0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
The Miller experiment and variations thereof, could start with a reduced or oxidized atmosphere and still make amino acids, as long as water molecules were part of the reaction. Water makes lighting to create activation energy, so other water molecules can combine, with various combinations of gases; ammonia NH3 to nitrogen N2 to form the precursors of life. Water is the swiss army knife of chemistry.
Heat from the decay of aluminum-26 created springs on a tidally locked satellite of Vesta, which was then between the Earth and Mars.
Quote from: puppypower on 06/04/2020 12:00:33The Miller experiment and variations thereof, could start with a reduced or oxidized atmosphere and still make amino acids, as long as water molecules were part of the reaction. Water makes lighting to create activation energy, so other water molecules can combine, with various combinations of gases; ammonia NH3 to nitrogen N2 to form the precursors of life. Water is the swiss army knife of chemistry. The Miller experiments require a reducing atmosphere, because the organic molecules produced are hydrogen rich. Your example ammonia NH3 has a 3:1 ratio of hydrogen to nitrogen. Lightning in an oxidizing atmosphere produces nitrates instead. The hydrogen in water will not serve to produce reduced molecules, because the hydrogen is tightly bound to oxygen.
Originally it was thought that the primitive secondary atmosphere contained mostly ammonia and methane. However, it is likely that most of the atmospheric carbon was CO2 with perhaps some CO and the nitrogen mostly N2. In practice gas mixtures containing CO, CO2, N2, etc. give much the same products as those containing CH4 and NH3 so long as there is no O2. The hydrogen atoms come mostly from water vapor. In fact, in order to generate aromatic amino acids under primitive earth conditions it is necessary to use less hydrogen-rich gaseous mixtures. Most of the natural amino acids, hydroxyacids, purines, pyrimidines, and sugars have been made in variants of the Miller experiment.
Variations of the Miller Experiment, by other researchers that came later, showed that the reactions were very flexible and could occur with a range of oxidizing and reducing gases. Below is from Wikipedia; Miller Experiment, section called early earth atmosphere. QuoteOriginally it was thought that the primitive secondary atmosphere contained mostly ammonia and methane. However, it is likely that most of the atmospheric carbon was CO2 with perhaps some CO and the nitrogen mostly N2. In practice gas mixtures containing CO, CO2, N2, etc. give much the same products as those containing CH4 and NH3 so long as there is no O2. The hydrogen atoms come mostly from water vapor. In fact, in order to generate aromatic amino acids under primitive earth conditions it is necessary to use less hydrogen-rich gaseous mixtures. Most of the natural amino acids, hydroxyacids, purines, pyrimidines, and sugars have been made in variants of the Miller experiment.
Life is composed of mostly water and organic materials. The water-oil affect is at work, everywhere, forcing the organic mixtures into energetically favorable phases called finished protein strictures and organelles. This phase separation is critical to life. The lack of a theory for directed movement of materials, is the bottleneck, for the science of abiogenesis,
The accepted nonsense, about life forming in other solvents, has done a disservice to science. That premise has never been proven in the lab, but it is nevertheless treated like a proven dogma. To place this in context; we have never formed water based life in the lab, even though we know how all kinds of things about water based life. Life in other solvents, is where we know nothing. We can not even speculate the nature of the need genetic material. Yer we are supposed to buy into the notion we have proof of how all the unknowns can form into life?
We are centuries away from the basic hard evidence for such life, before even beginning abiogenesis in other solvents.
Ocean's razor says, you a crazy guy.
Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.
We have hard evidence today but it can only be seen by people who are not locked into the dogma that life on Earth started on Earth. Stages of development can be seen in meteorites as enantiomeric excesses, i.e., measure of biological chirality, change between different biochemicals. The rock in which these are contained gives a good history of the planetary environment in which this biochemistry is took place.
Who is this guy Ocean?
One logical affect is the iron core of the earth is rusting
Ocean, Occam and basically all of us think you a crazy guy!
Quote from: puppypower on 10/05/2020 14:16:01One logical affect is the iron core of the earth is rustingIf by logical you mean bat-sh1t crazy, then I agree.
I wouldn't call him crazy. I certainly think he's reaching (what evidence is there that Vesta ever even had a satellite?), but crazy is too strong of a word. I think his scenario may actually be technically possible, but the evidence for this highly specific scenario is definitely lacking.
For instance, Vesta is the unique asteroid that condensed inside the orbit of Mars so was in the right temperature zone.
Quote from: larens on 10/05/2020 20:49:04For instance, Vesta is the unique asteroid that condensed inside the orbit of Mars so was in the right temperature zone."The"? You make it sound as if it was the only such asteroid to do that. You have absolutely no way of pinning the origin of life on a hypothetical satellite of Vesta with unknown properties out of all the countless asteroids that are out there, including those that have yet to be discovered.
"Did life originate on a satellite of the asteroid Vesta?"Probably not. There's certainly no reason to suppose that it did.
The minerals condensing from the solar nebula nearer to the proto-Sun had less iron and so are lighter. Vesta is considerably lighter than all the other asteroids with measured brightness. We can confirm its composition because we have meteorites that have the same spectrum and undoubtedly came from there. We also know that its orbit can have been boosted by gravitational interactions with Ceres. I already gave my reasons for saying that it had a former satellite. To recapitulate it is based directly on the spectra of the Moons of Mars and Vesta and and indirectly on the chemistry of carbonaceous meteorites. Given all the data and constraints on the origin of life there is no other reasonable location. Invoking undiscovered asteroids is just nitpicking. Technically everything down to boulders are "asteroids". Anything too small or too far away to have been discovered, however, are either too small or too cold to have been seriously involved.
The bored troll has to resort to an openly false statement that I have given no reason when I have given many.
