Life on Earth Came From Other Planets

[A.DIM]

Is the title(and claim) of a new paper (http://cosmology.com/Cosmology1.html) published in Cosmology.


Abstract:
A comprehensive theory is presented to explain how life on Earth originated from other planets. Life appeared a few hundred million years after the Earths creation during a period of heavy bombardment. Life on Mars may have appeared near the same time. Microbes are adapted for surviving the hazards of space, including ejection from and landing upon a planet. Microbial fossils have been discovered in fifteen carbonaceous chondrites, most impacted by supernova. The Sun and Earth were created from a nebular cloud and protoplanetary disc, the remnants of an exploding star and its planets which may have harbored life. When the parent star became a red giant, its solar winds blew away planetary atmospheres along with airborne microbes, which were deposited in a growing nebular cloud. Because the red giant lost 40% to 80& of its mass and its gravitational influences were reduced, its planets increased orbital distances or were ejected prior to supernova and may not have been atomized. The inner layers of a nebular cloud and protoplanetary disk protects against radiation and extreme cold enabling spores to survive. Microbes may have also survived within planetary debris which bombarded the Earth. As only life can produce life, then life on Earth also came from life which may have originated on planets which orbited the parent star.

And the conclusion:

Our sun and solar system were created from the nebular debris spawned by a red giant which exploded in a supernova, nearly 5 billion years ago. The sun and our solar system may have been created within 100 million years of this explosion.
Spores can survive from 250 to 600 million years; which is more than enough time to take up residence on planets made up of this debris. Bacteria are perfectly adapted for surviving the hazards of space, and could not have acquired these abilities if their ancestral experience had been confined to Earth.
Life on Earth appeared while this planet was still forming. There is no proof life can be created from non-life. As only life can produce life, only panspermia is a viable scientific explanation as to the origin of Earthly life. The first life forms to appear on Earth were produced by other living creatures who were likely encased in debris ejected by the parent star nearly 5 billion years ago.
Life on Earth, came from other planets.

my bold
:eek:
Whoa!

I've not made it through the entire paper just yet but rest assured this will stir some discussion.

[DrWho]

This sounds like a crackpot. I love how this line was sneaked in matteroffactly:

"Microbial fossils have been discovered in fifteen carbonaceous chondrites, most impacted by supernova."

Really? Where has this been published and debated? And if only life can produce life, then what started life in the first place? Moving on...

[ravens_cry]

"As only life can produce life, only panspermia is a viable scientific explanation as to the origin of Earthly life"
But what created that life?
Even growing up in a Christian home, mostly influenced by young earth creationism, that was the big thing that bugged me in Mission to Mars. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mission_to_Mars) All panspermia does is push the origin of life back into the unknown. Eventually one runs into the Big Bang,and there is simply no more time.

[John Jaksich]

After clicking on the first link-- I could not help but notice that this so-called paper (or work) is for sale...sounds like a scam to me!

[centsworth_II]

After clicking on the first link-- I could not help but notice that this so-called paper (or work) is for sale...
I bet the "peer reviewed" at the top of the abstract refers to some blurbs on the book's back cover.

[korjik]

Odd that noone has ever mentioned the fact that these meteors carried extraterrestrial life to Earth.

Judging from all the hoopla when some guys thought they found a fossil from Mars, I would have thought at least one news agency would have mentioned something in passing.

[Gandalf223]

I think my signature says everything I have to offer on this one.

[tnjrp]

This indeed smacks rather like some specious reasoning combined with some fairly blatant assertions.

Incidentally, they put out a tv-show about panspermia the other week in Finland. Forgot what the show was called but it featured Professor Chandra Wickramasinghe and was centered around the red rains of Kerala in 2003. The red water was initially thought to contain micro-organisms that had no DNA (this is still reported in Wikipedia as "unresolved"), but in the show it was stated that they had been found to be regular spores. Interestingly the show did a bit of a double take and listed the lately discredited Streptococcus mitis bacteria find from Surveyor 3 as evidence for bacterial survival in space.

Anyway. One wonders if there is much interest in panspermia outside the "Hoyle circle"? After all, one would think it could only be a significantly important scientific alternative to Earthly abiogenesis if one assume universe is (at least almost) infinitely old and life has either always existed or has had time to beat the odds of the good old "tornado sweeping through a junk-yard assembling a Boeing 747 from the materials therein" (I suppose such an event has a minisculely higher possibility than 0, so if the backward timeline dimension is infinite is must've happened). One also wonders if this thinking is not generally more popular in India where the philosophical background may be more accepting of immense timespans as described in Hindu cosmology?

[timb]

This indeed smacks rather like some specious reasoning combined with some fairly blatant assertions.


I'd say it was **.

[tnjrp]

So rude!

[DrWho]

Incidentally, they put out a tv-show about panspermia the other week in Finland. Forgot what the show was called but it featured Professor Chandra Wickramasinghe and was centered around the red rains of Kerala in 2003.
Was it called We Are The Aliens (http://www.aptonline.org/catalog.nsf/AlphaLookup/C1E6FF40DFE5A22E852573C4004EA0ED)?

[tnjrp]

Yep, I think it probably was actually. At least the same guys appear to be featured.

[GOURDHEAD]

For those concerned that there may not have been sufficient time during the 5 billion year life of the solar system for the required self organization that produced life to have occurred, panspermia extends both the time and number of opportunities for self organization to have occurred. My guess is that the first few hundred million years of the 5 billion year old solar system was sufficient, and there is no need to add panspermia; however, I don't see its exclusion as an absolute.

[A.DIM]

This sounds like a crackpot.

You think? (http://brainmind.com/publications.html)


I love how this line was sneaked in matteroffactly:
"Microbial fossils have been discovered in fifteen carbonaceous chondrites, most impacted by supernova."
Really? Where has this been published and debated?

"Sneaked in"?
You mean the claim is barely discernible right there in the middle of the abstract, or that the whole of Sec. 11, wherein references are given in support, is hidden in the body of the text?

Did you read the paper, or only the abstract and conclusion?

And if only life can produce life, then what started life in the first place?
That's a great question indeed; it appears our universe is naturally geared to produce life.

[A.DIM]

"As only life can produce life, only panspermia is a viable scientific explanation as to the origin of Earthly life"
But what created that life?

The simplest answer seems to be our universe creates Life everywhere and nowhere, all the time, inevitably and "no more surprising than water flowing down hill."

But the question could well be unanswerable, equivalent to asking "why is there anything at all?".


Even growing up in a Christian home, mostly influenced by young earth creationism, that was the big thing that bugged me in Mission to Mars. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mission_to_Mars) All panspermia does is push the origin of life back into the unknown. Eventually one runs into the Big Bang,and there is simply no more time.

Insufficient time seems to be a major reason for considering panspermia as an origin of life on Earth; the span of time between Earth becoming habitable and Earth's earliest known, very complex, life is too short for "happy accidents" to have produced it, according to some. On the other hand, if it did happen easily and quickly, a condundrum presents itself.

Curiously(or frighteningly), both BBT and Creationism accept genesis ex nihilo.

[A.DIM]

After clicking on the first link-- I could not help but notice that this so-called paper (or work) is for sale...sounds like a scam to me!

And yet, there in front of you, for free, was is the entire paper (you actually had to scroll through it to get to the for sale signs).
:think:

I wonder, do you also consider Science, Nature, ApJ, (most scientific journals for that matter), etc. as scams for selling their papers or works?

[Spoons]

"Sneaked in"?

I really much prefer 'snuck' to 'sneaked'.

I really don't see what this "insufficient time" concept is based on though. I would have thought we're too far removed from that process to really be so certain how fast life takes off once it is sparked, or for that matter, first planted onto a planet.

I'm sure I don't know enough to call that a definitive statement :D

[A.DIM]

I bet the "peer reviewed" at the top of the abstract refers to some blurbs on the book's back cover.

Maybe, but you can read Cosmology.com (http://www.cosmology.com/)'s info on peer review, if you like; "Article Submission Information" for scientists and scholars.

[A.DIM]

"Sneaked in"?

I really much prefer 'snuck' to 'sneaked'.

Well, as I understand it, "snuck" is but an american "uneducated" use of past tense "sneaked."


I really don't see what this "insufficient time" concept is based on though. I would have thought we're too far removed from that process to really be so certain how fast life takes off once it is sparked, or for that matter, first planted onto a planet.

I'm sure I don't know enough to call that a definitive statement :D

Well, I'd suggest Clive Trotman's The Feathered Onion - Creation of Life in the Universe, which describes in great detail the many "happy accident" processes needed to arrive at the complexity of Earth's earliest known life. From his biologist's perspective, 100-200 million years was not enough.

[A.DIM]

I'd say it was **.

Ya know, recently I was reprimanded here for using the British equivalent for **.

Funny how it goes unnoticed or, I daresay, is allowable when used from and in defense of a mainstream perspective.

[Spoons]

Well, snuck was the common form in Australia during my childhood so it's certainly not just an American thing.

Back to topic
In the vastness of the universe it's reasonable to assume that similar starting conditions as our planet occur a great many times.

And this being thecase, however low the odds that it should occur somewhere it's natural we'd exist in one of the possibly rare locations where chance dealt some lucky cards. I know some people dislike this sort of arguement but doesn't break any logic does it?

[Spoons]

Also, I believe one of the new (or newish?) rules relates to using initialised forms of swearing. I don't know whether that sort of thing flies or not, best check the rules thread.

[A.DIM]

Anthropic, to be sure.

I prefer the simpler copernican principle in that what we observe here on Earth is the result of nothing special; similar ingredients in similar environments gives similar results.

[Spoons]

Well, yes, I prefer that concept myself.

I was just suggesting that even if it is not so easy to get a toehold there's still another fairly reasonable possibility in my opinion.

[A.DIM]

Also, I believe one of the new (or newish?) rules relates to using initialised forms of swearing. I don't know whether that sort of thing flies or not, best check the rules thread.

It's a slippery slope in my view, greased arbitrarily.

Saying "**" or "that's **" is commonplace, and can be found in all American media, but supposing someone comes here, to our "family friendly" fora, and reads a post where "********" is used, well, that's not family friendly and deserving of reprimand.

[R.A.F.]

I prefer the simpler copernican principle in that what we observe here on Earth is the result of nothing special.

Your opinion is "exact" on...life started here as nothing special...there is no "need" for panspermia at all.

Which is why it is so strange that you continuously "promote" it.

[AstroRockHunter]

From the conclusion of the paper:


There is no proof life can be created from non-life. As only life can produce life, only panspermia is a viable scientific explanation as to the origin of Earthly life.
Bold mine.

Isn't this a logical fallacy?

[A.DIM]

From the conclusion of the paper:


Bold mine.

Isn't this a logical fallacy?

How so?

Is there any evidence for Life from nonLife, abiogenesis?

[A.DIM]

Your opinion is "exact" on...life started here as nothing special...there is no "need" for panspermia at all.

Which is why it is so strange that you continuously "promote" it.

"Promote it?"

No.
The subject has received new impetus and credibility with the growing field of astrobiology.
I'm simply interested and find it as plausible.

What I find strange is your almost vehement defense of abiogenesis on Earth when we have no evidence of Life from nonLife; that it's a "more reasonable" assumption somehow.

[DrWho]

Quote:
Originally Posted by DrWho View Post
This sounds like a crackpot.
You think?
Yes, I do. Since when does a neurologist (from scanning your link) have any authority in cosmology?


"Sneaked in"?
You mean the claim is barely discernible right there in the middle of the abstract? Did you read the paper, or only the abstract and conclusion?
Yes, I only read the abstract and the conclusion that you posted. That was sufficient to conclude that the paper itself (which must be based around those claims) would be of no interest to me because the propositions sound loony.

[Spoons]

No proof that life can come from non-life is not equivalent to proof that life can only come from a preceeding life.

If big-bang is true, and in some form it seems pretty certain, then that seems like proof life can come from non-life. Depending on the definition of life I suppose. You could argue the universe is alive itself I suppose.

Unless you start on the idea of life being planted in this universe from another universe. But that seems like a blind path for the meantime.

[John Jaksich]

And yet, there in front of you, for free, was is the entire paper (you actually had to scroll through it to get to the for sale signs).
:think:

I wonder, do you also consider Science, Nature, ApJ, (most scientific journals for that matter), etc. as scams for selling their papers or works?

It does not look very professional to me. In some senses the "web" has blurred the boundaries of good science and given to anyone who wants to make a "buck" the means by which to become an expert when they all they have done is "put together a mosaic" of papers. I could have done this as well -- but I think (or hope) I will never have to do anything like this? Maybe Mr. Joseph needs the money...who knows for sure?

[A.DIM]

Yes, I do.

Onto the pile then!

You know, I've been thinking of compiling a list of all the scientists who've put forth unorthodox hypotheses, often outside their expertise, and were, if not immediately, relegated to crackpot status.


Since when does a neurologist (from scanning your link) have any authority in cosmology?

Good question; I felt the same way upon checking him out.
Although, astrobiology is a multidisciplinary field and I'd guess he's firstly a biologist (nothing is said about his undergraduate degree(s?)).
Additionally, after reading his paper, and recognizing a number of the cites / references he provides I found it to be well reasoned, supported.
I don't think panspermia is "proven" by any means but I find it interesting how more and more scientists, of whatever stripe, are finding panspermia plausible.


Yes, I only read the abstract and the conclusion that you posted. That was sufficient to conclude that the paper itself (which must be based around those claims) would be of no interest to me because the propositions sound loony.

Well, that seems an excuse for someone not terribly familiar with the topic but ok.

Do you also dismiss a good book because its title might "sound loony?"
Although, I think it a worse offense when done with science.

[A.DIM]

It does not look very professional to me. In some senses the "web" has blurred the boundaries of good science and given to anyone who wants to make a "buck" the means by which to become an expert when they all they have done is "put together a mosaic" of papers. I could have done this as well -- but I think (or hope) I never have to do anything like it? Maybe Mr. Joseph needs the money...who knows for sure?

Perhaps you should submit a paper to Cosmology.com then, to see how professional they are? Aug 15th, I think, is the deadline to make the inaugural edition in December.

[John Jaksich]

Perhaps you should submit a paper to Cosmology.com then, to see how professional they are? Aug 15th, I think, is the deadline to make the inaugural edition in December.

Dear A.DIM

Perhaps you should? I really don't need to sully my name any more than I have up to now!

[agingjb]

I'm not sure I'm entirely persuaded by the argument that 100 million years is not enough. First, even going back as far as possible only gives an improved factor of 100, and then the number of possible planets in the universe - 1020, more? less? - dilutes the improbability again.

If life is common, then we are just one example, and we probably started here (or close by). And if there's only one biosphere; we're it.

I'd say, without much evidence, that if life is so hard to start that it's a one-a-galaxy phenomenon or worse, then it's also rather unlikely to shift over interstellar distances onto planetary surfaces.

Of course, if we are the only place where carbon chemistry (which is universal) has proceded beyond relatively simple forms, then we are a potential, but no more than potential, source for a future panspermia, of some sort or another.

My own quite irrelevant guesses: carbon based microbial biospheres, differing in chemical detail from ours, are in the millions per galaxy range; eukarote levels of complexity are at least an order of magnitude rarer; multicellular organisms rarer again; cultures analogous to ours are extremely sparse; and interstellar travel, deliberate or inadvertent, is negligeable.

[A.DIM]

Dear A.DIM

Perhaps you should? I really don't need to sully my name any more than I have up to now!

I don't think my degrees in English and Sociology are befitting a publication in Cosmology but who knows?

What I do know is that panspermia is not so easily dismissed with "looks unprofessional to me, I could've done that "

Are you saying though, that whatever you might submit, or have up to now, has sullied your name?

[NEOWatcher]

What I do know is that panspermia is not so easily dismissed with "looks unprofessional to me, I could've done that "
I would agree with that statement, but in this case, it's not the look that is the problem. It's a specific exclusionary statement that might be representing a biased view that is the problem.

[A.DIM]

I'm not sure I'm entirely persuaded by the argument that 100 million years is not enough. First, even going back as far as possible only gives an improved factor of 100, and then the number of possible planets in the universe - 1020, more? less? - dilutes the improbability again.

If life is common, then we are just one example, and we probably started here (or close by). And if there's only one biosphere; we're it.

I'd say, without much evidence, that if life is so hard to start that it's a one-a-galaxy phenomenon or worse, then it's also rather unlikely to shift over interstellar distances onto planetary surfaces.

Of course, if we are the only place where carbon chemistry (which is universal) has proceded beyond relatively simple forms, then we are a potential, but no more than potential, source for a future panspermia, of some sort or another.

My own quite irrelevant guesses: carbon based microbial biospheres, differing in chemical detail from ours, are in the millions per galaxy range; eukarote levels of complexity are at least an order of magnitude rarer; multicellular organisms rarer again; cultures analogous to ours are extremely sparse; and interstellar travel, deliberate or inadvertent, is negligeable.

There are plenty of contingencies to be sure but maybe Lineweaver's Does the Rapid Appearance of Life on Earth Suggest that Life is Common in the Universe? (http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0205014) will help.
You can download the pdf.

