[Bored chemist]

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

You have given some ideas that suggest that , maybe, somewhere other than Earth is a possibility.
Nothing you have said favours a satellite of Vesta over a satellite of another body or, indeed, a nigh infinite  array of other possibilities.

So, I stand by my assertion.
There's no reason to think  that life evolved where you  say it did.

Also, you need to look:
(1) up trolling
(2) in the mirror.

[Bored chemist]

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.

Then apply Occam's razor...

[puppypower]

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.

Then apply Occam's razor...

If we apply Occam's razor we would eliminate all statistical models since these have too many loose ends with finite probability. This adds too much conceptual complexity and adds to much faith in winner the lottery. This will appeal to gambling addicts, but not common sense.

The formation of the precursors of life is not that complicated and can form in many ways. The Millar Urey experiments, and the many others that followed, made all types of needed molecules in many different ways using different conditions. It is possible the precursors of life were able to  form under many conditions, including on moons, asteroids and directly on the earth.

The water-oil affect, which requires the liquid phase, is key to assembly. The liquid phase has properties that are unique compared to the gaseous and solid phases. Gases can only be placed under pressure, but not under tension. We measure a gas by its partial pressure. If we pull a vacuum; tension, the pressure goes down, but we are not creating tension in the gas. 

Solids can be placed under tension and pressure, but not both at the same time and achieve a steady state. It we push and pull a solid, it will move in space and therefore not achieve a state state. Liquids can be placed under pressure and tension at the same time, while also reaching a steady state. A glass of water, open to the air, is under atmospheric pressure; pushing down. While surface tension forms at the surface, at steady state. Pressure can cause tension to build in liquids. This is useful, when the swiss army knife, called water, is part of the system.

The physics are unique within the liquid state and these unique properties of physics are needed for life.  If we dehydrate the DNA, it will form a crystalline state, which is solid. The DNA looses its liquid state physics properties, and therefore no longer works. I needs the paradox of pressure causing tension at steady state. The liquid state properties are intimately connected to the hydrogen bonding of water and and the hydrogen bonding of other important organic materials.

Hydrogen bonding has both polar and covalent bonding character. The polar bonding character is more compressed, while the covalent bonding character is more expanded. Liquids are a very crowded place for moving molecules. The dual bonding nature of hydrogen bonding, allows hydrogen bonds to express the tension and pressure paradox, similar to the liquid state. The two states of hydrogen bonding are balanced throughout the aqueous continuum at steady state.

In the water-oil affect, water and oil will create surface tension. There is too much tension in the water at steady state; too much covalent hydrogen bonding. There is a potential to add pressure via changes in hydrogen bonding more toward the polar side. This can be made to increase with increasing mechanical and osmotic pressures.

This potential for change can be used for energy and entropy at surfaces. Other liquid solvents use liquid state physics. However, the solvent itself does not have the secondary capacity to mimic the tension and pressure,paradox, as well as water. Water can add another layer to the physics.

[Bored chemist]

If we apply Occam's razor we would eliminate all statistical models

Occam wrote it before there were any statisticians.
" Entities should not be multiplied without necessity."
So "we have places that might be the cradle of life"

Or "we have places that might be the cradle of life and are a satellite of Vesta " and "we have places that might be the cradle of life and are not a satellite of Vesta "

That category distinction is one we don't need.
Otherwise it gets silly
"we have places that might be the cradle of life and are the cupboard under the stairs "...

The water-oil affect, which requires the liquid phase, is key to assembly.

So, a wet planet is a good start.
And let's look at vesta
"Temperatures on the surface have been estimated to lie between about −20 °C with the Sun overhead, dropping to about −190 °C at the winter pole".

OK we can write that off as an option for life.

Now, let's consider any smaller body at a comparable distance from the Sun.
It's going to have a much smaller gravitational field.
So it's more likely that stuff as volatile as water (water is still volatile when it's frozen- the process is called sublimation) will be lost.
And, of course, it's smaller,  so there's less stuff to lose.

Any hypothetical satellite of Vesta will be much dryer than Vesta.
And far too cold for liquid water.

