Abiogenesis and life on Earth - thoughts and pet theories?

[Asbo Zaprudder]

While touring NASA, on Cape Canaveral, in Florida, I talked with a retired technician who volunteered to meet and greet and answer questions of the public. One of the things he told me was that no matter how clean and sanitized NASA treated their water and holding tanks, bacteria would eventually get in and grow.

Now, what if that bacteria didn't get in? What if it developed within the water system by the nature of the system and water?

It seems inconceivable that we can't purify an enclosed water system to remain completely free of biological contamination, but perhaps the even more inconceivable condition of the spontaneous formation of life would remain inexplicable simply because it was so ever present and inconceivable.

-Will

That's akin to what Aristotle propounded with his notion of pneuma. Experiment suggests otherwise:

Experiments in support and against Spontaneous Generation

Experiments in support and against Spontaneous Generation. Spontaneous generation is an obsolete theory which states that living organisms can originate from inanimate objects.

microbenotes.com

Bacterial contamination is much more likely. The little buggers get everywhere. Although small, the probability of one quantum tunnelling through a potential barrier is tiny. However, they have been demonstrated to perhaps be subject to quantum effects:

"Schrödinger's Bacterium" Could Be a Quantum Biology Milestone

A recent experiment may have placed living organisms in a state of quantum entanglement

www.scientificamerican.com

 

[publiusr]

Sounds almost like spore drive

Acid for blood?

Another Building Block of Life Can Handle Venus' Sulphuric Acid - Universe Today

Questions

A Challenge to the Standard Cosmological Model - Cosmoquest Forum

The title of this thread is the title of this paper: https://arxiv.org/abs/2206.05624; but it can be used as a general topic because there are a LOT of recent papers about this theme. A Challenge to the Standard Cosmological Model [Secrist et al.] We present the first joint analysis of...

forum.cosmoquest.org

 

[Will The Serious]

So... I've been thinking a little about the idea of directed evolution and what mechanism might logically be involved in a naturally occurring vector towards improvement of a species' fitness for survival, without falling back onto some undefined "powerful" and "benevolent" force. I came up, at least in part, with sexual reproduction as a strongly contributing factor.

With asexual reproduction, the chance of a more successful mutation is rather small since every offspring is based 100% on the DNA of a single parent. However, by dividing the single organism into two independent halves with their own full set of DNA, a greater chance of a successful mutation getting passed on to the next generation has got to far surpass that of the asexual organism, within a similar population. By allowing for the two halves to each have an equal roll in contributing their DNA to the offspring, the chances of a successful mutation coming from one parent or the other has almost doubled, where the mutation from an organism that reproduces asexually can only reproduce what it contributes. This means that, unless it is the mutated organism, it will only reproduce a random mutation once every hundred, thousand, million divisions. Only the mutated organism can pass on its mutation with no guarantee the mutation is a successful mutation.

Meanwhile, the sexual reproducing organisms can mix it up. Each half of the male/female organism has the opportunity to contribute or extract DNA from a mate that they choose, by whatever means seems important within their environment. That is, a female can refuse to reproduce with a mate that is smaller and less able to add food, shelter, warmth, safety to the couple. A male can use its genetic advantage to reproduce with a wider population of viable females. The couples, potential couples, and the population as a whole can add a mind, individually or collectively, to encouraging the best attributes for survival. This can be refine and enhanced even further with the development of a more complex and demanding social structure within the population(s). Polygamy and monogamy both have advantages and disadvantages with regards to enhancing advantagous genetic attributes. None of these advantages can be claimed by species that reproduce asexually.

-Will

 

[Asbo Zaprudder]

I'd recommend reading Power, Sex, Suicide: Mitochondria and the Meaning of Life by Nick Lane.

Mitochondria are tiny structures located inside our cells that carry out the essential task of producing energy for the cell. They are found in all complex living things, and in that sense, they are fundamental for driving complex life on the planet. But there is much more to them than that.

Mitochondria have their own DNA, with their own small collection of genes, separate from those in the cell nucleus. It is thought that they were once bacteria living independent lives. Their enslavement within the larger cell was a turning point in the evolution of life, enabling the development of complex organisms and, closely related, the origin of two sexes. Unlike the DNA in the nucleus, mitochondrial DNA is passed down exclusively (or almost exclusively) via the female line. That's why it has been used by some researchers to trace human ancestry daughter-to-mother, to 'Mitochondrial Eve'. Mitochondria give us important information about our evolutionary history. And that's not all. Mitochondrial genes mutate much faster than those in the nucleus because of the free radicals produced in their energy-generating role. This high mutation rate lies behind our ageing and certain congenital diseases. The latest research suggests that mitochondria play a key role in degenerative diseases such as cancer, through their involvement in precipitating cell suicide.