[A.DIM]

I would agree with that statement, but in this case, it's not the look that is the problem. It's a specific exclusionary statement that might be representing a biased view that is the problem.

I agree it's a bold claim "Life on Earth came from other planets" but I'd not dismiss it as "looks unprofessional ... I could've done that " before examing the content, the meat of it.

[DrWho]

You know, I've been thinking of compiling a list of all the scientists who've put forth unorthodox hypotheses, often outside their expertise, and were, if not immediately, relegated to crackpot status.

Go ahead, but I fail to see what that would prove. Even otherwise respected and accomplished scientists can come up with ideas which are considered to be crackpot - take Fred Hoyle and his steady state theory. Well, that's a little different because at the time he proposed it, it was a reasonable theory, but he kept pushing it beyond the point of reason when it became discredited by observation.

People often say things like 'they laughed at so-and-so, and he proved to be right', That's a spacious argument that doesn't confer any legitimacy to an argument whatsoever.


I don't think panspermia is "proven" by any means but I find it interesting how more and more scientists, of whatever stripe, are finding panspermia plausible.
I don't think it was ever implausible, just not necessary to explain the origins of life. In fact, it has no explanatory power at all because it simply shifts the origin point of life from Earth to somewhere else - it doesn't tell you how it got started in the first place. So why unnecessarily complicate matters?


Well, that seems an excuse for someone not terribly familiar with the topic but ok.
It's no excuse. Like I said, I found the abstract to be dodgy at best. And I am quite familiar with the topic of panspermia, thank you very much.


Do you also dismiss a good book because its title might "sound loony?"
Really? That's your defense?

[John Jaksich]

I don't think my degrees in English and Sociology are befitting a publication in Cosmology but who knows?

What I do know is that panspermia is not so easily dismissed with "looks unprofessional to me, I could've done that "

Are you saying though, that whatever you might submit, or have up to now, has sullied your name?

Dear A.DIM

Try none of the above... and no Ad Hominem intended...

I, personally, don't have the time to devote to a paper on a subject as encompassing as cosmology might be (given what little resources I presently possess).

May be you may want to try your hand at it... or collaborate with someone who might have the time and resources.

To me, a good paper on the science of cosmology would involve a great deal of mathematical complexity-... as well as being amenable to anyone with a good general science background.

Cheers...

[A.DIM]

Go ahead, but I fail to see what that would prove. Even otherwise respected and accomplished scientists can come up with ideas which are considered to be crackpot - take Fred Hoyle and his steady state theory. Well, that's a little different because at the time he proposed it, it was a reasonable theory, but he kept pushing it beyond the point of reason when it became discredited by observation.

People often say things like 'they laughed at so-and-so, and he proved to be right', That's a spacious argument that doesn't confer any legitimacy to an argument whatsoever.

Well, IMO, saying "I've read the abstract & conclusion only, it looks loony, he's a crackpot" is rather specious and approaches pseudoskepticism.


I don't think it was ever implausible, just not necessary to explain the origins of life. In fact, it has no explanatory power at all because it simply shifts the origin point of life from Earth to somewhere else - it doesn't tell you how it got started in the first place. So why unnecessarily complicate matters?

Assuming Life from nonLife has necessarily simplified the matter?
I find "it just moves the problem back" to be a lame argument against, especially based on such an unsupported assumption.


It's no excuse. Like I said, I found the abstract to be dodgy at best. And I am quite familiar with the topic of panspermia, thank you very much.

Really?

Please show which statements, specifically, you find to be "dodgy at best."


Really? That's your defense?

My "defense?"

No; you're the one who professed to dismissing a paper based on little else than its title.

[A.DIM]

Dear A.DIM

Try none of the above... and no Ad Hominem intended...

I, personally, don't have the time to devote to a paper on a subject as encompassing as cosmology might be (given what little resources I presently possess).

May be you may want to try your hand at it... or collaborate with someone who might have the time and resources.

To me, a good paper on the science of cosmology would involve a great deal of mathematical complexity-... as well as being amenable to anyone with a good general science background.

Cheers...

jaksichj,

I respect you're a busy person; as am I.
I took the time to read the paper. You didn't?
To me a cursory review and dismissive "looks unprofessional" as rebuttal is most vacuous.
Why then take the time?

Cheers,

[NEOWatcher]

I agree it's a bold claim "Life on Earth came from other planets" but I'd not dismiss it as "looks unprofessional ... I could've done that " before examing the content, the meat of it.
No, that's not the wording of the statement.
I wouldn't mind it stated that way because that is a claim that they are making and (trying to) back up.
But I said the "exclusionary" statement because they are claiming that "only panspermia is a viable scientific explanation" when other viable scientific explainations do exist.

[R.A.F.]

So why unnecessarily complicate matters?

It's worse than that...adim does not think that panspermia makes the origin of life question unnecessarily more complicated...he gives each origin idea the same "chance" of happening.

I'd like to know how adim can, with every post, promote panspermia, yet at the same time deny he is doing so. Seems a tad disingenous to me.

[A.DIM]

No, that's not the wording of the statement.
I wouldn't mind it stated that way because that is a claim that they are making and (trying to) back up.
But I said the "exclusionary" statement because they are claiming that "only panspermia is a viable scientific explanation" when other viable scientific explainations do exist.

Thanks for clarifying NEOWatcher. I misunderstood, I guess.

No matter, I still don't think one can so easily dismiss the paper based on an exclusionary statement that "might be representing a biased view."

One still needs to read the work.

[A.DIM]

It's worse than that...adim does not think that panspermia makes the origin of life question unnecessarily more complicated...he gives each origin idea the same "chance" of happening.

I'd like to know how adim can, with every post, promote panspermia, yet at the same time deny he is doing so. Seems a tad disingenous to me.

Did you read the paper?
If so, don't you have anything relevant or pertinent to the topic?

Discuss the message not the messenger, or go away, please.

[R.A.F.]

...I still don't think one can so easily dismiss the paper based on an exclusionary statement that "might be representing a biased view."

That you "don't see it" as being biased is simply an example of your own bias....which of course you don't "see" either.

What is "pertinent" to this discussion is the acceptance of speculation "as if" it were some form of evidence. When you promote an unproven idea to the exclusion of all other, and better ideas, then that is exactly what you are doing.

It's certainly not my "problem" that your bias is showing.

[A.DIM]

That you "don't see it" as being biased is simply an example of your own bias....which of course you don't "see" either.

Rubbish!
You now know matter of factly Dr. Joseph is biased in presenting his paper?
How did you establish that?


What is "pertinent" to this discussion is the acceptance of speculation "as if" it were some form of evidence. When you promote an unproven idea to the exclusion of all other, and better ideas, then that is exactly what you are doing.

Rubbish!
Have I ever said I don't accept the possibility for abiogenesis on Earth?
You obviously vehemently oppose panspermia (bias perhaps?), expressing disbelief, all the while you cling to Life from nonLife based on what?
Do you have any evidence to support your abiogenesis on Earth belief?


It's certainly not my "problem" that your bias is showing.

Yet you're the one always complaining and making such allegations.
:rolleyes:

[A.DIM]

No proof that life can come from non-life is not equivalent to proof that life can only come from a preceeding life.

Life from Life has never been falsified.
Life from nonLife has never been proven.

Which seems the more reasonable assumption with which to start?

[DrWho]

Well, IMO, saying "I've read the abstract & conclusion only, it looks loony, he's a crackpot" is rather specious and approaches pseudoskepticism.
Calm down. Why do you think papers have abstracts? Because it allows people to decide whether a paper might hold any interest to them and therefore whether it's worthwhile reading the whole thing. Clearly I thought that it wasn't. Furthermore, I said that he sounded like a crackpot, not that he was one, based on the views expressed in the abstract and conclusion.

If someone else has read the whole paper, that has a more balanced outlook with no shares invested in panspermia, and comes forward and says that the paper is actually worth reading, then I may reconsider and read it in full.


Assuming Life from nonLife has necessarily simplified the matter?
Yes. Because we have a far better idea of what the early conditions were like on Earth (rather than some arbitrary incubator of life of which we know nothing about), we can begin to formulate ideas and even make experiments to test how life might have started. I would think that much is obvious.


I find "it just moves the problem back" to be a lame argument against, especially based on such an unsupported assumption.
No, it seems, you really don't see it. Let me try again. EVEN if life on Earth started through panspermia, what does that tell you about how life started in the first place (somewhere else)? Nothing! You cannot keep dodging the issue by saying 'well, that life on that other world started somewhere else too', and so on. It's just a copout.


Please show which statements, specifically, you find to be "dodgy at best."
Why should I repeat myself? I already pointed out the dodgy bits in my first post.


No; you're the one who professed to dismissing a paper based on little else than its title.
It was the abstract and the conclusion, why distort it? Tell me, if you had read an abstract that claimed that fairies created life on Earth, would you be compelled to read the whole paper? It's the same with this paper, I read statements which clearly sound loony and so I have no incentive to plough through the whole thing.

[Spoons]

Life from Life has never been falsified.
Life from nonLife has never been proven.

Which seems the more reasonable assumption with which to start?

Both are perfectly reasonable in my view. I thought the fascinating part is the development of life. Once it is there whether it bounces around the cosmos or not is just an extra angle on life proliferation.

Life from nonlife: I see nothing strange about this. The planet and everything we see is an example of complexity developing from simplicity of the early universe so why should life be any different? And besides, at some point it clearly happened. Once we know it can happen why question it happening again, and again, ad infinitum?

[AstroRockHunter]

How so?

Is there any evidence for Life from nonLife, abiogenesis?

No, there is no evidence for life from non-life.

The fallacy comes from this:


Argumentum ad ignorantiam (argument to ignorance). This is the fallacy of assuming something is true simply because it hasn't been proven false. For example, someone might argue that global warming is certainly occurring because nobody has demonstrated conclusively that it is not. But failing to prove the global warming theory false is not the same as proving it true.

http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html (http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html)


In other words, lack of proof for is not proof against and conversely lack of proof against is not proof for.

[centsworth_II]

And yet, there in front of you, for free, was is the entire paper (you actually had to scroll through it to get to the for sale signs).

What is for sale is a 250 page book.

The fact that the paper's author repeatedly states 'only life can create life', BEGS the question which others have asked: 'how did the life spread by panspermia arise?"

You brush aside these questions with the rational argument that our universe is ripe for the creation of life, but that it takes such a long time that the rapid appearance of life on Earth cannot be explained this way. The problem is, this is your argument not that of the paper's author. (I hope I understand your position correctly.)

Maybe I missed it, but the paper only seems to repeat over and over the irrational, unsupportable assertion that 'only life can create life.' This sort of absolutism should be an embarrassment in a scientific paper, both for the author and for the publisher.

[tnjrp]

The fact that the paper's author repeatedly states 'only life can create life', BEGS the question which others have asked: 'how did the life spread by panspermia arise?"I can't help thinking that some form of creationism is hiding beneath the surface. That, or a steady state universe model. Neither is at the top of my list for "things likely to cause a paradigm shift in relevant field of science".

Also I think the abstract goes into a bit too much detail about the creation of the Sol system, but maybe I'm just not up to speed on that.

[A.DIM]

Calm down. Why do you think papers have abstracts? Because it allows people to decide whether a paper might hold any interest to them and therefore whether it's worthwhile reading the whole thing. Clearly I thought that it wasn't. Furthermore, I said that he sounded like a crackpot, not that he was one, based on the views expressed in the abstract and conclusion.

If someone else has read the whole paper, that has a more balanced outlook with no shares invested in panspermia, and comes forward and says that the paper is actually worth reading, then I may reconsider and read it in full.

Nevermind, please.
I don't think I'm interested in what you'd have to say at this point. I have no "shares" or vested interests as you allege. The idea, panspermia, has deep historical roots, 100 plus years in the scientific community, and has renewed support with the growth of Astrobiology. I find the it entirely plausible, a valid theory for the origin of Earth life, and worthy of more than "sounds like a crackpot" critiques. I'd liken that approach to "looks like a face."
Did you ever do any research of your own on the 15 carbonaceous chondrite with microbial fossils claim?


Yes. Because we have a far better idea of what the early conditions were like on Earth (rather than some arbitrary incubator of life of which we know nothing about), we can begin to formulate ideas and even make experiments to test how life might have started. I would think that much is obvious.

And yet with a far better idea we are left with decades of no proof for abiogenesis on Earth, numerous competing theories, all of which have failings, and leaving us no closer to Life fron nonLife. I daresay that as we've discovered much about chemical pathways leading to Life, the hardware software(if you're familiar with origin of life theories you'll understand the analogy) problem looms larger.


No, it seems, you really don't see it. Let me try again. EVEN if life on Earth started through panspermia, what does that tell you about how life started in the first place (somewhere else)? Nothing! You cannot keep dodging the issue by saying 'well, that life on that other world started somewhere else too', and so on. It's just a copout.

No, it's an answer to one of the steps in the process which led to Life on Earth. No, it tells us nothing about the origin of Life in the universe (actually you're confusing two separate ideas), but the thinking appears to be Life, even if only microbial, was inevitable. So what you're doing is cramming the origin of Life into an earthsized time frame.
I think that complicates the matter.


Why should I repeat myself? I already pointed out the dodgy bits in my first post.

Right, did you do any independent research to verify or refute that claim?


It was the abstract and the conclusion, why distort it? Tell me, if you had read an abstract that claimed that fairies created life on Earth, would you be compelled to read the whole paper? It's the same with this paper, I read statements which clearly sound loony and so I have no incentive to plough through the whole thing.

Sorry, fairy lore and panspermia are not on equal scientific footing; it's not the same.

So again, nevermind, please.
I've no incentive to continue arguing over your "some dodgy statements .... sounds like a crackpot" dismissal.
I'm sure your time could be better spent too.

[DrWho]

I'm sure your time could be better spent too.
Totally. In passing, I don't see too many other people defending this particular paper other than you and you seem blind to its shortcomings, so further discourse is rather pointless.

[A.DIM]

Both are perfectly reasonable in my view.

Right, I've argued elsewhere this very thing; neither is any more reasonable.
I point out no Life fron nonLife simply to show some valid rationale behind panspermia hypotheses.


I thought the fascinating part is the development of life. Once it is there whether it bounces around the cosmos or not is just an extra angle on life proliferation.

Yeah, I tend to think of the origin of Life as a non-event while there is no evidence for galaxies, solar systems, planets, etc. as being closed systems. Material transfer is inevitable.


Life from nonlife: I see nothing strange about this. The planet and everything we see is an example of complexity developing from simplicity of the early universe so why should life be any different? And besides, at some point it clearly happened. Once we know it can happen why question it happening again, and again, ad infinitum?

Good question.
The problem with abiogenesis on Earth is the timeframe between being habitable and the earliest known Life; it's complexity is astounding and there doesn't seem to be enough time for happy accidents to have produced it.

[A.DIM]

No, there is no evidence for life from non-life.

The fallacy comes from this:


In other words, lack of proof for is not proof against and conversely lack of proof against is not proof for.

Indeed, and I meant not to suggest it as proof against Life from nonLife, only to show Life from Life is experimentally and observationally sound and in turn supportive of panspermia hypotheses.

[centsworth_II]

I can't help thinking that some form of creationism is hiding beneath the surface....
That's the impression I get.

I think that anyone with a serious interest in panspermia as a serious scientific hypothesis would be making a mistake to use this paper as support for their case, if they want scientifically literate people to respect their position.

[A.DIM]

Totally. In passing, I don't see too many other people defending this particular paper other than you and you seem blind to its shortcomings, so further discourse is rather pointless.

Well, I wasn't out to defend the paper or expect others to do so, but I view dismissals based on cursory review and "looks like" arguments pointless.

If I'm defending anything it would be the need for objectivity in reviewing scientific papers.

[A.DIM]

What is for sale is a 250 page book.

Well, you can buy a subscription to Nature or Science instead, or simply read this paper for free.


The fact that the paper's author repeatedly states 'only life can create life', BEGS the question which others have asked: 'how did the life spread by panspermia arise?"

You brush aside these questions with the rational argument that our universe is ripe for the creation of life, but that it takes such a long time that the rapid appearance of life on Earth cannot be explained this way. The problem is, this is your argument not that of the paper's author. (I hope I understand your position correctly.)

Maybe I missed it, but the paper only seems to repeat over and over the irrational, unsupportable assertion that 'only life can create life.' This sort of absolutism should be an embarrassment in a scientific paper, both for the author and for the publisher.

I counted only four "as only Life can produce Life" statements, and three "Life from nonLife has not been proven." Both are easily supported assertions.
I think you're problem, as with many, is confusing panspermia with exogenesis; one deals with the origin of Life on Earth, the spreading or transmittal of Life, the other the origin of Life elsewhere in the universe.
The paper, then, is quite specifically addressing panspermia, not exogenesis.

Thus, the argument that "panspermia only pushes back the problem" is most lame.

[Spoons]

Good question.
The problem with abiogenesis on Earth is the timeframe between being habitable and the earliest known Life; it's complexity is astounding and there doesn't seem to be enough time for happy accidents to have produced it.

The only thing is, anything other than zero chance still almost guarantees it will occur somewhere. Even with the lotto, someone gets lucky and hits every number most times if the player pool is big enough.