So, not a place to find

The water-oil affect, which requires the liquid phase, is key to assembly.

[larens (OP)]

If we apply Occam's razor we would eliminate all statistical models

Occam wrote it before there were any statisticians.
" Entities should not be multiplied without necessity."
So "we have places that might be the cradle of life"

Or "we have places that might be the cradle of life and are a satellite of Vesta " and "we have places that might be the cradle of life and are not a satellite of Vesta "

You give an excellent example of how not to use Occam's razor. Puppypower generally has the right idea but there needs to be a way of cutting off the infinite number of possibilities with diminishing small probabilities. That is why I use an inverse Drake equation. Use a Bayesian prior of there being one planet with advanced civilization in all the inhabitable planets in the universe. It does not matter what cutoff for habitability one uses. Though the choice will change at least one Drake factor, it will not change the scientific conclusions.

So, a wet planet is a good start.
And let's look at vesta
"Temperatures on the surface have been estimated to lie between about −20 °C with the Sun overhead, dropping to about −190 °C at the winter pole".

OK we can write that off as an option for life.

Just ignore the fact that Vesta is in a chaotic orbit and can be much closer to the Sun. Indeed ignore the fact that the model under discussion places it much closer to the Sun in the relevant era.

Any hypothetical satellite of Vesta will be much dryer than Vesta.

Vesta was large enough to melt and drive off water, which made it much dryer than any small carbonaceous satellite.

[Kryptid]

The most relevant high energy molecules are HCN and HCOH.

Hydrogen cyanide and formaldehyde can be found in the atmosphere of Titan. The Urey-Miller experiment demonstrated that hydrogen cyanide and formaldehyde can be generated from simple chemical precursors using mechanisms that were plausible on the early Earth. It's hardly necessary for them to collected from rings.

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.

Except that you have absolutely no way of knowing the size of that hypothetical satellite. Sure, you can propose that it had such a size and that your scenario could have happened, but you absolutely cannot say that it probably happened.

The large number of mutations is the evidence that there was a reactor.

The large number of mutations in what? Do you have some kind of sample of life from your hypothetical satellite or something? Surely you're not arguing that the large number of mutations in life forms on Earth is evidence that there was a natural nuclear reactor on your hypothetical satellite. Life on Earth has been mutating for billions of years. And there are many things that can cause life to mutate (ultraviolet radiation, mutagenic chemicals, and errors in replication that occur naturally without such triggers in the first place). How you can possibly say that a given set of mutations was caused by exposure to a natural nuclear reactor billions of years ago is beyond me.

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

But it is available. If a warm spring with organic material is all you need, then there are many plausible candidates in the Solar System. If a warm spring on your satellite can produce life then a warm spring in a desert on early Earth could do that same thing. That hypothesis has two advantages over yours: we know that the Earth exists and what its properties are/were (so no need to make the extra assumption that an object that we can't observe today existed) and there is no need to assume panspermia (because life would have started right here on Earth). Take careful note how I specified a desert in order to meet your qualification that the environment not be too wet.

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.

Your arguments against life starting somewhere other than your hypothetical satellite are insufficient. You make it sound as if your warm spring is somehow unique when compared to a warm spring on any other body in the solar system. Any object with sufficient internal heat and a subsurface water supply can potentially have warm springs. Given how common water is in the Solar System, a large percentage of bodies in the Solar System would have had exactly those conditions early in their formation when they still retained a large amount of internal heat from their formation. Just look for bodies that have a high organic content (like tholins) and those bodies become just as good a source for life as your hypothetical satellite.

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.

Just in case you didn't notice, the Earth is not covered entirely in water. We have deserts here. The same was very probably true for Mars and Venus as well. If sunlight is a problem, then put the spring in a cave or some similar dark place.

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 would actually be interested in reading those studies if you can provide a link. But that's not even necessary if a warm spring in a desert on Earth was where life originated.

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

There is water on the Moon today in the form of ice, so it managed to either keep some water, generate it in situ after it solidified or acquired more through asteroid/comet impacts.

The hardened sulfurous surface is also not suitable.

Hardened? Can you provide a reference to it being harder than other satellites? I will concede that the sulfur compounds could be a problem.

