have tried to seriously understand the origin of life because there has been a scarcity of data and no good models.
What you have mostly been getting is a lot of half baked speculation.
We are talking about hydrogen, not nitrogen.
Is it not a much more reasonable hypothesis that the precursor chemicals in carbonaceous chondrites developed into life on their parent body
rather than having fragments fall on the Earth and having their chemicals diluted into the terrestrial environment?
A hydrothermal vent is far too hot for life.
As I said before I am using Occam's razor.
The difference is that my model does not have an obvious alternative source. People keep claiming that the Earth is an alternative source, and I keep showing that hypothesis is only supported by half baked speculation. In his case one can just take a few photographs of coal plants.
There are not millions of alternative asteroids because they are basically too cold, barren, and/or small to have developed life.
Because at the time it was inside the orbit of Mars
Quote from: larens on 14/05/2020 17:51:23 inside the orbit of Mars, made of carbonaceous chondritic material, large enough to heat up enough to release water, and not so large that it melted. Sounds rather like Earth.
Quote from: Bored chemist on 14/05/2020 20:11:05Quote from: larens on 14/05/2020 17:51:23 inside the orbit of Mars, made of carbonaceous chondritic material, large enough to heat up enough to release water, and not so large that it melted. Sounds rather like Earth.Except that Earth is not made of carbonaceous chrondrites and it melted.
What is magical about chondrites?
Carbonaceous chondrites contain organic chemicals important for the origin of like, e.g., hydrogen cyanide.
Quote from: Bored chemist on 14/05/2020 21:30:42What is magical about chondrites?Carbonaceous chondrites contain organic chemicals important for the origin of like, e.g., hydrogen cyanide.
Quote from: larens on 14/05/2020 06:29:47You asked about Antarctica. It is almost completely covered in a giant glacier.Today. Billions of years ago, that may not have been the case. A landscape need not be covered with a glacier in order to have sub-zero temperatures. It's not like Antarctica is the only place such a system could have existed.
Quote from: larens on 14/05/2020 06:29:47The mutation age for Photosystem I, assuming a typical rate of mutation, is enormous - over 10 billion years.What is this "Photosystem I" you speak of?
"Typical mutation rate" doesn't have much of a meaning, given that mutation rates vary massively from one entity to another. The mutation rate of humans is far less than that of, say, HIV. How was that "over 10 billion years" date calculated?
Please tell me they didn't:(1) Assume that the very first organism contained a single nucleotide. Far more than that is needed.
(2) Assume that the mutations happened one at a time either. A large population of microbes will be able to have many total mutations in a single generation due to their numbers.(3) Assume that each mutation caused the genome to change by a single nucleotide. Gene duplication can cause the introduction of many new nucleotides at once. Chromosomal duplication can do far more and entire genome duplication can double the size of the genome.
Quote from: larens on 14/05/2020 06:29:47 Only a natural nuclear reactor is plausible to create such great mutation.Okay then. Show the math to support that claim. Also keep in mind that an excessive mutation rate is lethal for any organism.
Quote from: larens on 14/05/2020 06:29:47The large majority of biochemists study the biology of today. A minority studies the last 3.5 billion years. Only a few have tried to seriously understand the origin of life because there has been a scarcity of data and no good models.So you know more than those that do study it? Are you a scientist yourself of any kind?
Quote from: larens on 14/05/2020 06:29:47What you have mostly been getting is a lot of half baked speculation.Which is the same thing that you have been providing. You are speculating that Vesta had a satellite. You are speculating that it happened to have just the right conditions for life. The fact that Vesta has some organic material on its surface is not evidence that it ever had a satellite. Collisions from many smaller carbonaceous chondrites over time can explain that surface organic material just as easily as a collision from a large carbonaceous satellite can (same thing for Mars' moons). Even if there was a large carbonaceous chondrite in orbit around Vesta, there is no evidence whatsoever that it had life on it. To say that it did would be speculation (which, ironically, you don't seem to like).
Quote from: larens on 14/05/2020 06:29:47We are talking about hydrogen, not nitrogen. Since when? The article is about nitrogen-enriched magma.