[A.DIM]

I can't help thinking that some form of creationism is hiding beneath the surface. That, or a steady state universe model.

I'm not sure how accepting panspermic microbial life as the source for Earth life fits in with Creationist thinking. To the contrary, and as pointed out in the Intro to this paper:

The theory that life comes from non-life, has an ancient history and has been part of Catholic Church dogma since the 4th century (Augustine, 1957). The belief in the super natural or abiotic origins of Earthly life has been adopted by numerous scientists and has been known by many names, e.g. vitalism, spontaneous generation, the organic soup, abiogenesis. However, no one has demonstrated or proved that life can be produced from non-life. By contrast, the maxim: only life can produce life, has never been discredited.

:think:


As for steady state theory, Joseph says nothing of the origins of the universe.
Instead he's clearly focused on panspermia, the origins of Life on Earth, not origins of Life in the universe, or exogenesis.

[centsworth_II]

....I counted only four "as only Life can produce Life" statements....
I think you're problem, as with many, is confusing panspermia with exogenesis...
My problem is that "only life can produce life" is an absolute, unproven, unscientific statement. Repeating it four times (including a final jab) in a short paper amounts to a rant.

Panspermia (Greek: πανσπερμία from πᾶς/πᾶν (pas/pan) "all") and σπέρμα (sperma) "seed") is the hypothesis that "seeds" of life exist already all over the [/URL]Universe...

exogenesis ([URL="http://www.answers.com/topic/greek-language"]Gk (http://www.answers.com/topic/universe). ἔξω (exo, outside) and γένεσις (genesis, origin)) is a more limited hypothesis that proposes life on Earth was transferred from elsewhere in the Universe but makes no prediction about how widespread it is.

Using the above definitions, (http://www.answers.com/topic/panspermia) exogenisis does seem to be the more scientific statement while panspermia has a mystical, creationist quality. "Seeds of life"? Were these "seeds" created in the big bang or by an intelligent Creator?

This whole "seeds of life" Panspermia thing has the look of another attempt of the creationists to run an end-around (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/End-around) on science.

[agingjb]

It's curious how people who believe that the universe is very old indeed (Hoyle etc.) have made common cause with people who believe that the universe is very young indeed.

The crucial point of agreement, such as it is, seems to be the idea that there is a sharp, even unbridgeable, discontinuity between life and non-life (actually they both probably write "Life" and "non-Life").

I suspect that the discontinuity is by no means sharp, and certainly not unbridgeable; and I'd say this is an example of placing a mystery (if one is needed) in the wrong place.

No I wouldn't absolutely rule out relatively local panspermia, but I can't see any compelling reason to suppose it.

[A.DIM]

The only thing is, anything other than zero chance still almost guarantees it will occur somewhere. Even with the lotto, someone gets lucky and hits every number most times if the player pool is big enough.

I concur, again I think it inevitable for Life to have arisen, given the abundance of ingredients and physical processes.

[A.DIM]

My problem is that "only life can produce life" is an absolute, unproven, unscientific statement. Repeating it four times (including a final jab) in a short paper amounts to a rant.

Eh, it's no shorter than many published scientific papers but I don't view it as a rant. Taking out those statements has no effect on the work as a whole.


Panspermia (Greek: πανσπερμία from πᾶς/πᾶν (pas/pan) "all") and σπέρμα (sperma) "seed") is the hypothesis that "seeds" of life exist already all over the [/URL]Universe...
exogenesis ([URL="http://www.answers.com/topic/greek-language"]Gk (http://www.answers.com/topic/universe). ἔξω (exo, outside) and γένεσις (genesis, origin)) is a more limited hypothesis that proposes life on Earth was transferred from elsewhere in the Universe but makes no prediction about how widespread it is.

Using the above definitions, (http://www.answers.com/topic/panspermia) exogenisis does seem to be the more scientific statement while panspermia has a mystical, creationist quality. "Seeds of life"? Were these "seeds" created in the big bang or by an intelligent Creator?

Ah, I didn't consult a dictionary; I confused the terms myself somewhat.

As you should know by now though, I think our universe creates Life everywhere and nowhere, all the time. IMO, asking where the origin of Life occurred might well be equivalent to asking "why is there anything at all?"


This whole "seeds of life" Panspermia thing has the look of another attempt of the creationists to run an end-around (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/End-around) on science.

Yet it has survived in the scientific community for over a hundred years, and has gained new support in recent years.

And I really don't think creationists want to subscribe to panspermia as the source for Life on Earth; I'm skeptical of any "end around(even without considering my distaste for American football)".

[centsworth_II]

...Taking out [only life can produce life] statements has no effect on the work as a whole.
But putting them in -- four times(!) -- speaks volumes.


As you should know by now though, I think our universe creates Life everywhere and nowhere, all the time.
I know you say it, I just don't know what it means.:lol:





Yet it has survived in the scientific community for over a hundred years, and has gained new support in recent years.What survives in the scientific community is exogenisis as defined in my post above, not a mystical panspermia.


And I really don't think creationists want to subscribe to panspermia as the source for Life on Earth...
Why not? The idea that God -- oops, sorry, intelligent design -- created the universe and the seeds for life all at the same time seems right up their alley.

[slang]

The Pharyngula article (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/07/an_amusingly_suspicious_paper.php) on this. (warning, possibly colorful language in comments). PZ doesn't like it much.

[formulaterp]

I concur, again I think it inevitable for Life to have arisen, given the abundance of ingredients and physical processes.

So we have the following:

Life from Life has never been falsified.
Life from nonLife has never been proven.

and we add ...

Life from nonLife is inevitable.

So why do we need panspermia again?

[A.DIM]

But putting them in -- four times(!) -- speaks volumes.

How so necessarily?
I repeat myself usually 3 times when in front of a customer or a prospect, not to close the deal or sell them, but to be sure they understand exactly what I'm saying.

"Life only comes from Life" has never been discredited; it's a valid statement supported observationally and experimentally. What is necessarily implied when someone reiterates a valid statement?


I know you say it, I just don't know what it means.:lol:

:)
Perhaps Chap. 7 "NonEvent" from Trotman's Feathered Onion would help.


What survives in the scientific community is exogenisis as defined in my post above, not a mystical panspermia.

Somehow I recall more news and research refer to it as panspermia not exogenesis.


Why not? The idea that God -- oops, sorry, intelligent design -- created the universe and the seeds for life all at the same time seems right up their alley.

I disagree, and you're ignoring the point about the church espousing abiogenesis for centuries now, nevermind any notion that panspermia would certainly remove anything "special" about the creation of Man upon Earth.

[A.DIM]

The Pharyngula article (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/07/an_amusingly_suspicious_paper.php) on this. (warning, possibly colorful language in comments). PZ doesn't like it much.

Eh, "it's what scientists do."

If the man had checked out Cosmology.com though, he'd have learned it is to be an online journal with the inaugural first edition come December. Him missing that fact alone makes it his arguments against sound 'loony."
;)
I must say though, that I too found it curious the references were not listed.

However, being interested in this sort of stuff I recognize the scientists and research he cites; that's what lends credibility to it for me.

[A.DIM]

So we have the following:

Life from Life has never been falsified.
Life from nonLife has never been proven.

and we add ...

Life from nonLife is inevitable.

So why do we need panspermia again?

Well, it seems the best reason to consider it is due to the apparent lack of time available for "happy accidents" to achieve the complexity which is found in Earth's earliest known life.

[Spoons]

Regardless of what news refer to it as, I think it sounds like we have a general consensus on exogenisis being a reasonable possibility rather than panspermia. Would this be agreed?

It seems we're playing semantic wars here more than anything.

Depending on which news you are referring to they're not always so reliable in their research and editing these days (my opinion, no offense meant). They may well have thought they're talking exogenisis while using the term panspermia.

[A.DIM]

A quick note: I'm vacationing through next weekend so don't expect any replies.
I may check in and see what's fun, perhaps even re read a book or two in preparing some argument, though I doubt it; I plan to be in the sand and water with the kids.
Thanks!

[eburacum45]

Exogenesis as in life transferred from another planet in our solar system is reasonable, but neither proven or necessary. If life emerged by abiogenesis on another planet in our solar system then that doesn't make abiogenesis more or less unlikely; it just means it happened somewhere else in our solar system rather than Earth.

Exogenesis as in life transferred from another star in our birth cluster is unlikely, but not impossible. If life emerged by abiogenesis around another star in our birth cluster then that doesn't make abiogenesis more or less unlikely; it just means it happened somewhere else in our birth cluster rather than our solar system.

Exogenesis as in life transferred from another star not in our birth cluster by lithopanspermia or any other natural process is very, very, very unlikely, so unlikely that we can practically dismiss the possibility.

Exogenesis as in life transferred from another star not in our birth cluster by artificial means, for instance by an intelligent alien civilisation, is possible, but there are good arguments against this idea. In the discussion of the Fermi Paradox by Milan Cirkovic mentioned in a recent thread, Cirkovic dismisses this idea, as it would suggest that life has also been transferred to other stars in our galaxy, which would lead to a situation where life is widespread. But if life is widespread there is no reliable evidence of this, and no evidence of intelligent civilisations which have emerged as a consequence of this process.

Cirkovic's argument also can be used against panspermia in general, and against the Copernican Principle as well. If life is everywhere, we don't see the evidence in the form of emergent civilisations.

[centsworth_II]

...I repeat myself usually 3 times when in front of a customer... to be sure they understand exactly what I'm saying.
Exactly. It's clear that "life only comes from life" is the primary idea that the author of the paper wants to convey. He repeats it til it smacks of reciting dogma (a no no in a scientific paper).


"Life only comes from Life" has never been discredited; it's a valid statement supported observationally and experimentally.We need to distinguish between the continuation of existing life as we know it and the initial origin of life. The only way to say that life did not originally come from non-life is to say that it was created 'In the beginning'.


Somehow I recall more news and research refer to it as panspermia not exogenesis.As you said, there is a problem with definitions. I am sure that most scientists would be in agreement with the Pharyngula article (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/07/an_amusingly_suspicious_paper.php) mentioned a few posts back which takes a not too kind view of Rhawn Joseph's version of panspermia.


...you're ignoring the point about the church espousing abiogenesis for centuries now, nevermind any notion that panspermia would certainly remove anything "special" about the creation of Man upon Earth.From Wikipedia: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis) In the natural sciences, abiogenesis, or "chemical evolution", is the study of how life on Earth could have arisen from inanimate matter.

I think the church has done the opposite of espouse abiogenisis. In any case, the Vatican has recently allowed that the universe being strewn with life, even intelligent life, is in line with their doctrine. I like the part where some alien races may never have left their garden of eden. That would make us Earthlings the prodigal race.:lol:

Believing in aliens not opposed to Christianity, Vatican’s top astronomer says: (http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=12628) "The Director of the Vatican's Observatory, Fr. José Gabriel Funes, said in an interview with the Vatican daily, L'Osservatore Romano, that believing in the possible existence of extraterrestrial life is not opposed to Catholic doctrine.... Just as there is a multiplicity of creatures over the earth, so there could be other beings, even intelligent (beings), created by God....We, belonging to human kind could be precisely the lost sheep, the sinners that need the shepherd.... assuming that there would be other intelligent beings, we could not say that they need redemption . They could have remained in full friendship with the Creator."

[DrWho]

The Pharyngula article (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/07/an_amusingly_suspicious_paper.php) on this. (warning, possibly colorful language in comments). PZ doesn't like it much.

LOL, thanks for the link. I was right, he is a crackpot! Here are some damming comments on the website and the 'paper' that are too good not to quote:


"it's a site that simply reprints press releases. Send 'em anything, and they'll spit it back up on the web for you. One such example is a press release titled Life on Earth came from other planets."

"There are a few funny things about this article. The journal Cosmology ... contains a grand total of one (1) paper, the aforementioned article by Rhawn Joseph. Guess who the web page can be traced to? Rhawn Joseph. If you can't get your crappy paper published in a legitimate journal, invent one!"

"I haven't even mentioned yet that the writing is incoherent and poorly organized, the paper is full of typos, and although it contains many citations, the references have been left off…and instead we get a repetition of ten ads flogging Rhawn Joseph's self-published book".


Some people received emails from the website after making contact. Here is one person's comment about the email:


I got one of those in my email too. I was tickled by the idea that "cosmology" includes origins and evolution of "woman and man"! But the best part is the fees: he actually thinks someone is going to pay him a fee? And he allows the distinguished editors to "wave" the fees? Mind, you, not "waive" them, "wave" them, perhaps creating a breeze.

On further investigation, it looks like he's been crackpotting for quite some time. The Scientology allusions made previously are confirmed here (http://www.susanblackmore.co.uk/Chapters/neurotheologyold3.htm), where the circumstances of his previous book “Neurotheology” are exposed:


This book is published by UniversityPress, California, which is a private publishing house and not part of the University of California. Many scholars were invited to contribute and did so in good faith, myself among them. The name of Rhawn Joseph was not mentioned.

There were numerous problems leading up to publication and many errors appeared in my own contributions. For example, my affiliation was wrongly given as “The University of England”! The book is poorly produced, printed on low quality paper, and contains numerous spelling and other mistakes. Most significant is that of the 32 chapters, no less than 10 are by Rhawn Joseph, and they are on such topics as “The myth of the big bang,”, “Creation science” and “The death of Darwinism”.

I was promised a fee for my contributions but never received it, in spite of repeated requests. I regretted my association with this book and wished to have no further dealings with University Press, California.

I also wonder why A.DIM continues to capitalize the "L" in life? I'd say, game, set and match!

[AstroRockHunter]

Indeed, and I meant not to suggest it as proof against Life from nonLife, only to show Life from Life is experimentally and observationally sound and in turn supportive of panspermia hypotheses.

And I did not say that you suggested it. What I originally commented on was that the paper's author not only suggested it, he flat out claimed it, and in doing so claimed that life cannot possibly have arisen from the random combination of carbon compounds and environment.

It is a logical fallacy made by the author of the paper, which makes the conclusion of the paper suspect.

[AstroRockHunter]

Well, it seems the best reason to consider it is due to the apparent lack of time available for "happy accidents" to achieve the complexity which is found in Earth's earliest known life.

Bold mine.

I'm not sure how you can claim that there isn't enough time for a "happy accident". Since by definition an accident is a random occurrence, it will happen when it happens and can happen within any length of time. In other words, one cannot put a minimum time requirement for a random event to happen.

And unless I'm seriously mistaken (which wouldn't be the first time) the earliest known life on earth wasn't all that complex. Are you suggesting that the more complex life forms didn't come about from evolution?

[Spoons]

AstroRockHunter, you captured much more clearly exactly what I was trying to say.

[Gigabyte]

Monday, 16 June 2008
Agençe France-Presse

PARIS: Genetic material from outer space found in a meteorite in Australia may well have played a key role in the origin of life on Earth, according to a new international study.

European and U.S. scientists have proved for the first time that two bits of genetic coding, called nucleobases, contained in the meteor fragment, are truly extraterrestrial.

Previous studies had suggested that the space rocks, which hit Earth some 40 years ago, might have been contaminated upon impact. Both of the molecules identified, uracil and xanthine, "are present in our DNA and RNA," said lead author Zita Martins, a researcher at Imperial College, London.

RNA, or ribonucleic acid, is another key part of the genetic coding that makes up our bodies. These molecules would also have been essential to the still-mysterious alchemy that somehow gave rise, some four billion years ago, to life itself.

"We know that meteorites very similar to the Murchison meteorite, which is the one we analysed, were delivering the building blocks of life to Earth 3.8 to 4.5 billion years ago," Martins said.

http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/news/2047/alien-origin-life-earth

[AstroRockHunter]

AstroRockHunter, you captured much more clearly exactly what I was trying to say.

Thank you!

[DrWho]

@Robinson. Is the article you linked to meant to support panspermia? It's unclear, as you did not comment about your reasoning, so I will assume that that was your intention.

The article doesn't in fact support panspermia. It makes no claims that living or viable organisms were encased in the meteorite. All it states is that iuracil and xanthine molecules were found, which are also present in our DNA. Did they mention whether other molecules were also found which have no relation to our nucleobases?

It's well known that organic molecules have been detected in space and comets and it should come as no surprise that some of that material should make it down to Earth. It's equally well established that amino acids form readily on Earth through simple processes studied back as far as the 50s by Miller/Urey.

So, whether nucleobases formed on Earth and/or landed here from elsewhere, is irrelevant - the raw materials that formed the protoplanetary disk, sun, planets is common throughout the universe.

Given the raw materials, the question is how those materials organized to form life (this has been discussed in the Descent of Electrons thread). So, I see no support for panspermia in the link provided (if that was the intent).

[slang]

If the man had checked out Cosmology.com though, he'd have learned it is to be an online journal with the inaugural first edition come December. Him missing that fact alone makes it his arguments against sound 'loony."

You've got to be kidding! The pertinent fact is: it's not a journal. It is NOT a journal. Being NOT a journal, it can not even BEGIN to have any credibility, handwaving allegations of perhaps a possibility of something akin peer review. That it might become a journal later is irrelevant. As to not noticing something on cosmology.com, that's hardly surprising... what a mess that site is. Browse around for more gems like viruses coming from comets.