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.

And that's a perfectly plausible solution. But we don't know either way.

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

Right. It's the actual lack of good evidence that does that. Your model builds assumption on top of assumption. That might make it possible, but that does not make it probable (given that nigh-identical warm spring scenarios could originate on many different bodies in the Solar System).

[puppypower]

If we apply Occam's razor we would eliminate all statistical models
Occam wrote it before there were any statisticians.
" Entities should not be multiplied without necessity."
So "we have places that might be the cradle of life"

Or "we have places that might be the cradle of life and are a satellite of Vesta " and "we have places that might be the cradle of life and are not a satellite of Vesta "

That category distinction is one we don't need.
Otherwise it gets silly
"we have places that might be the cradle of life and are the cupboard under the stairs "...

Statistics strikes me as a hybrid of science and legal mumble jumble. Anything is possible and the exceptions to the rule have lower probability. It creates the illusion of being rational but uses fuzzy dice to define valid and invalid. It remains me of defense lawyer trying to walk the fence so his criminal client can escape on a technically. Occam's Razor never assumed science would resort to legal hoaxes.

Consider the statical model predictions for the corona virus. They were way off. If this had been Relativity and its prediction were that far off, it would have been nipped in the bud. But the statistical virus models still lingers because the hoax approach is very flexible because of pseudo-legal arguments.

[Bored chemist]

Statistics strikes me as a hybrid of science and legal mumble jumble.

Whch speaks volumes about you, because it's a branch of mathematics.

Consider the statical model predictions for the corona virus.

OK, Let's consider it- properly.
The inputs to the model were uncertain.
The modelers will have done sensitivity calculations and their reports will have been full of statements of assumptions, and error margins, confidence limits and so on.

And, because the uninformed think "Statistics strikes me as a hybrid of science and legal mumble jumble" and they define what gets into the news, the media report a single line as being the "output from the model"
It's in the class of "lies you tell children"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lie-to-children

And then you turn up her and say "They were way off."

Well,were they?
Did you look at all of them?
Are they really all outside of their confidence intervals?
Were that data on which they were based inaccurate?

Or are you just talking nonsense?

But the statistical virus models still lingers because the hoax approach is very flexible because of pseudo-legal arguments.

That doesn't even mean anything.
Guess what- if statistical models didn't work, we wouldn't use them.

[Bobolink]

Statistics strikes me as a hybrid of science and legal mumble jumble.

It is actually mathematics.
 

Anything is possible and the exceptions to the rule have lower probability. It creates the illusion of being rational but uses fuzzy dice to define valid and invalid. It remains me of defense lawyer trying to walk the fence so his criminal client can escape on a technically. Occam's Razor never assumed science would resort to legal hoaxes.

You don't realize that statistics are intimately involved in your life.  A large percentage of the amount of your bills are based on statistics.  I have used statisticians to help in the analysis of experiments that I ran and found the their analysis really helpful in quantifying the results.  I think actual results are more important than your feelings.

Consider the statical model predictions for the corona virus. They were way off. If this had been Relativity and its prediction were that far off, it would have been nipped in the bud. But the statistical virus models still lingers because the hoax approach is very flexible because of pseudo-legal arguments.

You are correct that the models are not perfect.  Is that because statistics is flawed?
I think it is about the quality of the data going into the model.  This is a new virus, so we don't know the infection rate, we don't know the death rate, we don't know rate of asymptomatic people and we don't have testing to an adequate level.  All of these unknowns lead to a model that is not going to be perfect. 

Edit to add:  Crap, you're faster than me Bored chemist!

[Bored chemist]

It's a perpetual grumble among statisticians. People do the experiment, then go talk to them.
If you involve the statisticians at the start, you get a better designed experiment.

[larens (OP)]

[

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

Right. It's the actual lack of good evidence that does that. Your model builds assumption on top of assumption. That might make it possible, but that does not make it probable (given that nigh-identical warm spring scenarios could originate on many different bodies in the Solar System).