Quote from: larens on 14/05/2020 06:29:47Is it not a much more reasonable hypothesis that the precursor chemicals in carbonaceous chondrites developed into life on their parent bodyWhen the parent body's characteristics are completely unknown? No. To say that it would have been would be, as you put it, "half-baked speculation".
Quote from: larens on 14/05/2020 06:29:47A hydrothermal vent is far too hot for life.The water need not stay in the vent. It could have periodically emptied into a shallow pool where it cooled over time.
Quote from: larens on 14/05/2020 06:29:47As I said before I am using Occam's razor.Occam's razor does not suggest that all organic molecules came from the same asteroid any more than it suggests that all of the trash beside the highway came from the same car.
Quote from: larens on 14/05/2020 06:29:47The difference is that my model does not have an obvious alternative source. People keep claiming that the Earth is an alternative source, and I keep showing that hypothesis is only supported by half baked speculation. In his case one can just take a few photographs of coal plants.It's half-baked speculation to claim that an object that we've never seen before just so happened to be the perfect abode for life to develop when no other spot in the Solar System could.
Quote from: larens on 14/05/2020 06:29:47There are not millions of alternative asteroids because they are basically too cold, barren, and/or small to have developed life.I didn't say anything about developing life. I was talking about producing organic molecules like ribose, amino acids and nucleotides. The conditions to produce those need not be anywhere near so perfect as those needed to create fully-fledged living things. Even liquid water need not be present. Studies have shown that amino acids can form in ice: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1086/513141
Quote from: larens on 14/05/2020 17:51:23Because at the time it was inside the orbit of MarsI'm curious to know what the evidence for this is.
Quote from: larens on 14/05/2020 22:01:03Carbonaceous chondrites contain organic chemicals important for the origin of like, e.g., hydrogen cyanide.Carbonaceous chondrites are still falling to Earth even today. So you'd expect plenty of them to have fallen to Earth in the distant past too. So Earth would have had those same substances.
You are going backwards in the conversation and becoming more like BoredChemist - hypotheticals in the abstract.
The first phrase in my OP says that I am presenting an hypothesis.
Humans are not in competition with the immune systems of their hosts.
The authors used typical cellular genomics.
Evolution would have eliminated any such lethal rate caused by chemical or biological systems. The ability to cut down on the radiation induced mutation rate is limited though the most radiation resistant organisms have developed quite a tolerance. To get an idea of how damaging a nuclear reactor can be hang out in one for a while and see how long you live.
Biochemists are suffering from cognitive dissonant propaganda backing the dogma that life on Earth started on Earth.
I am an independent scientist
My specialty is the theory of general simplicity
You do not understand the nature of evidence. Using previously determined facts and reasonable assumptions one makes a coherent model with mutually reinforcing facts.
The article with the details was about a "ultrareducing carbon-rich nitrogen-rich magma". It is hard to carry on a reasonable conversation when you do not read the technical details in the literature you cite. In this case you had to follow a secondary citation.
Go back and read what I have been saying about model building and the nature of evidence.
It does, however, cut off endless tangents that have no relevance to one's model.
Why? It must have started somewhere.
The requirement for homochirality, makes multiple sources unlikely.
The evidence from fundamental science for the Unique Earth Hypothesis strongly points to there being just one very unusual location.
Remember that this topic is about the origin of life. It is difficult to carry on a reasonable conversation when you repeatedly forget what the topic is and go off on tangents.
I am not going to repeat it again. I have already stated it enough times for those who remember things.
Are you familiar with Gibbs free energy which is diminished when you dilute things?
Quote from: larens on 14/05/2020 22:01:03Carbonaceous chondrites contain organic chemicals important for the origin of like, e.g., hydrogen cyanide.And why don't you think that things like HCN would be present on Earth?I know that HCN is not stable in the presence of water. (The hydrolysis half life is about a year, but strongly pH dependent) But even today there is about 0.2ppb of it.Before plants created oxygen there would have been much more- you have seen the famous experiments with sparks in jars full of gas. The principle means of removal from air today is oxidation.
Even if chondrites contained "unobtanium"- impossible to get from anything other than chondrites, there would be "unobtanium" on Earth, brought here by chondrites.