That, by itself, says nothing about the paper, of course, which still might have merit on its own. Theoretically.

[nokton]

"Promote it?"

No.
The subject has received new impetus and credibility with the growing field of astrobiology.
I'm simply interested and find it as plausible.

What I find strange is your almost vehement defense of abiogenesis on Earth when we have no evidence of Life from nonLife; that it's a "more reasonable" assumption somehow.

Hi A.DIM, if I may introduce lateral thinking to this controversy. Bacteria are still bacteria.
Life on earth was subject to an evolutionary process that bypassed bacteria and evolved
into the lifeforms we see today. The fact that bacteria exist does not explain the
development of dna, and rna in the development of new life forms.
Yes, bacteria can withstand the stresses of the most hostile environments, but
having the ability to evolve is open to question.

That then hosts the question, when did the genetic code kick in that spawned so
many different, and improving, life forms, and what was the genetic code?
Nokton

[centsworth_II]

I also wonder why A.DIM continues to capitalize the "L" in life?Life = God?

[Moose]

centsworth_II, there be dragons, I'm afraid. Please be careful to not turn this into a religious discussion.

Einstein59, your idea brings in elements that are very far from the scientific mainstream (and not only the astrology bit.) I have split off your post and centsworth's reply into a separate thread which you'll find in ATM, along with an explanation of what that means. You may find that thread here: Einstein59's Electrostatic Atoms thread (http://www.bautforum.com/against-mainstream/91236-einstein59s-electrostatic-atoms-thread.html).

[centsworth_II]

centsworth_II, there be dragons, I'm afraid. Please be careful to not turn this into a religious discussion.

I think the point of several posters here is that the paper of the opening post is a veiled attempt to show life to be a mystical creation.

I'm trying my best to counter those who would talk of "Life" and "seeds of life" as mystical rather than a consequence of natural law. I guess it's a case of the one hitting back being caught. *sigh*

:)

[Moose]

I'm trying my best to counter those who would talk of "Life" and "seeds of life" as mystical rather than a consequence of natural law. I guess it's a case of the one hitting back being caught. *sigh*

I know. The line is a fine one. The purply text was just safety-tape.

We do permit limited focused discussion of ID and ID-like arguments as they affect science (and science education), and we do permit discussion of the massive "it's turtles all the way down" logical fallacy that is the necessary component of ID and panspermia.

But then, this is nothing new to A.DIM. He's been told this consistently for at least five years now, to no effect.

BTW, A.DIM, a casual look on google for Rhawn Joseph shows that he appears to be a proponent of the 2012 "end-of-world" scenario as well as the 9/11 conspiracy (noting that this is not an invitation to discuss).

It should also be noted, that this article was posted on page 00000 of volume 1 of Cosmology. There are no other pages. The article listed absolutely no references whatsoever. It did not list who allegedly "peer-reviewed" (http://cectic.com/184.html) it. And most damning, that cosmology.com's domain registration shows it is owned by brain-mind.com, which is in turn owned by Rhawn Joseph himself.

All of which took me under five minutes to locate.

[tnjrp]

I'm not sure how accepting panspermic microbial life as the source for Earth life fits in with Creationist thinkingWell, this has already been handled by the other posters really but I'd like to point out that I wrote "some form of creationism". It obviously doesn't fit with the most traditional literalist Christian 6-day (+ 1 day of rest) model. It would fit with some of the more specious retrofits of the Big Bang model and Jewish creation myth tho.

As it seems this discussion is a bit of grey area I will refrain from further comments on creationism. At least for now ;)


As for steady state theory, Joseph says nothing of the origins of the universe.Yet lo and behold, he apparently does have a bone to pick with Big Bang cosmology (as well as the theory of evolution, among others). Ref Neurotheology.

[slang]

Hi A.DIM, if I may introduce lateral thinking to this controversy. Bacteria are still bacteria.
Life on earth was subject to an evolutionary process that bypassed bacteria and evolved into the lifeforms we see today.

Wow, can't believe I missed this. You cannot be more wrong. The diversity in bacteria is greater than the diversity in multicellular life. The idea that there is no evolution in bacteria is ridiculous.


The fact that bacteria exist does not explain the
development of dna, and rna in the development of new life forms.


Where do you get the idea that bacteria do not have DNA? I know this is the "aliens" forum, but do let's try to be accurate about what we do know about Earth life.


Yes, bacteria can withstand the stresses of the most hostile environments,

Most can not. Some can. None can withstand all hostile environments. Guess how that came about? Right. Evolution.


but having the ability to evolve is open to question.

Wow. Where do you get these ideas? One beautiful study into how bacteria evolve is this long-term study into E.Coli evolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment), studying it for more than 40,000 generations. Read the paper (http://www.pnas.org/content/105/23/7899.abstract), and/or search for Lenski here on the forum.


That then hosts the question, when did the genetic code kick in that spawned so many different, and improving, life forms, and what was the genetic code?

It "kicked in" in the first forms of life. What do you mean, what was the code? I don't think we can ever reconstruct the very first DNA that worked.

[A.DIM]

Regardless of what news refer to it as, I think it sounds like we have a general consensus on exogenisis being a reasonable possibility rather than panspermia. Would this be agreed?

It seems we're playing semantic wars here more than anything.

Or still confusing terms ...
Exogenesis, as shown above, is Life brought to Earth from elsewhere with no prediction as to how widespread it is.
The idea that Life, if only microbial, will be widespread in the universe seems generally agreed on. The ingredients for Life as we know it are everywhere. Panspermia is "everywhere seeds;" the seeds (ingredients?) of Life, everywhere.


Depending on which news you are referring to they're not always so reliable in their research and editing these days (my opinion, no offense meant). They may well have thought they're talking exogenisis while using the term panspermia.

Perhaps, but I doubt it.
I've only a handful of science news sites I read and while I've seen them all err, by and large they're reliable / credible.
I will say litho- or ballistic panspermia, interplanetary transfer, has certainly been the focus of more research. The idea that Life arose on Mars and was transfered to Earth can be found in the science lit; exogenesis.

[A.DIM]

Cirkovic's argument also can be used against panspermia in general, and against the Copernican Principle as well. If life is everywhere, we don't see the evidence in the form of emergent civilisations.

Cirkovic makes some good points, but I'm not convinced we'd see an emergent civilization, say only 50yrs our junior, if they were in the nearest star system.
Even still, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

[A.DIM]

Bold mine.

I'm not sure how you can claim that there isn't enough time for a "happy accident". Since by definition an accident is a random occurrence, it will happen when it happens and can happen within any length of time. In other words, one cannot put a minimum time requirement for a random event to happen.

And unless I'm seriously mistaken (which wouldn't be the first time) the earliest known life on earth wasn't all that complex. Are you suggesting that the more complex life forms didn't come about from evolution?

Certainly not.
But the earliest known Life on Earth was, for all intents and purposes, on the biochemical level as complex as it is today, containing cells, DNA etc.
If cellular life existed 3.8Gyrs ago, how were the hundreds of proteins and other essential components made in such a short time?
There's lots of "accidents" needed ...

[R.A.F.]

A.DIM...if life comes from life, then where did the first life come from?

That is a direct question...

[A.DIM]

Monday, 16 June 2008
Agençe France-Presse
http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/news/2047/alien-origin-life-earth

:clap:

[A.DIM]

A.DIM...if life comes from life, then where did the first life come from?

That is a direct question...

I Don't Know; That is a direct answer.

:rolleyes:

[A.DIM]

That, by itself, says nothing about the paper, of course, which still might have merit on its own. Theoretically.

Right; shall we examine some particulars?

[A.DIM]

I think the point of several posters here is that the paper of the opening post is a veiled attempt to show life to be a mystical creation.

I'm trying my best to counter those who would talk of "Life" and "seeds of life" as mystical rather than a consequence of natural law. I guess it's a case of the one hitting back being caught. *sigh*

:)

Ha!
If you're paying attention you'd have noticed that I think the universe is naturally geared to produced Life, everywhere, all the time; no mysticism needed.

[R.A.F.]

I Don't Know; That is a direct answer.

:rolleyes:

If you don't know, then how can you say that life from non-life is an unreasonable idea? After all...life had to start somewhere, right?

[A.DIM]

BTW, A.DIM, a casual look on google for Rhawn Joseph shows that he appears to be a proponent of the 2012 "end-of-world" scenario ...

Well, his website does say "Dr. Joseph does not believe the world will end in 2012."


It should also be noted, that this article was posted on page 00000 of volume 1 of Cosmology. There are no other pages. The article listed absolutely no references whatsoever. It did not list who allegedly "peer-reviewed" (http://cectic.com/184.html) it. And most damning, that cosmology.com's domain registration shows it is owned by brain-mind.com, which is in turn owned by Rhawn Joseph himself.

Yes, I find that troubling too; however, as I said before, I find merit in the paper because I'm familiar with the scientists / research he cites.

Maybe we should discuss the paper itself rather than the author's other works and associations?

[A.DIM]

If you don't know, then how can you say that life from non-life is an unreasonable idea? After all...life had to start somewhere, right?

So the thinking goes ... but is there any evidence for this assumption?

As I said RAF, pinpointing a location for the origin of Life might well be the same as asking "why is there anything at all?"

[R.A.F.]

So the thinking goes ... but is there any evidence for this assumption?

So you consider it an "assumption" that life had to start somewhere?


As I said RAF, pinpointing a location for the origin of Life might well be the same as asking "why is there anything at all?"

How is this different from any other religious belief?

[matthewota]

Latest I have read is that RNA formed first before DNA.

Interesting that all life on Earth has left-handed DNA, pointing to a common source.

[A.DIM]

So you consider it an "assumption" that life had to start somewhere?

I was asking if there's any evidence for the assumption that Life comes from nonLife.


How is this different from any other religious belief?

Yes, I realize Science doesn't like questions like that but theretoo, BBT is ex nihilo thinking, creation out of nothing.
How's that different from any other religious belief?

[A.DIM]

Latest I have read is that RNA formed first before DNA.

Interesting that all life on Earth has left-handed DNA, pointing to a common source.

More interesting are suggestions that such chirality comes from space.

:)

[R.A.F.]

I was asking if there's any evidence for the assumption that Life comes from nonLife.

First life had to start somewhere. Do you deny that??

[A.DIM]

First life had to start somewhere. Do you deny that??

Not necessarily; I think it was everywhere and nowhere.
The question of a point of origin for first-life may well be unanswerable.

[R.A.F.]

Not necessarily; I think it was everywhere and nowhere.

Yes, it was everywhere but Earth.


The question of a point of origin for first-life may well be unanswerable.

How is this any different than the standard religious belief?

[R.A.F.]

I think it was everywhere and nowhere.

This really is a non-answer. If life started everywhere, then that, by definition, includes Earth...if life started nowhere, then weither you like it or not you are "proposing" a supernatural "creator" as an answer.

[A.DIM]

Yes, it was everywhere but Earth.

Well, I'd accept abiogenesis on Earth if it could be shown that Life arises from nonLife easily, and rapidly evolves to the complexity in which we find Earth's earliest known life.


How is this any different than the standard religious belief?

See the "Descent of Electrons" thread ...

[A.DIM]

This really is a non-answer. If life started everywhere, then that, by definition, includes Earth.. if life started nowhere, then weither you like it or not you are "proposing" a supernatural "creator" as an answer.

:hand:
You should know by now how I feel about any "supernatural creator" scenario.

[R.A.F.]

...I'd accept abiogenesis on Earth if it could be shown that Life arises from nonLife easily, and rapidly evolves to the complexity in which we find Earth's earliest known life.

It has been demonstrated by our very presence here. That you continually deny that because of your pecular pet beliefs doesn't change that.


You should know by now how I feel about any "supernatural creator" scenario.

No...why don't you elaborate and tell us what scenerio you do believe?

[A.DIM]

It has been demonstrated by our very presence here. That you continually deny that because of your pecular pet beliefs doesn't change that.

I think you're well aware that our single example of Life being on Earth tells us nothing about where it originated, yes?


No...why don't you elaborate and tell us what scenerio you do believe?

Well, sometime back I presented a book by a biologist, The Feathered Onion in which is described what I think is the best scenario thus far.
Did you ever read it?

[R.A.F.]

I think you're well aware that our single example of Life being on Earth tells us nothing about where it originated, yes?

Until we have another example of life, it is, and continues to be an unreasonable assumption that life started elsewhere.

In other words, the default answer is that life started here. If you would like to provide actual evidence proving otherwise, then be my guest. But since you don't have that evidence, it is disingenuous of you to conclude that life started elsewhere.


Well, sometime back I presented a book by a biologist, The Feathered Onion in which is described what I think is the best scenario thus far.
Did you ever read it?

I'm not going to "fall" for the "if you only read the book, you'd understand" argument. Put the scenerio in your own words. That way it can be debated here.

[A.DIM]

Until we have another example of life, it is, and continues to be an unreasonable assumption that life started elsewhere.

Until we have more evidence the most reasonable position is to withhold judgement, either way.


In other words, the default answer is that life started here. If you would like to provide actual evidence proving otherwise, then be my guest. But since you don't have that evidence, it is disingenuous of you to conclude that life started elsewhere.

I've concluded only that the question remains open; unresolved.


I'm not going to "fall" for the "if you only read the book, you'd understand" argument. Put the scenerio in your own words. That way it can be debated here.

:rolleyes:

Recall how the "Feathered Onion" thread went?

[R.A.F.]

Until we have more evidence the most reasonable position is to withhold judgement, either way.

The most reasonable position is that life on Earth started on Earth...the evidence for this being that the only example of life is right here.


I've concluded only that the question remains open; unresolved.

The default answer is obvious...you have CHOSEN to ignore the obvious.


Recall how the "Feathered Onion" thread went?

Lets see....you speculate with no evidence....in other words, the usual...

[A.DIM]

The most reasonable position is that life on Earth started on Earth...the evidence for this being that the only example of life is right here.

We have one example of Life (of which the earliest known is exceedingly complex, too complex, according to a biologist, for mutational accidents to achieve this complexity in the time alotted), we have no example of Life from nonLife.
So the most reasonable position is that Life from nonLife occurred here on Earth?

I withhold judgement.


The default answer is obvious...you have CHOSEN to ignore the obvious.

An "answer" it is not; an assumption it is.
I have chosen to recognize it for what it is.


Lets see....you speculate with no evidence....in other words, the usual...

Rubbish.

I posted a review of that book by another biologist who says it's an original, credible defense of panspermia. 6 months later I'd read the book and suggested the same, that others who read the work will agree. And what happened? Did a single "skeptic" examine the work so as to disprove Trotman? No.
The evidence was in the work. You chose to ignore it; the usual.
One can lead a horse to water ...

[R.A.F.]

We have one example of Life (of which the earliest known is exceedingly complex, too complex, according to a biologist, for mutational accidents to achieve this complexity in the time alotted)...

Why would you think that on a science board, folks would accept what is essentially speculation unsupported by any evidence?


...we have no example of Life from nonLife.

The "example" is all around you...you just refuse to accept it.


So the most reasonable position is that Life from nonLife occurred here on Earth?

I withhold judgement.

The act of withholding judgement is a judgement.


Rubbish.

Yes...you are corect...your speculations are rubbish. :rolleyes:


I posted a review of that book by another biologist who says it's an original, credible defense of panspermia.

Irrelevant....there are a LOT of pseudo-scientists who write books...so what.


...6 months later I'd read the book and suggested the same, that others who read the work will agree.

Again....relevancy??


And what happened? Did a single "skeptic" examine the work so as to disprove Trotman? No.

So because it hasn't been debunked, there must be something to it? Is that really your argument?


The evidence was in the work. You chose to ignore it; the usual.
One can lead a horse to water ...

There is no evidence...if there was you would have presented it by now.

[DrWho]

Here we go again! :rolleyes:

[A.DIM]

Why would you think that on a science board, folks would accept what is essentially speculation unsupported by any evidence?

Well, folks on a science board seem to accept the assumption Life comes from nonLife without any evidence whatsoever; it's essentially unsupported speculation.


The "example" is all around you...you just refuse to accept it.

Life all around me is an example of Life from nonLife?
Ha!
Every example of Life around me came from other Life.


Irrelevant....there are a LOT of pseudo-scientists who write books...so what.

And now you're calling Trotman a pseudoscientist?
Here, try his CV (http://www.disputescience.com/images/cv.doc) and then tell me again.


So because it hasn't been debunked, there must be something to it? Is that really your argument?

No, there's something to it because it is based on science.
Can you debunk it?

[A.DIM]

Here we go again! :rolleyes:

Indeed.
I'm considering just putting him on "ignore" again.

:wall:

[DrWho]

I'm considering just putting him on "ignore" again.
You might as well put everyone on 'ignore', that way you don't have to listen to reason. Got any more crank websites to quote from? :)

I'd still like an answer to a question I posed before you retreated:


I also wonder why A.DIM continues to capitalize the "L" in life?

Vacuous statements like this:

I think it [life] was everywhere and nowhere.
The question of a point of origin for first-life may well be unanswerable.
can only lead to the conclusion that R.A.F. has alluded to:


How is this any different than the standard religious belief?

So, why do you continue to capitalize the "L" in life?

