[larens (OP)]

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.

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.

[larens (OP)]

My draft abstract submission for the Astrobiology Australasia Meeting 2020 supplies a nice summary for this topic so far, though I have included a few new ideas:


Why life on Earth probably originated on a former satellite of Vesta

Theories of life originating on Earth have so far failed to predict there being at least one Earth-like planet in the universe. I will present a model of life originating elsewhere in the Solar system that probably satisfies this constraint:  A binary neutron star merger occurred near the Solar nebula at just the right time, distance, and direction to create a high free energy environment. Chemistry thermodynamically downhill from this has been conserved in the basic biochemistry we see today. Heat from the decay of aluminum-26 created springs on a tidally locked satellite of Vesta, which was then between the Earth and Mars. A ring near the Roche limit harvested chemicals for the satellite. Temperature variation drove purification by partial freezing and ferroelectric driven electrophoresis. Cylindrical clay crystals had a structure conserved today in ATP synthase. Rotation and polyoxymethylene chains drove mechanochemistry. Elongation of the crystals with fracturing allowed the reproduction of chemical patterns. Conserved active sites of cofactors show what other minerals in the spring played key roles. After the development of cells lithopanspermia to Earth was easy and occurred repeatedly. Early photosynthesis on Earth explains the mild Hadean climate and the deposits of diamonds at the roots of cratons. A close encounter with Mars and encounters with Ceres transported Vesta to its current orbit. The moons of Mars are a mixture of ejecta from Mars and the remains of the satellite and ring. Jaxa's MMX mission includes returning a sample from there, so offers us an opportunity to closely examine the remains. This scenario provides a potential solution to the Fermi Paradox through the Unique Earth Hypothesis. The many factors of improbability in this scenario may lead to a probability of there being just one Earth-like planet per universe. The basic physics and chemistry though are relatively straight forward.

[larens (OP)]

Heat from the decay of aluminum-26 created springs on a tidally locked satellite of Vesta, which was then between the Earth and Mars.

I replaced "transuranic isotopes" with "aluminum-26" because I realized that the former isotopes produced much less heat. Between the time aluminum-26 decay diminished and the time Mars crust hardened a natural nuclear reactor was able to keep the "springs' warm. These were really closed hydrological systems with desalinization by freezing. Once oxygen was formed by photosynthesis uranium was mobilized to form insoluble oxide deposits when reaching a reducing zone. This is the common way uranium ore is produced and created natural nuclear reactors as in Gabon in west Africa about 2 billion years ago. It was easier 4.5 billion years ago because the fissionable U-235 isotope was 25% of uranium, rather than 4% in Gabon and 0.72% today.

I am currently investigating the possibility that there is a different type of neutron star merger that produces such a dense, hot gamma ray burst than it produces mainly helium rather than heavy isotopes, This then could have produced a high concentration of HCN and CHOH in the solar nebula without producing more transuranic isotopes than are observed. This type of burst may be allowed under my theory of physics because it includes reverse causality. It may be paired with a conventional neutron star merger, such that, they bracket 1/3 the age of the universe. There is a carbon isotope anomaly peak at 1/25 of the age of the universe at the beginning of the Cambrian Explosion of animals. Along with 1/1 for the Big Bang these form a simple sequence for the top down determination of important ages. It would take some deeper math to show that this is really the case.

[puppypower]

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.

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.

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.

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.

The importance of water goes beyond the formation of precursors. The most important attribute of water is connected to the water-oil affect. If we agitate and mix water and oil, we will get a randomized mixture; emulsion. If we let the emulsion set, the random mixture will spontaneously form order as two layers. This is based on lowering the free energy of surface tension.The dice of random are loaded by water.

 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, They assume random connections, even though it is easy to demonstrate water forcing things to happen to organics based on its own energy benefit.

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  In spite of this total lack,  one is still required to conform to this unproven science, simply because a statistical oracle, stemming from the casinos of science, says it may have odds. Science can place a bet, and win a jackpot, if you are lucky. Fortune telling and gambling is not acceptable science. Proof used to be the standard, before the oracles were allowed. Oracles are why we are in the bronze age of science.   