Mitochondria, then, are pivotal in power, sex, and suicide. In this fascinating and thought-provoking book, Nick Lane brings together the latest research findings in this exciting field to show how our growing understanding of mitochondria is shedding light on how complex life evolved, why sex arose (why don't we just bud?), and why we age and die. This understanding is of fundamental importance, both in understanding how we and all other complex life came to be, but also in order to be able to control our own illnesses, and delay our degeneration and death.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/0198831900

 

[Will The Serious]

"Mitochondrial genes mutate much faster than those in the nucleus because of the free radicals produced in their energy-generating role. This high mutation rate lies behind our ageing and certain congenital diseases. The latest research suggests that mitochondria play a key role in degenerative diseases such as cancer, through their involvement in precipitating cell suicide."

In Genesis, Noah was 600 years old at the time of three great flood, and he lived to about 950 years old, according to the Bible. He wasn't the only one. I have heard it said that God regretted making man so long lived and made adjustments (mitochondria?). I think it might be possible that we simply measure a year differently then when the stories of Noah and those ancient saints were written about.

Indigenous Americans use to measure peoples' lifespans in Moons. It has been many moons since I've heard such references, but what if Noah's age was measured in moons, only in Eastern Europe, it was called a year or its equivalent. Perhapse the term has changed its meaning through Popular misunderstanding and we now read "full cycle around the Sun" when we read "year".

If Noah had lived to 950 years old, but one year meant one full lunar cycle instead a solar cycle, that would translate into approximately 12 moons per anum and thus the number of modern solar years 950 lunar years could be referring to would be about 79.16667 solar years, or about 80 years old. Pretty old for a human of the first Civilizations. Even today, that's not bad. That would put him at 50 years old when he begun work on the Arc. Certainly old enough to have a reputation as a good man capable of answering a call to save life on Earth.

-Will

 

[Victoria]

In Genesis, Noah was 600 years old at the time of three great flood, and he lived to about 950 years old, according to the Bible. He wasn't the only one. I have heard it said that God regretted making man so long lived and made adjustments (mitochondria?). I think it might be possible that we simply measure a year differently then when the stories of Noah and those ancient saints were written about.

Indigenous Americans use to measure peoples' lifespans in Moons. It has been many moons since I've heard such references, but what if Noah's age was measured in moons, only in Eastern Europe, it was called a year or its equivalent. Perhapse the term has changed its meaning through Popular misunderstanding and we now read "full cycle around the Sun" when we read "year".

If Noah had lived to 950 years old, but one year meant one full lunar cycle instead a solar cycle, that would translate into approximately 12 moons per anum and thus the number of modern solar years 950 lunar years could be referring to would be about 79.16667 solar years, or about 80 years old. Pretty old for a human of the first Civilizations. Even today, that's not bad. That would put him at 50 years old when he begun work on the Arc. Certainly old enough to have a reputation as a good man capable of answering a call to save life on Earth.

-Will

The problem with this argument is that it would mean, when the stories of the ancient patriachs were being recorded, the word being used for "year" sometimes means a lunar cycle (lunar month) and sometimes twelve lunar cycles plus added days. Then you have to account for things like:
"In the six hundredth year od Noah's life, in the second month, and on the seventeenth day of that month..." (Genesis 7:11 the Jerusalem Bible: standard edition)

 

[Asbo Zaprudder]

None of them existed in any case.

 

[Will The Serious]

Very good point, Victoria.

None of them existed in any case.

Why would you say that? Even if you don't believe the divine aspects and the extraordinary events and miracles, why would you say the people didn't exist? Even Troy turned out to exist after centuries of belief that the people and events of the Iliad were fiction. The ancient papyrus have lists of lineages and family connections of all the characters in Genesis. This is pretty consistent with other ancient people and their recordings of their lineages and family histories. In fact, the Iliad begins with lists upon lists of the mothers and fathers and grandparents of all the kings and the heroes who marched with King Agamemnon on his way to Troy. If these people were just object lessons and/or metaphors, why take so much care in tracking their heritage?

I don't believe Noah lived for nearly a millennium, but I don't see any reason to doubt his existence. I certainly believe Abraham lived and King David. The records of Jesus are pretty clear. Is there not proof that Moses was raised by the Pharaoh and led his people out of slavery? Right now, I think there is more proof of their existence than of their non-existence.