[A.DIM]

You might as well put everyone on 'ignore', that way you don't have to listen to reason. Got any more crank websites to quote from? :)

Well, you can read the review of The Feathered Onion here (http://home.planet.nl/~gkorthof/korthof70.htm) and the Contents/summary here (http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-0470871873,descCd-tableOfContents.html).

"In chapter 7 (Non-Event) he argues life appeared gradually. "Highly complex life could not have appeared suddenly and therefore appeared gradually". This seems to contradict his main claim 'Life was never simple', but now I understand we should read this as 'life on earth was always complex'. First life must have been s l o w . Today's life is high-speed life because enzymes speed up chemical reactions a million times. It is good to see that all reactions occurring in a cell are natural chemical reactions, which also run outside a cell (3). There is no 'vital force' making them possible. "Every one of life's reactions was capable of happening before its enzyme appeared". Perfect enzymes where not available then, hence: slow life again. The first proteins had feeble catalytic activities. The cell is a late innovation. Before that period there was cell-less chemistry. I could add: First life must have been inefficient energetically, because efficient energy harvesting and storage is complex. Trotman's arguments for panspermia, such as the slow accumulation of constituents of the organic soup (2), the slowness of pre-cellular life, the irreducible complexity of early life on earth and the fast appearance of life on earth are beginning to make sense. Pre-cellular life is slow-motion-life and that sort of life needs more time than the available hundred million years."

I guess Korthof too will be relegated to "crank" status?


I'd still like an answer to a question I posed before you retreated:

"Retreated?"
When was that?
When I went on vacation?
:rolleyes:


So, why do you continue to capitalize the "L" in life?

You know, I'm not sure why I've done so.
If it'll make you feel better I'll desist.

Know this, however, if you're thinking I've got some ID or creationist leanings because of capital L, you're quite wrong; You ought to change tack.

[R.A.F.]

I'm considering just putting him on "ignore" again.

If you believe that by ignoring those who challenge you, your "argument" will be taken seriously, then be my guest...

...though I think it would have the opposite effect.

[DrWho]

I guess Korthof too will be relegated to "crank" status?
Not having much time to investigate his bona fides ATM, I would say yes, very likely, just like your other reference. My kook radar was triggered from the very paragraph you chose to quote.

The catch phrase is "irreducible complexity" - an argument made by proponents of intelligent design that certain biological systems are too complex to have evolved from simpler, or "less complete" predecessors. It is one of two main arguments intended to support intelligent design, the other being specified complexity. Pure pseudoscience.

Then for the heck of it, I thought I'd follow the link that you posted. Guess what I found? In the top left corner of the website there is a picture of Darwin with the label: "Was Darwin Wrong?".

Need I go on? Sure, why not. Regarding the book, the blurb reads:


This book defends the panspermia hypothesis (life came from space) in an original way. The panspermia hypothesis is known from the astronomers Fred Hoyle & Wickramasinghe. An important difference however is that Trotman is a biologist and focussed on the biological reasons why life could not originate on Earth. One of the reasons is that all life, including the first forms of life, is irreducibly complex.

Another ID 'argument', like the discredited arguments from the past (the eye, bacteria flagella, blood clotting, yadda, yadda).


You know, I'm not sure why I've done so.
Not really a good reason. After all, it takes more effort to capitalize than not, especially mid word, as in nonLife. You just don't want to admit the real reason.


If it'll make you feel better I'll desist.
It's no skin off my nose. It was just an interesting telltale.


Know this, however, if you're thinking I've got some ID or creationist leanings because of capital L, you're quite wrong; You ought to change tack.
And yet, you keep reinforcing that view from your own references and forms of expression.

[nokton]

This sounds like a crackpot. I love how this line was sneaked in matteroffactly:

"Microbial fossils have been discovered in fifteen carbonaceous chondrites, most impacted by supernova."

Really? Where has this been published and debated? And if only life can produce life, then what started life in the first place? Moving on...
Am really with you on this one Dr Who, your problem in finding the answer lies in the
rules on this site,( and I support the rules ). Your problem, and mine, is that any
discussion on life and evolution is highjacked by creationists and atheists to make
a point to support their own hypothesis, no middle ground, or reason and logic, can be
found to have any impact on this impasse.
For what its worth, I believe the genetic code is embedded with a programme to
enhance and diversify life forms, a self learning code that is only concerned with
survival. To the moderators here, I never mentioned god or religion, just responding
to a fellow members post.
Nokton.

[A.DIM]

Not having much time to investigate his bona fides ATM, I would say yes, very likely, just like your other reference. My kook radar was triggered from the very paragraph you chose to quote.

The catch phrase is "irreducible complexity" - an argument made by proponents of intelligent design that certain biological systems are too complex to have evolved from simpler, or "less complete" predecessors. It is one of two main arguments intended to support intelligent design, the other being specified complexity. Pure pseudoscience.

You didn't really read the review then did you?
Had you you'd realize Trotman's use of "irriducible complexity" regards only the state of a system, the state of the earliest known life on Earth.


Then for the heck of it, I thought I'd follow the link that you posted. Guess what I found? In the top left corner of the website there is a picture of Darwin with the label: "Was Darwin Wrong?".

Well, yeah, Korthoff is a biologist defending neoDarwinism.
Was Darwin Wrong?
:rolleyes:


Not really a good reason. After all, it takes more effort to capitalize than not, especially mid word, as in nonLife. You just don't want to admit the real reason.
It's no skin off my nose. It was just an interesting telltale.
And yet, you keep reinforcing that view from your own references and forms of expression.

I imagine any pseudoskeptic might deduce such a thing.
There is no evidence for life from nonlife.

Still think I've got some ID/creationist leanings?
I can't help you; no skin off my nose.

I'm rather a militant atheist but that's a discussion for another forum.

[A.DIM]

For what its worth, I believe the genetic code is embedded with a programme to enhance and diversify life forms, a self learning code that is only concerned with survival.

This sounds like Cosmic Ancestry (http://www.panspermia.org/).

Neat!
:)

[agingjb]

The evidence for life from non-life is the existence of life.

Yes, there are two other possibilities - life has always existed in an universe that is infinitely old, or life has been introduced by some agency external to the observable universe. Neither of these possibilities seem plausible to me, and further examination of them is probably beyond the scope of BAUT.

[A.DIM]

The evidence for life from non-life is the existence of life.

Circumstantial evidence at best, with no observational or empirical support whatsoever.

[R.A.F.]

Circumstantial evidence at best, with no observational or empirical support whatsoever.

Yes that is the problem with the argument you promote....no evidence.

[Paul Beardsley]

Circumstantial evidence at best, with no observational or empirical support whatsoever.

Our understanding of cosmology leads us to believe that soon after creation there was an awful lot of hydrogen, some helium, some photons, and not much else*.

Nowadays, there is life all over Earth.

So there was clearly a changeover from no life at all to some life.

Unless you are saying that our understanding of cosmology is utterly wrong, it rather suggests that the evidence for life emerging from nonlife is overwhelming, and not circumstantial at all. If you are saying that our understanding of cosmology is utterly wrong, would you care to say why?

*Oversimplification, I know - not much else relevant to biology, anyway.

[R.A.F.]

Thanks Paul...sometimes I get too "involved" to see the obvious...your post is spot on, but don't expect it to make a difference to a.dim.

[DrWho]

but don't expect it to make a difference to a.dim.
Of course it won't. For a 'militant atheist' he sure makes a good case for the opposite camp.


You didn't really read the review then did you?
Nope, I stopped after reading the Darwin bashing and irreducible complexity rubbish, just like when I read rubbish quoted from the 'paper' in your OP.

Another trigger was the insistence on the 100 million year window of opportunity for life to arise. This is a straw man argument. Even if that were true, that's still a heck of a long time, however, it isn't true. Life had much more time to evolve than that. There is evidence from the formation of ancient zircon crystals that they have been in contact with liquid water some 4.3 billion years ago. So, if the earliest evidence for life is from around 3.8 billion years, then the 'window' is more like 500 million years - almost as long as multicellular life has been around.


I imagine any pseudoskeptic might deduce such a thing.
There is no evidence for life from nonlife.
So why then did you change your notation?? Just being pseudoskeptical...

[eburacum45]

In a universe only 13.7 billlion years old, life cannot have existed forever. The conditions during the era we now observe as the Cosmic Microwave background would have instantly destroyed any organic life.

Therefore life must have come from non-life. If llife came from non-life then abiogenesis is necessary, since we exist. Interstellar panspermia is fantastically unlikely, because of the distance between stars.

Panspermia only works in a Steady-state Universe, where life would have had an eternity to spread between stars, even if it takes billions of years for each jump on average.

Do you then propose that we live in a steady-state universe, A DIM? If not, how do you justify any support for this fantastially unlikely phenomenon of interstellar panspermia?

[agingjb]

eburacum45 says it better, but I said:

"The evidence for life from non-life is the existence of life.

Yes, there are two other possibilities - life has always existed in an universe that is infinitely old, or life has been introduced by some agency external to the observable universe. Neither of these possibilities seem plausible to me, and further examination of them is probably beyond the scope of BAUT."

The reply was:

"Circumstantial evidence at best, with no observational or empirical support whatsoever."

I do find this response puzzling.

[centsworth_II]

Ha!
If you're paying attention you'd have noticed that I think the universe is naturally geared to produced Life, everywhere, all the time; no mysticism needed.
Well at least you dropped the meaningless, mystical phrase, "everywhere and nowhere."



...I think it was everywhere and nowhere.
The question of a point of origin for first-life may well be unanswerable.
Never mind.:rolleyes:

[AstroRockHunter]

Ha!
If you're paying attention you'd have noticed that I think the universe is naturally geared to produced Life, everywhere, all the time; no mysticism needed.


Bold mine.

Direct question:
Please define clearly what you by "the universe" in the above statement.

If "the universe" is naturally geared to "produce Life", and I think we can all agree that "the universe" is NOT a living thing, then you are claiming that life can come from non-life.

Direct question:
And if "the universe" is naturally geared to "produce Life, everywhere, all the time", and I think we can all still agree that "the universe" is NOT a living thing, then why couldn't "the universe" create life on earth without this panspermia idea?

[Paul Beardsley]

My feeling is that this is the most spectacular instance of A.DIM dropping the ball. His "no Life from nonLife" argument has been slaughtered.

The following is the frustrating scenario that I fully expect to happen but which I really hope does not happen:

A.DIM's absence from the board will linger for a while. Eventually he will turn up again and shrug everything off, for all the world as if his argument had not been slaughtered - and for all the world as if he's hoping everyone will have forgotten that his argument has been slaughtered. Someone will comment on his long absence, and he will come up with some "reason" that includes something very personal that cannot be criticised. And then the whole fruitless cycle will begin again.

[R.A.F.]

Someone will comment on his long absence, and he will come up with some "reason" that includes something very personal that cannot be criticised.

Let's be "fair" here....the nature of A.DIM's job keeps him away from posting for weeks at a time. That should not be "used" against him...

There is enough that is wrong with A.DIM's arguments/ideas (as shown in the last few posts) that there is really no need to resort to "personal" attacks.

[Paul Beardsley]

Let's be "fair" here....the nature of A.DIM's job keeps him away from posting for weeks at a time. That should not be "used" against him...

There is enough that is wrong with A.DIM's arguments/ideas (as shown in the last few posts) that there is really no need to resort to "personal" attacks.

Maybe you're right. But it always feels as though something extraneous to the discussion prevents resolution from happening. Ever.

[A.DIM]

Our understanding of cosmology leads us to believe that soon after creation there was an awful lot of hydrogen, some helium, some photons, and not much else*.

Nowadays, there is life all over Earth.

So there was clearly a changeover from no life at all to some life.

Unless you are saying that our understanding of cosmology is utterly wrong, it rather suggests that the evidence for life emerging from nonlife is overwhelming, and not circumstantial at all. If you are saying that our understanding of cosmology is utterly wrong, would you care to say why?

I don't think our understanding is utterly wrong Paul, but neither do I view it as complete. Amendments are no doubt in our future; that's science.
As I've argued elsewhere, and I expect you know, I think life as we know it was inevitable, a natural consequence of the universe in which we find ourselves. You know "similar ingredients in similar environments ...?"
The main reason I've held fast with "no evidence for life from nonlife"(besides it being a valid observation) is to broaden the perspective when considering origin of life questions; so many seemed hung up on the "as only life comes from life" remarks(which, as I pointed out, if removed from the paper in the OP really have no bearing on the evidence discussed). Naysayers insist on cramming the origin of life into an earth-sized time frame.
I find this to be relic-thinking ...
Once upon a time, Earth was specially created for its inhabitants, they were special too, and everything revolved around it and them. Then it was learned Earth is at the center of nothing, neither is its star nor its galaxy. Now they know the ingredients for life as they understand it are found throughout the cosmos while physical processes are everywhere the same. Thusly they're forced to accept life is likely not unique to this planet; nothing special here. Now they're discovering Earth's earliest life was exceedingly complex, achieving such complexity in a startlingly brief period of time.
IMO, insisting life originated on this planet because it is here bespeaks earthcentric mindset.

[Paul Beardsley]

A.DIM, you are mixing up two arguments here - whether life arose from non-living material, and whether life arose on Earth.

Frankly, it looks like an evasion.

Do you accept that there was a time when there was no life in the universe? Yes or no?

[A.DIM]

Nope, I stopped after reading the Darwin bashing and irreducible complexity rubbish, just like when I read rubbish quoted from the 'paper' in your OP.

Of course you did: you obviously didn't understand what you were reading, or wouldn't take the time to learn more.
"Was Darwin Wrong" is a critical examination, and defense of, evolution theories. No "Darwin bashing" involved.
Moreover your kneejerk reaction to the term "irriducible complexity" keeps you from understanding exactly what is meant, which is clarified not only in the review but more fully in the book.

"Highly complex life could not have appeared suddenly and therefore appeared gradually". This seems to contradict his main claim 'Life was never simple', but now I understand we should read this as 'life on earth was always complex'.

"Trotman's arguments for panspermia, such as the slow accumulation of constituents of the organic soup (2), the slowness of pre-cellular life, the irreducible complexity of early life on earth and the fast appearance of life on earth are beginning to make sense. Pre-cellular life is slow-motion-life and that sort of life needs more time than the available hundred million years."

my emphasis


So why then did you change your notation?? Just being pseudoskeptical...

Yes you are, admittedly.
I changed my notation to assuage your fears that I've some ID creationist bent.
I explained why I've maintained "no evidence from nonlife" and it has nothing to do with religion/spirituality.
Get that out of your head, yeah?

[A.DIM]

In a universe only 13.7 billlion years old, life cannot have existed forever. The conditions during the era we now observe as the Cosmic Microwave background would have instantly destroyed any organic life.

Therefore life must have come from non-life. If llife came from non-life then abiogenesis is necessary, since we exist. Interstellar panspermia is fantastically unlikely, because of the distance between stars.

I agree interstellar panspermia seems unlikely but I think habitable environments for life as we know it were forming at least 9Gyrs ago, plenty more time for life to evolve(even out of nonlife!) and arrive at the complexity with which it is found in Earth's earliest known, by whatever means. Candidates might be rogue stars and their satellites, undiscovered nearer-by failed stars(and their satellites), galactic collisions, comets, dust - all - are plausible as transfer mechanisms. Moreover, extremophiles are changing our thinking about life's hardiness and potential habitats.


Panspermia only works in a Steady-state Universe, where life would have had an eternity to spread between stars, even if it takes billions of years for each jump on average.

Do you then propose that we live in a steady-state universe, A DIM? If not, how do you justify any support for this fantastially unlikely phenomenon of interstellar panspermia?
I do not propose we live in a steady-state universe; rather I'm coming to accept multiverse, or omniverse, theories.
My focus however, is really that of the origin of life on Earth. In the face of what we know, and are learning with great rapidity, I can't simply dismiss panspermia as "fantastically unlikely."

[A.DIM]

eburacum45 says it better, but I said:

"The evidence for life from non-life is the existence of life.

Yes, there are two other possibilities - life has always existed in an universe that is infinitely old, or life has been introduced by some agency external to the observable universe. Neither of these possibilities seem plausible to me, and further examination of them is probably beyond the scope of BAUT."

The reply was:

"Circumstantial evidence at best, with no observational or empirical support whatsoever."

I do find this response puzzling.

Why so puzzled?
I didn't address what you deem "beyond the scope" as I couldn't speak to it.
I don't find the statement "evidence for life from nonlife is the existence of life" as factual, only circumstantially accepted as such.
What is clear and self evident is that life comes from life.
So until it is shown through experiment I remain skeptical.

[A.DIM]

Bold mine.

Direct question:
Please define clearly what you by "the universe" in the above statement.

The observable universe as we understand it.


If "the universe" is naturally geared to "produce Life", and I think we can all agree that "the universe" is NOT a living thing, then you are claiming that life can come from non-life.

Direct question:
And if "the universe" is naturally geared to "produce Life, everywhere, all the time", and I think we can all still agree that "the universe" is NOT a living thing, then why couldn't "the universe" create life on earth without this panspermia idea?