In terms of the water-oil affect, if we substitute any other solvent for water, to create a solvent-oil affect, the impact on the random solvent on the organics of life will be different from water. You will not get the same drive into two distinct phases, from say ammonia, butane, ethanol, etc.. Rather, one will get a semi-stable emulsion since these are better organic solvents. These will be at the mercy of random events. I can see why the casinos of science like this, since it appears to be a game suited for a casino. The bookies will allow you to bet on ther solvents.

Water, on the other hand;  water-oil affect, creates sure things; like card counting. Casinos do not allow card counting, since they make more profit, from those who worship oracles and dice.

[larens (OP)]

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.

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.

This is a example of where Wilkipedia fails. The citation leads to a university news site. The website of the author mentioned does not include this study in his publication list. This is probably because he used "chondritic" material and then realized that it came from further out in the Solar system and is too reducing. For an explanation of why the Earth was too oxidizing for Miller synthesis to work see: "The oxidation state of Hadean magmas and implications for early Earth’s atmosphere."  https://www.nature.com/articles/nature10655

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,

I agree that transport is the major bottleneck. Phase separation, however, is only a minor part of the problem. Initially Halloysite nanotubes formed a primitive plumbing system. This structure is conserved today in the microtubules of Eukaryotic cells. At a larger scale smoke in the Solar nebula absorbed critical chemicals and was guided by light pressure to the initial site of life.

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?

It is well known known from laboratory experiments that mixing formamide and water in different proportions allow different biological steps to take place, e.g., the combination and separation of strands of RNA. These mixtures naturally occur in an asteroidal hydrological system with desalinization by freezing because formamide and water have similar freezing points. Formamide is a major byproduct in the abiotic formation of RNA and proteins.

The initial genome for tRNAs was the 16s RNA of the ribosome. In the progenotic era reproduction had to be done by different types of templating. For instance, the Na/H antiporter necessary for the initial power system is in a dimeric form. Initial mechanochemistry was based on Halloysite clay. Initial polypeptide selection was more complicated because it involved electrochemistry where polypeptides both acted as field effective transistors and as the objects of separation by electrophoresis. This is all based on the conservation of properties in today's biology.

We are centuries away from the basic hard evidence for such life, before even beginning abiogenesis in other solvents.

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.

[Bobolink]

Occam's razor says, you a crazy guy.

[larens (OP)]

Ocean's razor says, you a crazy guy.

For simplicity I follow Einstein:

Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.

You appear to have not been reading modern fundamental science and math papers.

Who is this guy Ocean?

[puppypower]

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.

If you look at our universe, the most common atoms of the universe are hydrogen, helium, oxygen, carbon, neon and nitrogen. The atoms fro the peptide linkage, common to all proteins, are very common in the universe; HOCN.

The three most common molecules of the universe are H2;hydrogen, H2O; water and CO; carbon monoxide. It is not coincidence that Chemistry uses water as the center piece, since water is so common and is part of so many things, in so many different ways. Water displays over 70 known anomalies, were water deviates from the patterns found in other substances. Water is small and  common, but also very complex. Water is the swiss army knife of nature.

For example, one well known anomaly of water is water expands when it freezes. This is not common in nature, since most other materials contract as they freeze. This is one tool in the swiss army knife, This tool is very important to star formation. Water, in space, exists as ice. Although H2 is more common, this exists mostly as a gas. The net affect ice is more impacted by gravity due to ice being solid. While water as H2O contains hydrogen for fusion.

As gravity collects and compresses the ice, the ice in the core will start to melt due to the gravitational work. Because ice is expanded relative to liquid water, the melting of the core ice leads to something I call fusion hammer. The water will collapse, from core outward, by about 10% during gravitational compression. This can result in a runaway collapse of a ball of ice; fusion hammer. Hydrogen does not collapse like this, while water can be D2O, or T2O and contain the heavy hydrogen for fusion.   