Quote from: larens on 15/05/2020 01:32:39You are going backwards in the conversation and becoming more like BoredChemist - hypotheticals in the abstract.Your satellite is hypothetical, so we're in good company. Heck, you even call it a hypothesis:
Quote from: larens on 06/04/2020 00:07:39The first phrase in my OP says that I am presenting an hypothesis. A satellite is not necessary to explain the presence of organic material on Vesta, so other reasonable interpretations are valid.
]Quote from: larens on 15/05/2020 01:32:39Humans are not in competition with the immune systems of their hosts.And? It's not like the first living things were anywhere close to being human-like. Nor would their gene-repair mechanisms have been nearly as refined. High mutation rates would be expected to be the norm.
Quote from: larens on 15/05/2020 01:32:39The authors used typical cellular genomics.Can you supply us with a link to this? If the 10 billion year figure is accurate, that would also be consistent with panspermia from an older star system. So then you'd need some kind of way to distinguish between your scenario and a panspermia scenario.
Quote from: larens on 15/05/2020 01:32:39Evolution would have eliminated any such lethal rate caused by chemical or biological systems. The ability to cut down on the radiation induced mutation rate is limited though the most radiation resistant organisms have developed quite a tolerance. To get an idea of how damaging a nuclear reactor can be hang out in one for a while and see how long you live.Are there any known organisms that can survive inside of an operating nuclear reactor? If so, what is their mutation rate?
Quote from: larens on 15/05/2020 01:32:39Biochemists are suffering from cognitive dissonant propaganda backing the dogma that life on Earth started on Earth.Yeah, once you start mentioning "propaganda" and "dogma", you know you're probably dealing with a crank. I hear the exact same kind of complaints about evolutionary biologists by creationists.
Quote from: larens on 15/05/2020 01:32:39 I am an independent scientistSo you're an actual scientist? What is your profession? What company do you work for?
Quote from: larens on 15/05/2020 01:32:39My specialty is the theory of general simplicityTheory? So it has been experimentally tested and passed?
Quote from: larens on 15/05/2020 01:32:39You do not understand the nature of evidence. Using previously determined facts and reasonable assumptions one makes a coherent model with mutually reinforcing facts.I'm well aware of what evidence constitutes. But when each individual point of "evidence" has an alternative possible explanation, then the model as a whole becomes weak. Organic material on Vesta can be explained by impacts of many smaller carbonaceous chondrites over time. Same thing for the satellites of Mars. The organic material on meteorites can be explained by organic material forming on a multitude of different asteroids involving UV-light acting on organically-contaminated ice. Whatever mechanism you propose could cause an enantiomeric excess on your satellite could do the same on other asteroids. If the high mutation rate did require a natural nuclear reactor, we know that those have existed on Earth in the past so that's not a problem. Since all of the evidence has plausible alternative interpretations, the "satellite of Vesta" hypothesis is relegated to just that: a hypothesis.
Quote from: larens on 15/05/2020 01:32:39The article with the details was about a "ultrareducing carbon-rich nitrogen-rich magma". It is hard to carry on a reasonable conversation when you do not read the technical details in the literature you cite. In this case you had to follow a secondary citation.And the point, of course, was that magma as a source of nitrogen is plausible. Hydrated minerals, water and/or methane is a decent enough source of hydrogen. And even if the magma didn't have enough nitrogen or hydrogen, meteorites bringing ribose, nucleotides and amino acids to Earth is another plausible source of those molecules.
Quote from: Bored chemist on 14/05/2020 22:37:57Go back and read what I have been saying about model building and the nature of evidence.All of your evidence can be explained in other ways.
Quote from: larens on 15/05/2020 01:32:39It does, however, cut off endless tangents that have no relevance to one's model.It also apparently cuts of alternative interpretations of the evidence.
Quote from: larens on 15/05/2020 01:32:39Why? It must have started somewhere.And, since you like Occam's razor so much, it would be better to look at places that we actually know exist than proposing those that can have absolutely any desired properties of the model-maker.