I don't say it couldn't have.
What I say, what I've said many times, is that Earth's earliest known life is exceedingly complex, apparently too complex for the time frame; as soon as Earth was habitable, it was inhabited by as biochemically complex organisms as today. If it occured naturally here on Earth then it should be rather easy to create life from nonlife which evolves rapidly into the forms found on early Earth. However, if happenstance mutational accidents, over hundreds of millions of years, require more time then panspermia is the alternative. If the ingredients for life were delivered to Earth why not life itself?

[A.DIM]

My feeling is that this is the most spectacular instance of A.DIM dropping the ball. His "no Life from nonLife" argument has been slaughtered.

Oh rubbish, Paul.
Until there is experimental evidence for life from nonlife, not just assumed circumstantial, it remains a valid perspective.


The following is the frustrating scenario that I fully expect to happen but which I really hope does not happen:

A.DIM's absence from the board will linger for a while. Eventually he will turn up again and shrug everything off, for all the world as if his argument had not been slaughtered - and for all the world as if he's hoping everyone will have forgotten that his argument has been slaughtered. Someone will comment on his long absence, and he will come up with some "reason" that includes something very personal that cannot be criticised. And then the whole fruitless cycle will begin again.

Please, refrain from speculating and discussing my person, my actions.
Isn't that ad hom?

[A.DIM]

Maybe you're right. But it always feels as though something extraneous to the discussion prevents resolution from happening. Ever.

What's been prevented here is any further discussion of the paper in question. It's been dismissed not on it's content but on a single repeated bold, yet valid, assertion: "as only life comes from life."

[A.DIM]

A.DIM, you are mixing up two arguments here - whether life arose from non-living material, and whether life arose on Earth.

No, "skeptics" have used one argument to dismiss the other.
The focus of this paper is the origin of life on Earth, not abiogenesis.
The author's repeated use of "as only life comes from life" has been used to ignore the rest of his work; this is what has led to debate over abiogenesis.


Do you accept that there was a time when there was no life in the universe? Yes or no?

Yes I can accept that.
Again, the point in the "only life from life" argument is to remove the earthcentric thinking from the origin of life on Earth question.

[R.A.F.]

Wow...I go to the trouble of "standing up" for you re. Paul and you can't even manage a simple "thank you for understanding"?...

...last time I do that...

[A.DIM]

Wow...I go to the trouble of "standing up" for you re. Paul and you can't even manage a simple "thank you for understanding"?...

...last time I do that...

Oh, I'm sorry, RAF; thanks!

I'm not used to you "standing up" for me and just didn't know what to say.
But, don't you think Paul should be aware that I travel for biz and may sometimes take a week or so to reply? I do.

[agingjb]

Start again:

I proposed three possibilities:

Life arose from non-life.

Life has always existed.

Life was introduced by some unknown external agency

Now I don't know which of these was the case, but I would expect anyone wishing to question this analysis to introduce a fourth possibility - one might be that there is no definable, clear, and meaningful distinction between life and non-life.

[DrWho]

The author's repeated use of "as only life comes from life" has been used to ignore the rest of his work
This 'debate' is ridiculous beyond belief. You simply choose to disregard the scam website whose sole purpose is to peddle his book, his exposed creationist/ID agenda and the obviously illogical claims that life cannot arise from non-life. Furthermore, it has been pointed out to you that life on Earth may have had as much as half a billion years to arise and this alleged early, inexplicable complexity you keep harping about is meaningless because anything less complex than what has been found so far is not likely to be preserved/fossilized. I simply cannot understand your persistent myopia and tunnel vision. The only thing that makes sense given your position and previous statements, is that you believe in divine creation or perhaps some other form of new age mysticism. Looks like Paul was right.

[A.DIM]

Start again:

I proposed three possibilities:

Life arose from non-life.

Life has always existed.

Life was introduced by some unknown external agency

Now I don't know which of these was the case, but I would expect anyone wishing to question this analysis to introduce a fourth possibility - one might be that there is no definable, clear, and meaningful distinction between life and non-life.

Yes!
"What defines life?" still defies agreement.
In a universe such as the one we find ourselves in it seems life is, to quote from the "Decent of Electrons" article, "no more surprising than water flowing downhill."
It seems naturally geared to produce it everywhere and nowhere; asking where life originated may well be unanswerable. There may be no actual divide, if you will, between prebiotic and biotic.
Asking from where life on Earth came is another question.

[A.DIM]

This 'debate' is ridiculous beyond belief. You simply choose to disregard the scam website whose sole purpose is to peddle his book, his exposed creationist/ID agenda and the obviously illogical claims that life cannot arise from non-life. Furthermore, it has been pointed out to you that life on Earth may have had as much as half a billion years to arise and this alleged early, inexplicable complexity you keep harping about is meaningless because anything less complex than what has been found so far is not likely to be preserved/fossilized. I simply cannot understand your persistent myopia and tunnel vision. The only thing that makes sense given your position and previous statements, is that you believe in divine creation or perhaps some other form of new age mysticism. Looks like Paul was right.

You know, several weeks ago you seemed to have arrived at this conclusion, saying any further discourse is pointless, and yet, here you are with the same tripe. Nothing I've said directly convinces you, while at the same time your admittedly shallow reviews have only reinforced your pseudoskepticism.

Perhaps you should simply ignore me?
I'll respond in kind, rest assured.

[DrWho]

several weeks ago you seemed to have arrived at this conclusion, saying any further discourse is pointless, and yet, here you are
Because you keep digging a bigger and bigger hole for yourself with more and more dubious references and arguments. You also continue to ignore counter arguments.


Perhaps you should simply ignore me?
I'd like to, but when I see willfully faulty reasoning, I cannot but try and point it out.


I'll respond in kind, rest assured.
Okay, but ask yourself this, who else here supports your position and agrees with your arguments? If you're having difficulty thinking of anyone, then what does that tell you? I don't expect an answer as you won't be seeing this post. :)

[AstroRockHunter]

The observable universe as we understand it.



I don't say it couldn't have.
What I say, what I've said many times, is that Earth's earliest known life is exceedingly complex, apparently too complex for the time frame; as soon as Earth was habitable, it was inhabited by as biochemically complex organisms as today. If it occured naturally here on Earth then it should be rather easy to create life from nonlife which evolves rapidly into the forms found on early Earth. However, if happenstance mutational accidents, over hundreds of millions of years, require more time then panspermia is the alternative. If the ingredients for life were delivered to Earth why not life itself?

But as I pointed out in an earlier post, the earliest known life found on earth was bacteria, which is not all that complex. Also as I pointed out in the same exchange:


Quote:
Originally Posted by A.DIM http://www.bautforum.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.bautforum.com/life-space/91089-life-earth-came-other-planets-3.html#post1536803)
Well, it seems the best reason to consider it is due to the apparent lack of time available for "happy accidents" to achieve the complexity which is found in Earth's earliest known life.

Bold mine.

I'm not sure how you can claim that there isn't enough time for a "happy accident". Since by definition an accident is a random occurrence, it will happen when it happens and can happen within any length of time. In other words, one cannot put a minimum time requirement for a random event to happen.

And unless I'm seriously mistaken (which wouldn't be the first time) the earliest known life on earth wasn't all that complex. Are you suggesting that the more complex life forms didn't come about from evolution?

[A.DIM]

So, even considering only the abstract, let's see which statements are valid and supported or merely plausible; perhaps implausible too:

"Life appeared a few hundred million years after the Earth's creation during a period of heavy bombardment." - this is generally agreed, whether the window was 100 or a few hundred million years.

"Life on Mars may have appeared near the same time." - recent evidence suggests more and more was Mars habitable not just long ago but even recently, by a few hundred million years.

"Microbes are adapted for surviving the hazards of space, including ejection from and landing upon a planet." - tardigrades(although I think they are "animals") come to mind, as do other recent studies.

"Microbial fossils have been discovered in fifteen carbonaceous chondrites, most impacted by supernova." - the claim they are "microbes" remains controversial but complex organics are found in many. It is also generally agreed a supernova played a part in the origins of our solar system.
Read more (http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/The_Violent_Origin_Of_The_Solar_System_999.html).

"The Sun and Earth were created from a nebular cloud and protoplanetary disc, the remnants of an exploding star and its planets which may have harbored life." - if a nearby supernova affected the solar system, what precludes the star from having had planets, habitable planets no less?

"When the parent star became a red giant, its solar winds blew away planetary atmospheres along with airborne microbes, which were deposited in a growing nebular cloud. Because the red giant lost 40% to 80& of its mass and its gravitational influences were reduced, its planets increased orbital distances or were ejected prior to supernova and may not have been atomized." - The works cited in discussing this idea seem reliable. Perhaps we can explore this aspect more?

"The inner layers of a nebular cloud and protoplanetary disk protects against radiation and extreme cold enabling spores to survive." - this seems plausible but again perhaps it needs more exploring?

"Microbes may have also survived within planetary debris which bombarded the Earth." - is this not plausible given what we're finding in comets, meteorites, etc?

"As only life can produce life, then life on Earth also came from life which may have originated on planets which orbited the parent star." - and here we have it, the statement which seems to negate all others, even in the face of its validity.

Sure he could've stated it differently but life from life is in fact observationally, experimentally, supported. His repeated bare-knuckled statement, I think, is necessary in order change the earthcentric perspective that life on Earth came from nonlife on Earth, just because it is here.
What we know is life comes from life so what demands life on Earth to have arisen from nonlife on Earth?

[R.A.F.]

I'm not used to you "standing up" for me and just didn't know what to say.

I can't believe that after all these years that you don't understand "where" I'm coming from.

All I've ever asked from you is evidence...evidence that your ideas have merit. However, you've utilized every logic "trick" available to bypass evidence...to "win" your arguments.

When will you understand that people like (he who shall not be named) simply don't have a clue as to what they are talking about?...they are not people you should be listening to.

[AstroRockHunter]

No, "skeptics" have used one argument to dismiss the other.
The focus of this paper is the origin of life on Earth, not abiogenesis.
The author's repeated use of "as only life comes from life" has been used to ignore the rest of his work; this is what has led to debate over abiogenesis.



Yes I can accept that.
Again, the point in the "only life from life" argument is to remove the earthcentric thinking from the origin of life on Earth question.

Bold mine.

But the author dismisses, out of hand and with no supporting evidence, that abiogenesis could have been the beginning of life on earth.

The author's continued use of the "as only life comes from life" claim highlights at least one logical fallacy that, as I said in an earlier post, makes the conclusion of his paper suspect.

[Luckmeister]

Aaarrrggghhh!!! I don't understand why this has become such a big issue with you folks. If there was any practical reason why the origin of life on Earth needed resolution, I could see debating it vehemently, but the simple fact is that there is no proof either way and the door of speculation needn't be closed and locked.

A.DIM has repeatedly emphasized that he only wants that door left open for consideration so why not accept that? I'd sure like to see this return to a scientific discussion without all the personal baggage.

Oh and btw, plenty of highly-respected mainstream scientists have books they're peddling, so that's a poor attack on source credibility.

Luckmeister

[R.A.F.]

A.DIM has repeatedly emphasized that he only wants that door left open for consideration so why not accept that?

Perhaps you should take the time to read all of A.DIM's posts...

[AstroRockHunter]

Aaarrrggghhh!!! I don't understand why this has become such a big issue with you folks. If there was any practical reason why the origin of life on Earth needed resolution, I could see debating it vehemently, but the simple fact is that there is no proof either way and the door of speculation needn't be closed and locked.

A.DIM has repeatedly emphasized that he only wants that door left open for consideration so why not accept that? I'd sure like to see this return to a scientific discussion without all the personal baggage.

Oh and btw, plenty of highly-respected mainstream scientists have books they're peddling, so that's a poor attack on source credibility.

Luckmeister

Bold mine.

The door is open. I far as I can tell, A.DIM, by supporting a paper that excludes a theory (abiogensis), illogically I might add, is actually trying to close a door.

[R.A.F.]

Perhaps you should take the time to read all of A.DIM's posts...

Actually, you don't even need to do that...simply have a look at the threads A.DIM has started and then tell us all that his ideas are without bias.

[Paul Beardsley]

Oh rubbish, Paul.
Until there is experimental evidence for life from nonlife, not just assumed circumstantial, it remains a valid perspective.
Rubbish, A.DIM.

You have acknowledged that there was a time when there was no life. There is clearly life now. Therefore, the idea that life can only come from life is, without a shadow of a doubt, wrong.

What the process is is entirely beside the point. Whether it happened on Earth or somewhere else is entirely beside the point. The fact is, life clearly arose from nonlife. This is not based on circumstantial evidence, it is indisputable. And I'm getting really fed up with the line of "reasoning" that pretends this is not the case.


Please, refrain from speculating and discussing my person, my actions.
Isn't that ad hom?
Okay, I apologise for that.

[R.A.F.]

You have acknowledged that there was a time when there was no life. There is clearly life now. Therefore, the idea that life can only come from life is, without a shadow of a doubt, wrong.

A.DIM has no choice but to deny this... no matter how foolish it makes him look...

[Paul Beardsley]

A.DIM has no choice but to deny this... no matter how foolish it makes him look...

Indeed. I think A.DIM has stumbled over the truth, but is picking himself up and hurrying off as if nothing had happened

[A.DIM]

But as I pointed out in an earlier post, the earliest known life found on earth was bacteria, which is not all that complex.

The simplest ribosomes as found in bacteria contain at least 50 different protein molecules. Not only is the conversion of genetic instructions into protein a biochemically complex process with numerous steps, each step is fed by an array of metabolic pathways to supply all the necessary ingredients. The earliest known life on Earth was exceedingly complex.

[A.DIM]

Bold mine.

But the author dismisses, out of hand and with no supporting evidence, that abiogenesis could have been the beginning of life on earth.

If the thrust of his paper is life on Earth came from other planets I see no reason why he'd spend much time explaining the many different and contending theories, all of which leave us no closer to life from nonlife, for possible abiogenesis.

Saying "there is no evidence for life from nonlife" cuts to the chase.


The author's continued use of the "as only life comes from life" claim highlights at least one logical fallacy that, as I said in an earlier post, makes the conclusion of his paper suspect.

Well, as I said, removing every such statement does little to change the central point of the paper, or the plausibility of its conclusion.

[A.DIM]

Aaarrrggghhh!!! I don't understand why this has become such a big issue with you folks. If there was any practical reason why the origin of life on Earth needed resolution, I could see debating it vehemently, but the simple fact is that there is no proof either way and the door of speculation needn't be closed and locked.

A.DIM has repeatedly emphasized that he only wants that door left open for consideration so why not accept that? I'd sure like to see this return to a scientific discussion without all the personal baggage.

Oh and btw, plenty of highly-respected mainstream scientists have books they're peddling, so that's a poor attack on source credibility.

Luckmeister

Thanks Luckmeister, I appreciate your balanced perspective.

[A.DIM]

Indeed. I think A.DIM has stumbled over the truth, but is picking himself up and hurrying off as if nothing had happened

Apology unaccepted, Paul.
You ought not feed into such behavior.

[01101001]

A.DIM has repeatedly emphasized that he only wants that door left open for consideration so why not accept that?

Because he entitles articles in the Life in Space scientific section the likes of: "Life on Earth Came From Other Planets", swoons over the article's stated conclusions, and, when forced, behaves as if it's not his agenda to promote that as if it were actually a scientific theory.

Seen it a hundred times.

[Jeff Root]

I don't understand why even such extremely intelligent and nice people
as Paul are throwing so many strawmen at you. While I'm very unimpressed
by the abstract of the paper you quoted, all of your arguments supporting
it that I've seen are logical and reasonable. Not at all so for the objections
raised in this thread.

As just one particular, life as evidence of the origin of life from non-life is
only circumstantial, as you said. I think it is pretty good circumstantial
evidence, but it is *only* circumstantial. There is no direct evidence one
way or another.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

[AstroRockHunter]

A.DIM wrote:

Quote:
Originally Posted by AstroRockHunter http://www.bautforum.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.bautforum.com/life-space/91089-life-earth-came-other-planets-post1547500.html#post1547500)
Bold mine.

But the author dismisses, out of hand and with no supporting evidence, that abiogenesis could have been the beginning of life on earth.

If the thrust of his paper is life on Earth came from other planets I see no reason why he'd spend much time explaining the many different and contending theories, all of which leave us no closer to life from nonlife, for possible abiogenesis.

Saying "there is no evidence for life from nonlife" cuts to the chase.


I'm afraid that the only "chase" that it cuts to is the authors bias against any theory that does not include divine intervention and calls into question the researchers objectivity. As I've said, a couple of times in this thread and you keep ignoring, this is the logical fallacy that taints this paper and the author's conclusions.

Then A.DIM wrote:





Quote:
Originally Posted by AstroRockHunter http://www.bautforum.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.bautforum.com/life-space/91089-life-earth-came-other-planets-post1547500.html#post1547500)

The author's continued use of the "as only life comes from life" claim highlights at least one logical fallacy that, as I said in an earlier post, makes the conclusion of his paper suspect.

Well, as I said, removing every such statement does little to change the central point of the paper, or the plausibility of its conclusion.


Bold mine.