I am aware, and I do not doubt, that many of the precursors of life, can be found almost anywhere there is water and some of the other needed gases, With water being so common, these sources of precursors will include asteroids and moons. It is also possible, life on earth was seeded by asteroids. But at the same time, life was also forming on the earth, due to its huge water supply. It does not that not have to one or the other, since water is reactive under so many conditions, and it is the second most common molecule in the universe.

What the earth brings to the table, is connected to a recently discovery. Science has found water all the way to the core of the earth. Conceptually, water creates a type of continuity, from the core to the atmosphere.

Forming the precursors of life has many chemical pathways.. Going from these precursors, to full assembly into life, may have benefited by the earth's water; the swiss army knife going from the  atmosphere all the way to the core. This would allow water and life to be part of the dynamic nature of the entire earth, from core to the atmosphere.

Life on earth is currently part of what shaped and shapes the surface of the earth, in response to solar and terrestrial affects, from climate to geology. Life, for example, is assumed to be the source of molecular oxygen; O2, in the current atmosphere. There was no molecular oxygen before photosynthesis. Chlorophyll changed the surface of the earth to a more highly oxidizing environment. This had a profound impact on the surface chemistry. If water is continuos, this potential can conceptually be transmit to the core.

One logical affect is the iron core of the earth is rusting; oxidation, and electrons are being released and conduct to the surface. The oceans are slightly alkaline or negatively charged. This may have impacted the formation of life, since it would provide a potential with the hydrogen bonding of water; extra free energy source, not be found isolated places with only precursors. 

Science cam make the precursors in the lab, but assembly into life is the bottleneck. This would explain why life is not as common based on how common water is. The universal availability of water can explain why amino acids and other precursors of life, are easy to spot all over the universe. But the second step, to full assembly into life, is rare and  yet to be found. It may take an entire planet to set the stage, from core to surface.   

[Bobolink]

Who is this guy Ocean?

Ha ha, isn't spell check great...

Ocean, Occam and basically all of us think you a crazy guy!

[Bobolink]

One logical affect is the iron core of the earth is rusting

If by logical you mean bat-sh1t crazy, then I agree.

[larens (OP)]

Ocean, Occam and basically all of us think you a crazy guy!

You have poked me here enough that I have decided to name my theory "the general theory of simplicity" following the naming of Einstein's theories. By "general" I mean every extension of "simplicity" necessary for building an overall description of reality. Algorithmic simplicity is a special case just as "special relativity" was the special case for flat spacetime.

One logical affect is the iron core of the earth is rusting

If by logical you mean bat-sh1t crazy, then I agree.

I sympathize with your feelings here.

[Kryptid]

Ocean, Occam and basically all of us think you a crazy guy!

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.

[larens (OP)]

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.

The strong direct evidence for life starting on an asteroid is in carbonaceous meteorites. The overall scenario has a lot of indirect evidence in biology and geology. For instance, Vesta is the unique asteroid that condensed inside the orbit of Mars so was in the right temperature zone. It has a rapid rate of rotation consistent with its having captured a carbonaceous satellite by collision. The evidence for the stripping of the satellite are anomalous spectra of the moons of Mars and a region on Vesta.

I continue to check out the various pieces of the scenario. For instance, the type of gamma ray burst I have been assuming would generate a nonstandard gravitational wave event. I checked with the event list and did find two such events. At first pass this is marginally significant because this type of event would not generally pass the software that filters for standard events. A special statistical analysis checking whether these nonstandard "glitches" are real astronomical events will be necessary to achieve a convincingly high significance or to reject them. In the case of rejection I will have to rework my inverse Drake equation analysis because I included the existence of the gamma ray burst as a major Drake factor.

[Kryptid]

For 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.

[Bored chemist]

"Did life originate on a satellite of the asteroid Vesta?"
Probably not. There's certainly no reason to suppose that it did.

[larens (OP)]

For 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.

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.

"Did life originate on a satellite of the asteroid Vesta?"
Probably not. There's certainly no reason to suppose that it did.

The bored troll has to resort to an openly false statement that I have given no reason when I have given many.

[Kryptid]

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.

(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.

The bored troll has to resort to an openly false statement that I have given no reason when I have given many.

Your reasons are questionable at best.