Quote from: larens on 15/05/2020 01:32:39The requirement for homochirality, makes multiple sources unlikely.Unless whatever causes homochirality is available at multiple locations. That being said, what mechanism do you propose caused homochirality on your satellite?
Quote from: larens on 15/05/2020 01:32:39The evidence from fundamental science for the Unique Earth Hypothesis strongly points to there being just one very unusual location.Which means that there would be two very unusual locations if your satellite produced life and the Earth then happened to have just the right characteristics to allow the life transported there to develop and thrive into an entire biosphere (including intelligent species) unlike anything we've seen in other places in the Solar System.
Quote from: larens on 15/05/2020 01:32:39Remember that this topic is about the origin of life. It is difficult to carry on a reasonable conversation when you repeatedly forget what the topic is and go off on tangents.So now you are saying that the chemical reactions needed to produce vital biochemical molecules is not "about the origin of life". Right...
Quote from: larens on 15/05/2020 01:32:39I am not going to repeat it again. I have already stated it enough times for those who remember things.You mentioned something about the organic material on the satellites of Mars as evidence for this, but it is just as possible that completely unrelated carbonaceous chondrites are the source of that organic material. So your claim that this is evidence that Vesta came from the inner Solar System is not compelling.
Quote from: larens on 15/05/2020 01:32:39Are you familiar with Gibbs free energy which is diminished when you dilute things?Yes, I am familiar with the concept. But that would only be a problem if it's diluted too much. Reservoirs of water come in all sizes.
- hypotheticals in the abstract.
Quote from: larens on 15/05/2020 01:32:39- hypotheticals in the abstract.No.You really have to stop complaining about us mentioning "hypotheticals", when you are talking about a rock that doesn't exist.Sauce for the goose...
With the help from empirical data I know that neutrino masses are in the ratios of 2, 18, and 98 to the mass of the axion. These geometrically must come from a pseudoscalar, 3-D space, and 7-D space-time-mass that includes the light cone, but I have not found an exact mathematical formulation.
Quote from: Bored chemist on 15/05/2020 08:42:59Quote from: larens on 15/05/2020 01:32:39- hypotheticals in the abstract.No.You really have to stop complaining about us mentioning "hypotheticals", when you are talking about a rock that doesn't exist.Sauce for the goose...Albert Einstein doesn't exist. I guess I have to stop talking about him.
Quote from: larens on 15/05/2020 16:12:03Quote from: Bored chemist on 15/05/2020 08:42:59Quote from: larens on 15/05/2020 01:32:39- hypotheticals in the abstract.No.You really have to stop complaining about us mentioning "hypotheticals", when you are talking about a rock that doesn't exist.Sauce for the goose...Albert Einstein doesn't exist. I guess I have to stop talking about him.OK, let's descent to playground level since that's what you want.Here is a photograph of Einstein. Einstein.JPG (18.48 kB . 224x286 - viewed 2837 times)Please post a photo of your rock.
Instead of responding to impossible demands
Quote from: larens on 15/05/2020 19:01:37 Instead of responding to impossible demands Backing up your allegation is impossible.Maybe you shouldn't have made it.
Quote from: Bored chemist on 15/05/2020 20:30:32Quote from: larens on 15/05/2020 19:01:37 Instead of responding to impossible demands Backing up your allegation is impossible.Maybe you shouldn't have made it.What was impossible was taking a picture of an object that disintegrated before cameras were invented.
Quote from: larens on 15/05/2020 20:43:52Quote from: Bored chemist on 15/05/2020 20:30:32Quote from: larens on 15/05/2020 19:01:37 Instead of responding to impossible demands Backing up your allegation is impossible.Maybe you shouldn't have made it.What was impossible was taking a picture of an object that disintegrated before cameras were invented.Quote from: larens on 15/05/2020 20:43:52Quote from: Bored chemist on 15/05/2020 20:30:32Quote from: larens on 15/05/2020 19:01:37 Instead of responding to impossible demands Backing up your allegation is impossible.Maybe you shouldn't have made it.What was impossible was taking a picture of an object that disintegrated before cameras were invented.OK, so, swimming through treacle here... what evidence is there that the rock did exist (not might have existed, but DID exist)?