From the paper's conclusion:


Life on Earth appeared while this planet was still forming. There is no proof life can be created from non-life. As only life can produce life, only panspermia is a viable scientific explanation as to the origin of Earthly life. The first life forms to appear on Earth were produced by other living creatures who were likely encased in debris ejected by the parent star nearly 5 billion years ago.
Life on Earth, came from other planets.



Bold mine.

Direct question:
How can removing "every such statement" from the conclusion of the paper NOT do "little to change the central point of the paper, or the plausibility of its conclusion"?

[R.A.F.]

...I appreciate your balanced perspective.

"Balanced"?? :lol: :lol: :lol:

[A.DIM]

Because he entitles articles in the Life in Space scientific section the likes of: "Life on Earth Came From Other Planets", swoons over the article's stated conclusions, and, when forced, behaves as if it's not his agenda to promote that as if it were actually a scientific theory.

Seen it a hundred times.

Indeed, Sherlock!
I'd wager damned near every thread I've started in LiS is entitled just as the article or paper it is meant to discuss.
Brilliant!
Having an interest in Astrobiology, which is, I daresay, at the forefront of astronomy, is certainly the foundations for agenda and bias.
:rolleyes:

[Jeff Root]

You have acknowledged that there was a time when there was no life.
There is clearly life now. Therefore, the idea that life can only come
from life is, without a shadow of a doubt, wrong.

What the process is is entirely beside the point. Whether it happened
on Earth or somewhere else is entirely beside the point.
You are completely, totally, utterly missing the point, Paul.

The question of whether it happened on Earth or somewhere else
is THE subject of the thread. It is the subject of the paper quoted
in the original post, which prompted that post. It is this threads
reason for being.

Your argument is a strawman. It is intended to cut down ID, but
what A.DIM is talking about in this thread has nothing to do with ID.

And yours is certainly not the worst argument against A.DIM in the
thread.



The fact is, life clearly arose from nonlife. This is not based on
circumstantial evidence, it is indisputable. And I'm getting really
fed up with the line of "reasoning" that pretends this is not the case.
Of course it is disputable.

But even if I agree for the sake of argument that it is indisputable,
the evidence supporting it is purely circumstantial. We have no direct
evidence of life arising from nonlife.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

[A.DIM]

I don't understand why even such extremely intelligent and nice people
as Paul are throwing so many strawmen at you. While I'm very unimpressed
by the abstract of the paper you quoted, all of your arguments supporting
it that I've seen are logical and reasonable. Not at all so for the objections
raised in this thread.

As just one particular, life as evidence of the origin of life from non-life is
only circumstantial, as you said. I think it is pretty good circumstantial
evidence, but it is *only* circumstantial. There is no direct evidence one
way or another.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

Indeed, and thanks for the balanced perspective, Jeff.

[R.A.F.]

...all of your arguments supporting it that I've seen are logical and reasonable.

You really shouldn't "kid" A.DIM like that...he already has enough unsubstantiated beliefs without adding any more.


Not at all so for the objections raised in this thread.

I can not believe that anyone who has followed this thread could say that. Are you posting just to "start trouble"?...or do you intend to continue in this discussion?


...life as evidence of the origin of life from non-life is
only circumstantial, as you said. I think it is pretty good circumstantial
evidence, but it is *only* circumstantial. There is no direct evidence one
way or another.

That is, except for the presence of life on Earth...but that's "only" circumstantial... :lol:

[R.A.F.]

...what A.DIM is talking about in this thread has nothing to do with ID.

Bologna...all one has to do is replace the word "god" with the word "aliens" and it is exactly the same thing.

[Jeff Root]

I'm afraid that the only "chase" that it cuts to is the authors bias
against any theory that does not include divine intervention...
How would you know? You didn't read it.

Don't you think it would be a good dea to read what you review?

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

[Jeff Root]

Bologna...all one has to do is replace the word "god" with the word
"aliens" and it is exactly the same thing.
What aliens are you referring to, R.A.F.?

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

[01101001]

Having an interest in Astrobiology, which is, I daresay, at the forefront of astronomy, is certainly the foundations for agenda and bias.
:rolleyes:

Let's hear it, rolling-eyes Jeff. Is Life in Space an appropriate section of BAUT in which to assert, as if it were a known fact, as if it were a scientific theory, the statement: "Life on Earth Came From Other Planets"?

[Paul Beardsley]

Really, Jeff, the idea that the life-from-nonlife is a strawman or a side issue is simply wrong. It's a sticking point that needs to be resolved before we can get onto any serious discussion as to whether the first life arose on Earth or somewhere else.

(Added a few minutes later.) And on what grounds is it disputable that life arose from nonlife? Are you denying there was ever any change?

If you find a dead man washed up on a beach, it may be circumstantial as to whether he was murdered, committed suicide or died by accident, but it is indisputable that at some point he died.

If a man from England bumps into his next-door-neighbour during a holiday in France, it is indisputable that the neighbour left England at some point.

Once these indisputables are accepted, then the details may be considered. But if you don't accept them as indisputable, then you need to say why or there is going to be no fruitful discussion. Just saying, "It's circumstantial!" is not good enough.

[Paul Beardsley]

Apology unaccepted, Paul.
You ought not feed into such behavior.

If you've got an issue with me quoting your sig at you, you can report me or PM me.

[DrWho]

I'm reminded of the first reply to this thread:


This sounds like a crackpot. I love how this line was sneaked in matteroffactly:

"Microbial fossils have been discovered in fifteen carbonaceous chondrites, most impacted by supernova."

Really? Where has this been published and debated? And if only life can produce life, then what started life in the first place? Moving on...

190 posts later, criticism of the author's suspected bias remain (indeed, confirmed) with none of the posed questions answered.

[Paul Beardsley]

Prompted by your post, DrWho, I've gone back and re-read the first page.

Good grief, doesn't it go round in circles when key questions are ignored - or else they're given ludicrous answers such as "everywhere and nowhere"?

I totally stand by what I said in post 189.

[AstroRockHunter]

How would you know? You didn't read it.

Don't you think it would be a good dea to read what you review?

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

I would like to know how you deduced that I did not read it!

[Van Rijn]

BTW, A.DIM, a casual look on google for Rhawn Joseph shows that he appears to be a proponent of the 2012 "end-of-world" scenario as well as the 9/11 conspiracy (noting that this is not an invitation to discuss).


A little more googling for Rhaun Joseph turned up some reviews of his book, Astrobiology, the Origin of Life, and the Death of Darwinism. I found this in a review on Amazon:


The most laughable part of his book was the second chapter, which claims that aliens came down and manufactured human beings as servents. Aliens? Flying saucers? Advanced genetic engineering techniques manifested in ancient Sumerian drawings?

And I found this:

EVOLUTION IN THE ANCIENT CORNERS OF THE COSMOS: Visitations, Sightings, UFOs by Rhawn Joseph, Ph.D. (http://brainmind.com/Aliens.html)

Am I detecting several familiar A.DIM themes?

[Jeff Root]

I'm afraid that the only "chase" that it cuts to is the authors bias
against any theory that does not include divine intervention...
How would you know? You didn't read it.

Don't you think it would be a good dea to read what you review?
I would like to know how you deduced that I did not read it!
From the fact that you said "...the authors bias against any theory
that does not include divine intervention..." despite the fact that the
article does not mention the idea of divine intervention, and does not
make any argument favoring divine intervention.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

[DrWho]

despite the fact that the article does not mention the idea of divine intervention, and does not make any argument favoring divine intervention.
You mean apart from emphatically and repeatedly claiming that life cannot come from non-life? Given this indefensible position, what other possible source of life could there be other than divine intervention? Not to mention the copious other references to his previous works of crackpottery that have been unearthed.

[Paul Beardsley]

Okay, here's my summary of what we believe we know and what we can speculate. Letme know if you think I've missed anything, or misrepresented anything.

The universe began with a big bang, for which there is a lot of evidence. The early universe was lifeless. Eventually, supernovae created the chemicals that (among other things) were the building blocks of life, and which led to the creation of second generation stars which had rocky planets including Earth.

At some point, abiogenesis occurred. We know for sure that this happened at least once; we can speculate that it happened twice, or a billion trillion times, but we have no evidence to support this yet.

In scenario A, Earth is a location where abiogenesis occurred.

In scenario B, Earth is not a location where abiogenesis occurred. It happened somewhere else instead, and eventually found its way to Earth, perhaps on a comet or a fragment of rock from an exploding planet.

Scenario A has the merit that it is simple.

Scenario B has the merit that it explains a mystery, namely, how it is that the earliest fossilised remains of life is complex. This raises two questions: how did it get to be complex so quickly, and why are there no fossilised remains of the "simple" life that evolved into the remains that we see?

However, my understanding is that the mystery is not at all compelling.

Is anybody here knowledgeable enough to say if the mystery is compelling or not? Because that seems to be the key to this debate.

[Jeff Root]

Really, Jeff, the idea that the life-from-nonlife is a strawman or a side
issue is simply wrong.
Paul,

Your saying that is itself a strawman argument. I didn't say the
"life-from-nonlife" idea is a strawman. I said your argument to A.DIM
is a strawman argument. You have been arguing against assertions
that A.DIM never made. You have been telling A.DIM that he is wrong
when he says that life can only come from life. But A.DIM never said
such a thing. The article he quoted said that. A.DIM did not. He did
not say that he agreed with that quote. What he *did* say is that
there is no observational evidence of life coming from not-life, and
that the only evidence we have for life from not-life is circumstantial.
Those two statements are correct.



It's a sticking point that needs to be resolved before we can get onto
any serious discussion as to whether the first life arose on Earth or
somewhere else.
That is reasonable. However, the intent of the author of the article
is not clear to me from that article alone. A.DIM has attempted to
interpret the author's intent in a favorable way, in which the assertion
that life only comes from life might be taken to mean 1) Our only
experience is with life coming from life-- we have no observational
evidence of life coming from non-life, and 2) this may go back all the
way to the beginning of life on Earth, so that all life on Earth only
comes from life, and that life came from somewhere else. My reading
of the article indicates that A.DIM's interpretation is generous, but
not unreasonable. While there are numerous assertions in the article
that I am either extremely skeptical of or disagree with, I am not able
to disprove any of those assertions with knowledge that I already
possess. The assertions appear very unlikely to be true, but I don't
know for a fact that they are not true. So I have no good reason
not to be tolerant of A.DIM's tolerance.



(Added a few minutes later.) And on what grounds is it disputable that
life arose from nonlife? Are you denying there was ever any change?
On the grounds that many, many very intelligent and knowledgeable
people dispute it, in a variety of ways and apparently for a variety
of reasons. I am not one of those people. In any case, I'm not
denying there was ever any change!



Once these indisputables are accepted, then the details may be
considered. But if you don't accept them as indisputable, then
you need to say why or there is going to be no fruitful discussion.
Just saying, "It's circumstantial!" is not good enough.
It is a simple fact that the only evidence we have for life arising
from non-life is circumstantial evidence. That doesn't bother me.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

[Jeff Root]

Scenario B has the merit that it explains a mystery, namely, how
it is that the earliest fossilised remains of life is complex. This raises
two questions: how did it get to be complex so quickly, and why are
there no fossilised remains of the "simple" life that evolved into the
remains that we see?

However, my understanding is that the mystery is not at all compelling.

Is anybody here knowledgeable enough to say if the mystery is
compelling or not? Because that seems to be the key to this debate.
I don't think it is the key. It is an important point, but even if we
were to establish with certainty that there was enough time for life
to reach the level of complexity of the earliest fossils, it would still
be possible that those fossils were made by descendants of critters
from Space.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

[Paul Beardsley]

I don't think it is the key. It is an important point, but even if we
were to establish with certainty that there was enough time for life
to reach the level of complexity of the earliest fossils, it would still
be possible that those fossils were made by descendants of critters
from Space.

Okay, granted, you can mix elements of scenario A and B - that is to say, life arose on Earth but those earliest fossils are from outer space anyway.

If we were to establish with certainty that there was enough time for life to reach the level of complexity of the earliest fossils, then we would need new, compelling evidence that these fossils were from outer space. This is the opposite to the situation argued in the OP - namely that the earliest fossils are evidence of life from space. Hence it is the key, as I said.


You have been telling A.DIM that he is wrong
when he says that life can only come from life. But A.DIM never said
such a thing.
Except when he did. At the very least, he argued (in post 124, among other places) that there is no evidence that life came from nonlife.


It is a simple fact that the only evidence we have for life arising
from non-life is circumstantial evidence. That doesn't bother me.
Okay. Is the existence of planets conclusive proof that there was planetary formation, or is that merely circumstantial evidence?

[Spoons]

Okay. Is the existence of planets conclusive proof that there was planetary formation, or is that merely circumstantial evidence?

Well put - I've been struggling to see where this 'circumstantial' perspective comes from. Seems more like logical proof.

Non-life at one point (the atoms wouldn't even hold together according to current big bang theory, isn't that right?) and life now.

Life from non-life. It clearly occurred. Life on earth from non-life is a separate discussion though. Is there any proof of how the life on earth came to be? None that I'm aware of. Anyone?

[Paul Beardsley]

Well put - I've been struggling to see where this 'circumstantial' perspective comes from. Seems more like logical proof.
Thanks, Spoons. I've been struggling to work out why anyone would call it circumstantial, unless I have misunderstood what the word means.


Non-life at one point (the atoms wouldn't even hold together according to current big bang theory, isn't that right?) and life now.
Yes to the bit I underlined.


Life from non-life. It clearly occurred. Life on earth from non-life is a separate discussion though. Is there any proof of how the life on earth came to be? None that I'm aware of. Anyone?
I agree on all these points, including the questions.

I accept that life on Earth might not have formed on Earth, but I'd need more compelling evidence than anything I've seen so far. Right now, I don't think there is even any circumstantial evidence...

[Spoons]

It seems there's no evidence whatsoever either way. Unfortunately that just leaves a great big open playground for any number of conceptualizations on how it happened.

But the bit about life on earth developing clearly too fast for the timeframe to me seems rather presumptuous. How can we know? If we haven't replicated it (we haven't) and we haven't observed it elsewhere (we haven't) then where does one get the idea that they can judge it?

Besides, any chance is still a chance. Regardless of the timeframe.

[formulaterp]

I accept that life on Earth might not have formed on Earth, but I'd need more compelling evidence than anything I've seen so far. Right now, I don't think there is even any circumstantial evidence...

Well there are those ancient Sumerian stone tablets ...

[Spoons]

I'm not really all that familiar with these sumerian stone tablets, but what determines whether something like that is just scripted fiction, propaganda, hearsay or whatever else?

Just because something is written, does that make it so? It's not true today, why is it necessarily so then?

[Paul Beardsley]

I think formulaterp is having a little laugh. And so am I.

[Spoons]

Ah, I see.

That's comforting.

[R.A.F.]

What aliens are you referring to, R.A.F.?

If you eliminate god and aliens, what other alternatives are there?

...but to answer your question...what aliens am I referring to?, why the aliens that A.DIM blindly believes in.

[R.A.F.]

It seems there's no evidence whatsoever either way.

So the simplest explanation "wins" by default...and that explanation is that life originated here on Earth. A.DIM would have us all accept that unknown life existed elsewhere, and "seeded" Earth...and he would have us accept that without any evidence whatsoever.


But the bit about life on earth developing clearly too fast for the timeframe to me seems rather presumptuous. How can we know?

Let me get back to you on this one.

Spoons...I'll send you a PM explaining...

[aastrotech]

The big bang is not a certainty. If it were then life coming from non life would be a certainty.

Big bangers don't help the case by confusing the issue with statements like "It wasn't an explosion. It was more like an expansion". There's some word salad for ya.
Thermal expansion is the tendency of a matter to change in volume in response to a change in temperature.
An explosion is a rapid increase in volume and release of energy in an extreme manner, usually with the generation of high temperatures and the release of gases. An explosion creates a shock wave.

If the big bang "expands" at nearly the speed of light with the release of all the energy in the universe I'd say that conforms to the definition of explosion, "a rapid increase in volume and release of energy in an extreme manner, usually with the generation of high temperatures and the release of gases".

Even string theory (archaic, now m theory) doesn't imply (as yet) that a big bang in the convetional sense must have happened or that the universe is "finite but unbounded".

Forms of "Steady State" are still on the table. If matter in its current form always existed then life may (not neccessarily must) have always existed and there is no need to invoke "life from non life". In fact, absent proof of the big bang and experimental proof of life from non life then "life from non life" is an assumtion that is closer to ID than "life always existed".

Not to say that evidence for the big bang or life from non life is not compelling. It is, but it is not proof.

[R.A.F.]

Just because something is written, does that make it so?

Anything that has ever been written down must be true...right, A.DIM?? :lol:

[ToSeek]

The big bang is not a certainty. If it were then life coming from non life would be a certainty.

Big bangers don't help the case by confusing the issue with statements like "It wasn't an explosion. It was more like an expansion". There's some word salad for ya.
Thermal expansion is the tendency of a matter to change in volume in response to a change in temperature.
An explosion is a rapid increase in volume and release of energy in an extreme manner, usually with the generation of high temperatures and the release of gases. An explosion creates a shock wave.