[larens (OP)]

(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.

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.

(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.

The meteorites have been aqueously altered. If the parent body was large enough, this means there were springs. After a while these would become relatively closed hydrological systems, which is what is really needed. The large number of mutations in Photosystem I imply that one of these became a natural nuclear reactor.

(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.

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. There are two main type of asteroids in the main belt, presumably because Jupiter shifted leading to the mixing of the two populations and a lot of grinding.

(4) Nit-picking is just fine when it's the truth.

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.

(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.

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. The 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? There is also good evidence for the Unique Earth hypothesis, which I have not brought up here because it is too controversial given the modern science-religion schism.

The bored troll has to resort to an openly false statement that I have given no reason when I have given many.

Your reasons are questionable at best.

They are not questionable when taken in the context of the entire theory. You are only getting a small part because of the practical limitations of dialogue on the forum. I am spending most of my time refining my research rather than writing to explain it to a general audience.

[Kryptid]

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.

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?

If the parent body was large enough, this means there were springs

And you know that your hypothetical satellite was large enough for this... how?

The 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?

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.

"Assuming" being the key word here.

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.

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?

Bodies 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.

Icy bodies would not have the necessary nutrients.

How do you know? Titan's surface is practically chock full of organic compounds.

Transfers 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

he 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.

Io's sulferous volcanos are not suitable.

I never proposed the formation of life in those volcanoes.

Interstellar 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.

Why 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.

They 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?

[larens (OP)]

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?

The most relevant high energy molecules are HCN and HCOH. They are formed in a low density gas phase by high energy radiation. There have to be collection processes to get them concentrated into a condensed matter environment. This is first by absorption on dust, then collection onto the rings, and finally collection onto the satellite.

And you know that your hypothetical satellite was large enough for this... how?

You are violating the logical rules for scientific model building. One first makes a set of assumptions that are reasonably probable and then analyzes whether those assumptions generate the desired result - the origin of life in this case. Asteroids come in a range of sizes so choosing a necessary minimum size within that range is a perfectly reasonable step. If one thinks there is a better model, it is their responsibility to present it.

The 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?

The large number of mutations is the evidence that there was a reactor. Supplying oxygen by photosynthesis, removing chlorine by desalinization by freezing, and having a high U-235 concentration are necessary conditions, which all can be easily met.

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.

"Assuming" being the key word here.

Exactly. I am making a reasonable assumption to insure survival of the system, which is not available for other possible candidates.

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.

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?

It has to do with the fact that you are presenting vacuous arguments by constantly saying, "There are other possibilities! There are other possibilities!" without every showing that they are more reasonable. There are always more possibilities if you want to ignore probabilities. That an object no longer exists is a common occurrence.

Bodies 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.

I am talking not only about some water vapor, but also liquid water spread out over the large surface of a planet for dilution and with random catalysts and sunlight for destruction.

Icy bodies would not have the necessary nutrients.

How do you know? Titan's surface is practically chock full of organic compounds.

You had mentioned the moons of Jupiter. Titan has an atmosphere where the organic compounds are not readily available because they are quickly converted into alkanes and high molecular weight molecules.

Transfers 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

It is shock that matters, not acceleration and jerk. Shock studies have shown that ejection from Mars is OK, but probably not from the innermost planets. I use the moons of Mars as a probable refuge when Mars gets struck by an asteroid. For interstellar panspermia no one has shown that organisms would be able to survive the combination of cryogenic desiccation and radiation for long enough.

The 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.

Melting the Moon drove off water, unlike with an unmelted carbonaceous chondritic body full of hydrates.

Io's sulfurous volcanoes are not suitable.

I never proposed the formation of life in those volcanoes.

The hardened sulfurous surface is also not suitable.

Interstellar 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.

It is easily resolved by the case where we are alone in the universe but as I said the science/religion schism has prevented the appropriate discussion.

Why 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.

Just asserting that I have not been presenting good evidence does not make it so.

They 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?

That is what I have been doing. Once again you are confusing the logical order of scientific model building - make reasonable assumption first;  then analyze whether the model works.