(1) None of that means that Vesta ever had a satellite. Just because Vesta is spinning faster than most asteroids and has spectra consistent with a collision from a carbonaceous chondrite does not mean that the object in question was ever actually a satellite of Vesta. It could just as easily have been a rogue asteroid of its own that crossed paths with Vesta at some point in its history.
(2) You don't know that there was ever a "warm spring" on your hypothetical satellite of Vesta. As such, you don't know that your hypothetical satellite ever had the needed conditions for life to arise.
(3) Even if your scenario is plausible, you don't know that those circumstances didn't arise on other asteroids early in the Solar System's history that have since been destroyed by impacts with other objects. So life could just have easily arisen on one of those objects, been carried to Earth, then the object was destroyed.
(4) Nit-picking is just fine when it's the truth.
(5) If life can arise in a "warm spring", then a warm spring on early Mars, the Moon, Venus or in a desert on Earth could just as easily produce life (not everywhere on the Earth is wet, you know). Even one of the satellites of Jupiter could have had warm springs soon after they were formed (and tectonically active moons like Io may still have them). Mercury could have had warm springs near its poles back when it had plenty of internal heat left over after its initial formation (there is evidence for ice at the poles today). For all we know, life could have even come from outside of the Solar System.
Your reasons are questionable at best.
The object would need to be a satellite of something large to have a nearby ring to harvest high energy molecules. The initial planetesimals of the main asteroid belt would be large enough but it is doubtful that any near surface colony could survive in that high collision environment.
If the parent body was large enough, this means there were springs
The large number of mutations in Photosystem I imply that one of these became a natural nuclear reactor.
I an assuming that Vesta and its satellite were in a 3:2 resonance with the Earth to protect them from colliding with the inner planets or main belt asteroids long enough for the crust of Mars to harden.
Forcing scientists to precisely qualify all their statements is not acceptable protocol because it would lead to extremely verbose language. In is customary to drop qualifications when counterexamples become too unlikely. If one does have a specific counterexample, it is OK to go ahead and point it out.
Bodies with atmospheres would have retained the water, leading to destruction and dilution of the chemical precursors.
Icy bodies would not have the necessary nutrients.
Transfers from the inner planets would not work because the launch shocks would kill any life on board.
he Moon became molten so is not a good candidate.
Io's sulferous volcanos are not suitable.
Interstellar lithopanspermia is popular in some circles, but requires some better explanation of why advanced civilizations have not been seen.
Why invoke such a questionable hypothesis when there is good evidence for a specific site within the Solar System?
They are not questionable when taken in the context of the entire theory.
So high energy molecules can only be found in rings now? What do you qualify as a "high energy molecule"? How do you even know that your hypothetical satellite had those high energy molecules in first place?
And you know that your hypothetical satellite was large enough for this... how?
Quote from: larens on 11/05/2020 03:00:21The large number of mutations in Photosystem I imply that one of these became a natural nuclear reactor.And you know that the conditions needed to create such a reactor existed there... how?
Quote from: larens on 11/05/2020 03:00:21I am assuming that Vesta and its satellite were in a 3:2 resonance with the Earth to protect them from colliding with the inner planets or main belt asteroids long enough for the crust of Mars to harden."Assuming" being the key word here.
I am assuming that Vesta and its satellite were in a 3:2 resonance with the Earth to protect them from colliding with the inner planets or main belt asteroids long enough for the crust of Mars to harden.
Quote from: larens on 11/05/2020 03:00:21Forcing scientists to precisely qualify all their statements is not acceptable protocol because it would lead to extremely verbose language. In is customary to drop qualifications when counterexamples become too unlikely. If one does have a specific counterexample, it is OK to go ahead and point it out.What does any of that have to do with the fact that life could have originated somewhere other than an object that we don't even know for sure existed?
Quote from: larens on 11/05/2020 03:00:21Bodies with atmospheres would have retained the water, leading to destruction and dilution of the chemical precursors.And yet you claim that sufficient water to form a warm spring is necessary for your scenario to work. If life can originate in a warm spring, then some water vapor in the atmosphere is going be meaningless by comparison.
Quote from: larens on 11/05/2020 03:00:21Icy bodies would not have the necessary nutrients.How do you know? Titan's surface is practically chock full of organic compounds.
Quote from: larens on 11/05/2020 03:00:21Transfers from the inner planets would not work because the launch shocks would kill any life on board. How do you know? There is at least some experimental evidence that microbial survival of such impacts is plausible: https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001E%26PSL.189....1M/abstract https://www.nature.com/news/2004/040830/full/news040830-10.html
Quote from: larens on 11/05/2020 03:00:21The Moon became molten so is not a good candidate.I was obviously talking about life forming in warm springs on the Moon after it cooled sufficiently.
The Moon became molten so is not a good candidate.
Quote from: larens on 11/05/2020 03:00:21Io's sulfurous volcanoes are not suitable.I never proposed the formation of life in those volcanoes.
Io's sulfurous volcanoes are not suitable.
Quote from: larens on 11/05/2020 03:00:21Interstellar lithopanspermia is popular in some circles, but requires some better explanation of why advanced civilizations have not been seen.Fermi's Paradox is unresolved regardless of whether panspermia is a real phenomenon or not.
Quote from: larens on 11/05/2020 03:00:21Why invoke such a questionable hypothesis when there is good evidence for a specific site within the Solar System? Because there isn't good evidence that life originated on a hypothetical satellite of Vesta. We don't even know that it existed, much less whether it had suitable conditions for the formation of life.
Quote from: larens on 11/05/2020 03:00:21They are not questionable when taken in the context of the entire theory. So you mean you have actual evidence of the origin of life in warm springs on an object that we've never seen before? Why not post that evidence already?