If the big bang "expands" at nearly the speed of light with the release of all the energy in the universe I'd say that conforms to the definition of explosion, "a rapid increase in volume and release of energy in an extreme manner, usually with the generation of high temperatures and the release of gases".


From what I've read of those making the case that "the Big Bang was not an explosion," the key issue is that the Big Bang was a rapid expansion of space, not a rapid expansion into space.

[Moose]

From the fact that you said "...the authors bias against any theory
that does not include divine intervention..." despite the fact that the
article does not mention the idea of divine intervention, and does not
make any argument favoring divine intervention.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

Jeff Root, you are once again about two steps over the line. If you continue baiting people in this manner, you'll face another suspension. Knock it off.

[AstroRockHunter]

From the fact that you said "...the authors bias against any theory
that does not include divine intervention..." despite the fact that the
article does not mention the idea of divine intervention, and does not
make any argument favoring divine intervention.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

Jeff, in Minneapolis:

For your education and edification, not only did I read that paper, I have quoted from it several times.

[Swift]

This is a warning to many people.

Enough with all the snipping and snide comments and the borderline ad hominems. If you can not discuss this topic like adults, this thread will be closed and other moderator actions may happen too.

[Jeff Root]

I don't think it is the key. It is an important point, but even if we
were to establish with certainty that there was enough time for life
to reach the level of complexity of the earliest fossils, it would still
be possible that those fossils were made by descendants of critters
from Space.
Okay, granted, you can mix elements of scenario A and B - that is
to say, life arose on Earth but those earliest fossils are from outer
space anyway.
Or no mix. It could be what I said: There might have been enough
time for life to arise on Earth but it didn't arise because life from
elsewhere had already arrived and filled the spaces that new life
would require. That is a far more likely scenario, in my opinion.



If we were to establish with certainty that there was enough time
for life to reach the level of complexity of the earliest fossils, then
we would need new, compelling evidence that these fossils were
from outer space. This is the opposite to the situation argued in
the OP - namely that the earliest fossils are evidence of life from
space. Hence it is the key, as I said.
Yes, it is a very important piece of circumstantial evidence. With
a certainty of a lack of time, the extraterrestrial origin of life on
Earth would be a strong possibility. With a certainty of sufficient
time, the extraterrestrial origin of life on Earth would require other,
similarly-compelling evidence in order to be a strong possibility.
But the hypothesis does not depend on a lack of time. So in that
sense, it really isn't "key". In the sense you use the word, it is.




You have been telling A.DIM that he is wrong when he says that
life can only come from life. But A.DIM never said such a thing.
Except when he did. At the very least, he argued (in post 124, among
other places) that there is no evidence that life came from nonlife.
But A.DIM did not say in post 124 that life can only come from
other life. He also did not exactly say that "there is no evidence
that life came from nonlife", although he came very, very close
to saying it. What he said is:


Well, folks on a science board seem to accept the assumption Life
comes from nonLife without any evidence whatsoever; it's essentially
unsupported speculation.
...
Every example of Life around me came from other Life.
The last statement is surely true. I disagree with the statements
in the first sentence because we do have evidence supporting the
speculation that life on Earth came from nonlife. (I bolded the
word "came" because A.DIM used the present tense "comes", and
I don't know whether that has any significance.)

The bottom line, though, is that A.DIM never said life can only come
from life. That was an assumption expressed in the article A.DIM
posted. It is not something A.DIM ever asserted.




It is a simple fact that the only evidence we have for life arising
from non-life is circumstantial evidence. That doesn't bother me.
Okay. Is the existence of planets conclusive proof that there was
planetary formation, or is that merely circumstantial evidence?
It is circumstantial evidence. I am not going to go along with
sticking the word "merely" in front of it. The existence of something
is not by itself conclusive proof that the thing "formed" in some way.

Another evidence-- I'm not sure that "circumstantial" is the best
term for it, but it certainly is not direct evidence-- is observation
of what appear to be other solar systems in various stages of
development. That evidence is quite suggestive and helpful in
guiding our speculations about what may have happened here.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

[Jeff Root]

From the fact that you said "...the authors bias against any theory
that does not include divine intervention..." despite the fact that the
article does not mention the idea of divine intervention, and does not
make any argument favoring divine intervention.
Jeff Root, you are once again about two steps over the line.
If you continue baiting people in this manner, you'll face another
suspension. Knock it off.
Can you suggest how I could express it differently so as not to "bait"?
The poster's description of the article was wrong. How am I supposed
to respond?

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

[Jeff Root]

From the fact that you said "...the authors bias against any theory
that does not include divine intervention..." despite the fact that the
article does not mention the idea of divine intervention, and does not
make any argument favoring divine intervention.
not only did I read that paper, I have quoted from it several times.
In that case, you knew that the paper doesn't mention the idea
of divine intervention, and does not make any argument favoring
divine intervention. Correct?

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

[SolusLupus]

I'd say it was **.

Carl Sagan would probably call it baloney, but the concept is one and the same.

[Moose]

The poster's description of the article was wrong. How am I supposed to respond?

"The poster's description of the article was wrong" would be my immediate suggestion.

[A.DIM]

I'm afraid that the only "chase" that it cuts to is the authors bias against any theory that does not include divine intervention and calls into question the researchers objectivity. As I've said, a couple of times in this thread and you keep ignoring, this is the logical fallacy that taints this paper and the author's conclusions.

Direct question:
How can removing "every such statement" from the conclusion of the paper NOT do "little to change the central point of the paper, or the plausibility of its conclusion"?

Removing "as only life can produce life" from the entire paper leaves the paper's conclusion intact: life on earth came from other planets.
Nothing about divine intervention.
Moreover, without that statement (as only life can produce life) you've no grounds to assume some divine intervention bias, rendering your "logical fallacy" rather flaccid.

[A.DIM]

Jeff Root, you are once again about two steps over the line. If you continue baiting people in this manner, you'll face another suspension. Knock it off.

I'm confused.

AstroRockHunter is the one who levelled some "divine intervention" bias at the paper's author.
JeffRoot is pointing out how, if one has read the paper, there's nothing at all about divine intervention.

And Jeff Root is being warned for this?

:think:

[A.DIM]

Okay, here's my summary of what we believe we know and what we can speculate. Letme know if you think I've missed anything, or misrepresented anything.

The universe began with a big bang, for which there is a lot of evidence. The early universe was lifeless. Eventually, supernovae created the chemicals that (among other things) were the building blocks of life, and which led to the creation of second generation stars which had rocky planets including Earth.

At some point, abiogenesis occurred. We know for sure that this happened at least once; we can speculate that it happened twice, or a billion trillion times, but we have no evidence to support this yet.

In scenario A, Earth is a location where abiogenesis occurred.

In scenario B, Earth is not a location where abiogenesis occurred. It happened somewhere else instead, and eventually found its way to Earth, perhaps on a comet or a fragment of rock from an exploding planet.

Scenario A has the merit that it is simple.

Scenario B has the merit that it explains a mystery, namely, how it is that the earliest fossilised remains of life is complex. This raises two questions: how did it get to be complex so quickly, and why are there no fossilised remains of the "simple" life that evolved into the remains that we see?

However, my understanding is that the mystery is not at all compelling.

Is anybody here knowledgeable enough to say if the mystery is compelling or not? Because that seems to be the key to this debate.

Are you seriously asking whether or not the origin of life on Earth is an open question, a mystery to be solved?

[Paul Beardsley]

Are you seriously asking whether or not the origin of life on Earth is an open question, a mystery to be solved?
That's not what I said at all.

And I've had enough of this thread. Goodbye.

[PetersCreek]

And Jeff Root is being warned for this?


Again, do not take issue with moderation in-thread. Take it to PM or use the report button. Consider this a warning to all.

[A.DIM]

That's not what I said at all.

It most certainly is.
You gave a fair summation of the origin-of-life-on-Earth question and then asked whether or not the "mystery" of Earth's earliest life being so highly complex was at all compelling(although, I don't think the question of why we don't we see "simple" life fossils has been raised).

Were it not a compelling, open question, a mystery to be solved, I doubt we'd be seeing the field of Astrobiology growing as it is, with more studies involving panspermia hypotheses.


And I've had enough of this thread. Goodbye.

Farewell.

[aastrotech]

From what I've read of those making the case that "the Big Bang was not an explosion," the key issue is that the Big Bang was a rapid expansion of space, not a rapid expansion into space.

I don't see where "of or into" is relevant to the definition of explosion:"a rapid increase in volume and release of energy ..." Seems the only "key" differance between expansion and explosion is rapidity. The Big Bang certainly qualifies for rapidity.

[R.A.F.]

Were it not a compelling, open question, a mystery to be solved, I doubt we'd be seeing the field of Astrobiology growing as it is, with more studies involving panspermia hypotheses.

No, A.DIM...you're confusing the reasonable question of "is there life out there" with your panspermia nonsence.

If panspermia were as widely accepted by the mainstream scientific community as you would "like" it to be, then there would be NO debate.

This "wedge" argument to get panspermia accepted as a rational argument simply will not work.

[Swift]

I don't see where "of or into" is relevant to the definition of explosion:"a rapid increase in volume and release of energy ... Seems the only "key" differance between expansion and explosion is rapidity. The Big Bang certainly qualifies for rapidity.
aastrotech,
I see little or no relevence of the Big Bang to the discussion about the origin of life on Earth. Please do not further sidetrack this thread. If you wish to discuss the Big Bang, please start your own thread.

[R.A.F.]

And I've had enough of this thread. Goodbye.

Your opinion will be missed.

Ya know, A.DIM...you should welcome those who would challenge your arguments. That's how science "works", by ideas being exposed to the "heat" of critical examination.

[Swift]

And R.A.F,
If you keep debating how this thread should be run, rather than debating the topic at hand, actions will taken.

All - I can't tell you how much I want to close this thread, which is quickly turning into nothing but grief. If I don't see the bestest of behavior out of the lot of you, I'll get my wish.

[A.DIM]

The big bang is not a certainty. If it were then life coming from non life would be a certainty.

Thanks for pointing this out.


Big bangers don't help the case by confusing the issue with statements like "It wasn't an explosion. It was more like an expansion". There's some word salad for ya.
Thermal expansion is the tendency of a matter to change in volume in response to a change in temperature.
An explosion is a rapid increase in volume and release of energy in an extreme manner, usually with the generation of high temperatures and the release of gases. An explosion creates a shock wave.

If the big bang "expands" at nearly the speed of light with the release of all the energy in the universe I'd say that conforms to the definition of explosion, "a rapid increase in volume and release of energy in an extreme manner, usually with the generation of high temperatures and the release of gases".

Even string theory (archaic, now m theory) doesn't imply (as yet) that a big bang in the convetional sense must have happened or that the universe is "finite but unbounded".
Forms of "Steady State" are still on the table. If matter in its current form always existed then life may (not neccessarily must) have always existed and there is no need to invoke "life from non life". In fact, absent proof of the big bang and experimental proof of life from non life then "life from non life" is an assumtion that is closer to ID than "life always existed".

Interesting; I hadn't looked at this way before.


Not to say that evidence for the big bang or life from non life is not compelling. It is, but it is not proof.

I agree, which is why I maintain there is only circumstantial evidence based on assumption for life from nonlife.

Thanks for the insight!

[A.DIM]

Swift, I'm sorry.

I'm finished here unless someone wants to further examine the merits of the paper in question.
I reviewed the abstract by line to discuss which of the paper's assertions were credible. It went unnoticed. If someone wishes to delve further, I'm interested.

[agingjb]

Circumstantial evidence?

Well if you like, but is there some more robust evidence for the alternatives to the theory that life can and did come from non-life?

What are good criteria for choosing between these theories?

[A.DIM]

Circumstantial evidence?

Well if you like, but is there some more robust evidence for the alternatives to the theory that life can and did come from non-life?

What are good criteria for choosing between these theories?

I don't think there's enough evidence to choose one or the other at this time.

Although, life coming from life is rather robust as well as supportive of panspermia hypotheses, especially when considering the complexity issues found in Earth's earliest known. This, IMO, is a valid reason to consider it a viable alternative to abiogenesis on Earth.

[SolusLupus]

Okay, so if the Big Bang didn't occur, how do you two explain the background radiation of the universe, seen on all sides?

[agingjb]

But, if life cannot arise from non-life, then panspermia may be implied, but it doesn't solve the problem.

At the risk of tedium, if life cannot arise from non-life then we are left with either an infinitely old universe (with panspermia), or "external" intervention.

[A.DIM]

Well, that's part of the compelling evidence which suggests it did, that which we agreed on.
I suspect however, the story is unfinished and there will no doubt be amendments to the standard theory.



Ooops!
This was meant in response to Lonewulf's question.

[A.DIM]

But, if life cannot arise from non-life, then panspermia may be implied, but it doesn't solve the problem.

No it would only answer one question, that which regards the origin of Earth life.
It came from elsewhere.

Anyway, I don't think life simply cannot arise from nonlife. I only say there is no evidence for it because the origin of life on earth, or abiogenesis, needn't be crammed into an earthsized timeframe.


At the risk of tedium, if life cannot arise from non-life then we are left with either an infinitely old universe (with panspermia), or "external" intervention.

Again, I don't think life cannot arise from nonlife.

[SolusLupus]

Well, that's part of the compelling evidence which suggests it did, that which we agreed on.
I suspect however, the story is unfinished and there will no doubt be amendments to the standard theory.

Slight modifications to a theory is not the same as saying "The big bang is not a certainty."

The Big Bang isn't a certainty in the same way that any theory in science isn't a certainty, even gravity. But given that Aastrotech has gone out of his way to point that out, and has labeled people that support the Big Bang theory "Big Bangers", makes me suspicious.

[aastrotech]

Okay, so if the Big Bang didn't occur, how do you two explain the background radiation of the universe, seen on all sides?

Since the big bang is "mainstream" non big bang discussion is I think ATM and off topic for this thread. Referring to the fact that non BB theories exist I don't think is ATM.

If you want to discuss CMBR in non BB models post in ATM and I may contribute.

[SolusLupus]

Okay, fair enough. I forgot about the strict rules involving ATM.

Edit: ATM thread started here (http://www.bautforum.com/against-mainstream/91909-big-bang-background-radiation.html#post1548855).

[HenrikOlsen]

Again, I don't think life cannot arise from nonlife.
You do realize that "life can't come from non-life" is the fundamental argument for why life must come from elsewhere in the article under discussion, right?

And that if life can arise from non-life, which Paul showed is the only logical conclusion possible given mainstream astrophysics, then that argument for life coming from elsewhere becomes invalid, right?

Which means you have to look for other arguments and as far as I can see every other argument is one of incredulity rather than evidence.

Incidentally, and this goes to everyone, if a moderator has posted a warning in a thread it's safe to assume all posts previous has already been read.
Spamming us with reports about them has one result only and that is to make us very annoyed with the reporter for wasting our time.

[A.DIM]

You do realize that "life can't come from non-life" is the fundamental argument for why life must come from elsewhere in the article under discussion, right?

Joseph never says "life can't come from nonlife" does he?
He states there is no evidence of life from nonlife(valid observation) and repeats "as only life comes from life"(valid observation as far as we know).

I see why it's inferred but to me, there's a difference.

[R.A.F.]

And that if life can arise from non-life, which Paul showed is the only logical conclusion possible given mainstream astrophysics, then that argument for life coming from elsewhere becomes invalid, right?

...and that's just for "starters"...for a.dim's ideas to have any validity, not only would mainstream astrophysics have to be "thrown out", but also all that we have know about the early biology of the Earth would have to be ignored.

Seems rather unlikely doesn't it.

[SolusLupus]

Joseph never says "life can't come from nonlife" does he?
He states there is no evidence of life from nonlife(valid observation) and repeats "as only life comes from life"(valid observation as far as we know).

I see why it's inferred but to me, there's a difference.

"No evidence"? I'm not sure how valid that is. Were there not experiments showing that inorganic matter could become organic matter through various processes?

[Swift]

This thread has been closed, pending review by the moderation team.

[Swift]

It has been requested that this thread be reopened, to present some information from a new paper. I'm reopening it, but it will remain open only as long as the discussion remains polite.

[DrWho]

Time to duck...

[A.DIM]

The Journal of Cosmology Invites Open Peer Commentary: Life on Earth, Came From Other Planets (http://www.cosmology.com/).

Three commentaries in response to Joseph's article, the focus of this thread, have been published on the cosmology website. I found each of these scientists' remarks accurate and objective, even reflecting somewhat our own debate.

I'm certainly looking forward to reading Wichramasinghe's and Hoover's comments, as well as any other scientists who might take the time to review and respond.

I don't think Joseph's conclusion is by any means proven but I think it's important to recognize that panspermia and/or exogenesis hypotheses remain valid alternatives to abiogenesis on Earth hypotheses.

Sharov's final remarks sum it up for me:

It is time to honestly recognize that we don’t know the final answer despite the mounting evidence in favor of extra-terrestrial origin of life. Thus, Earth contamination with microbes coming from other planets should be viewed as a hypothesis. Based on the rate of increase of the genome complexity and facts summarized by Joseph (2009a), we can say that the hypothesis of extraterrestrial origin of life is more plausible that the alternative hypothesis of terrestrial origin. But it is still a hypothesis.