Kriptid, I am not going to make a point by point rebuttal of your comments because you are just rehashing points that I have already addressed. It is obvious that you are not remembering what I have said long enough to make insightful replies. You keep claiming that scenarios are "nigh-identical" after I have pointed out how they are distinctIy different. I have already built a high probability case within the context of astrobiology research. You need to reply to me with the understanding that I am aware of a large portion of the relevant results of that research.

[Bored chemist]

Vesta was large enough to melt and drive off wate

How?
Big things needn't be hotter
The Moon is smaller than the Earth, but the mid"day" temperature is a lot hotter.

[larens (OP)]

Vesta was large enough to melt and drive off water

How?
Big things needn't be hotter
The Moon is smaller than the Earth, but the mid"day" temperature is a lot hotter.

The high temperatures to create lava come mostly from the decay of radioactive isotopes. Larger bodies lose heat more slowly so become hotter.

[Kryptid]

Kriptid, I am not going to make a point by point rebuttal of your comments because you are just rehashing points that I have already addressed.

Since when did you address the warm spring in a desert on Earth? All I recall you saying was that Earth was too wet, which is why I countered with the desert example. You know what a desert is, don't you?

[larens (OP)]

Kriptid, I am not going to make a point by point rebuttal of your comments because you are just rehashing points that I have already addressed.

Since when did you address the warm spring in a desert on Earth? All I recall you saying was that Earth was too wet, which is why I countered with the desert example. You know what a desert is, don't you?

I also said that water and surface catalysts destroy high energy, reactive chemicals, e.g., HCN and HCOH. It is a global process because they are volatile.

[Kryptid]

I also said that water and surface catalysts destroy high energy, reactive chemicals, e.g., HCN and HCOH. It is a global process because they are volatile.

And what do you think a warm spring is made of?

[Bored chemist]

The high temperatures to create lava come mostly from the decay of radioactive isotopes. Larger bodies lose heat more slowly so become hotter.

Ok, let's make an assumption- there's the same percentage radioactive "stuff" in Vesta as in Earth.
It's questionable but it's a start.
Vesta is small- radius 263 km.
Earth's much bigger 6,371 km

Vesta has about 4% of the radius of Earth
So it's got about 0.04^3 of the amount of heat generation.
But 0.04^2 times the area
So the heat per square metre is only about 4% of that of the Earth.
And much of the water on Earth is frozen, even though the Earth's near the Sun..

So the heat output from Vesta wouldn't be enough to thaw the water, would it?

[larens (OP)]

I also said that water and surface catalysts destroy high energy, reactive chemicals, e.g., HCN and HCOH. It is a global process because they are volatile.

And what do you think a warm spring is made of?

A warm spring can become a small self organizing system which can host a smaller self organizing system that can lead to the first instance of life. Up to the edge of the spring you want a relatively nonreactive environment so chemical precursors finally react within the self organizing systems. Any large relatively reactive and unorganized regions between the source of the precursors and the spring will kill the process by destroying the precursors.

[Kryptid]

A warm spring can become a small self organizing system which can host a smaller self organizing system that can lead to the first instance of life. Up to the edge of the spring you want a relatively nonreactive environment so chemical precursors finally react within the self organizing systems. Any large relatively reactive and unorganized regions between the source of the precursors and the spring will kill the process by destroying the precursors.

All right then, so we agree that water in itself won't destroy hydrogen cyanide or formaldehyde. So what about those catalysts you speak of? Which ones in particular did you have in mind?

[larens (OP)]

The high temperatures to create lava come mostly from the decay of radioactive isotopes. Larger bodies lose heat more slowly so become hotter.

Ok, let's make an assumption- there's the same percentage radioactive "stuff" in Vesta as in Earth.
It's questionable but it's a start.
Vesta is small- radius 263 km.
Earth's much bigger 6,371 km

Vesta has about 4% of the radius of Earth
So it's got about 0.04^3 of the amount of heat generation.
But 0.04^2 times the area
So the heat per square metre is only about 4% of that of the Earth.
And much of the water on Earth is frozen, even though the Earth's near the Sun..

So the heat output from Vesta wouldn't be enough to thaw the water, would it?

Vesta was hot enough to melt. Its surface is igneous. There was a lot of radioactive aluminum-26 in the early Solar system.