However, I don't mean to divert the nature of this thread to explore the truths and myths of religion. I only refer to these ancient stories in comparison to new discoveries as a way of encouraging the consideration that some of what we see as new discoveries and what we think of as modern points of view, may have more ancient origins. Many of these new ideas seem to mirror concepts that come down from the thoughts and experiences of people whose level of understanding, resources, and observational skills may far exceed what we believe of them. I feel there is wisdom and insight still to glean from what they have passed down to us. Our maths and science and technology are leading us on convoluted paths of conjecture, hypothesis, theory, and paradox. We are practically shooting birdshot from a sawed-off at targets in the dark trying to hit some target of how the Universe is. We've been doing this since humans could notch prime numbers into baboon thigh bones. There is no benefit to turning our backs on these ancient thoughts in contempt. We don't have the answers, maybe the deep thinkers of ages past can help direct us on how and where to look. It isn't a waste of time to learn about what came before, and it isn't a waste of time to recognize that we may be the ones looking at our problems all wrong.

-Will

 

[Asbo Zaprudder]

Why would I say that? Perhaps because religious mumbo-jumbo shouldn't be brought into any thread in a subforum devoted to science and technology. The Bible is not a work of reliable historical record, never mind a guide to how we should model the cosmos. It's certainly a guide to how pernicious memes can inhibit and undermine critical thinking as much of the Middle Ages in Europe demonstrated. The same goes for Eastern religious dogma, even Zen Buddhism, that infiltrated physics in the 60s and 70s. Even though some view it as providing unorthodox conceptualisation useful for theorising, that doesn't validate the source and I doubt that the case is strong. Certainly, I doubt the rambling, unsubstantiated tales of Middle East animal herders form any basis for doing science.

ETA: For the record, I don't mind if someone thinks some supernatural entity created life, but such a belief is hardly scientific. Abiogenesis from chemistry is at least plausible, even if it appears improbable. My suspicion is that we don't know enough about conditions on Hadean and Archean Earth in order to replicate them in a lab, nor whether we live in a multiverse where the improbable aways happens, potentially an infinite number of times.

 

[Will The Serious]

The Bible is not a work of reliable historical record, never mind a guide to how we should model the cosmos.

So true, yet there often seems to exist some intriguing notions of ontology and metaphysics that some new technical/scientific discovery moves us back to rather than further away from. Pythagoreans believed that all are numbers, or some abstraction that could lead us to the fundamental nature of our Universe.

Modern philosophy uses modern terms to describe everything as information. Clearly a direct offspring of our binary, computer-based information age. While this "new" philosophy helps direct scientific inquiry, it also harken back to the abstract world of numbers proposed by the ancient Greeks over 2500 years ago. It doesn't necessarily require Hubble telescopes or Voyager deep space probes or Cern partical colliders to understand the elemental nature of things. We live in a phenomenological world of the senses, real or abstract, and it may be that we have all the clues we need to reach enlightenment as well as distant stars. Our modern tools help, of course, but our requirements for them have more to do with demonstrable and reproducible proof rather than true understanding. Religion asks for its acolytes to have faith, while science demands proof. Unfortunately, we often give our faith to "science" when we should be demanding understanding.

If the math works, does that give me understanding or is that just another demand to have faith?

-Will

 

[Asbo Zaprudder]

Of course, Albert Einstein was often wrong, and sometimes he was wrong about believing he was wrong.

 

[Will The Serious]

Unlike Albert, I'm never wrong about believing I'm wrong.

-Will

 

[Asbo Zaprudder]

So true, yet there often seems to exist some intriguing notions of ontology and metaphysics that some new technical/scientific discovery moves us back to rather than further away from. Pythagoreans believed that all are numbers, or some abstraction that could lead us to the fundamental nature of our Universe.

Modern philosophy uses modern terms to describe everything as information. Clearly a direct offspring of our binary, computer-based information age. While this "new" philosophy helps direct scientific inquiry, it also harken back to the abstract world of numbers proposed by the ancient Greeks over 2500 years ago. It doesn't necessarily require Hubble telescopes or Voyager deep space probes or Cern partical colliders to understand the elemental nature of things. We live in a phenomenological world of the senses, real or abstract, and it may be that we have all the clues we need to reach enlightenment as well as distant stars. Our modern tools help, of course, but our requirements for them have more to do with demonstrable and reproducible proof rather than true understanding. Religion asks for its acolytes to have faith, while science demands proof. Unfortunately, we often give our faith to "science" when we should be demanding understanding.

If the math works, does that give me understanding or is that just another demand to have faith?

If the predictions from the maths agree with experiment, that obviates the need for faith. Whether such correlation offers up truth about the underlying reality, I have no idea. I just know I prefer it to blind commitment to dogma that has no scientific basis. Pascal's wager is all very well, but there are many religions and I know no way of testing whether any one of them is more valid than any other.

We should probably leave discussion of physics to your thread and discussion of religion to some other subforum.

Unlike Albert, I'm never wrong about believing I'm wrong.

I've had experience of it, but it's much rarer than me being right about believing I'm wrong.

 

[publiusr]

Organically were found on Ceres.

The Moon has a down, most asteroids you could dock with.

I wonder if Ceres gravity level is a sweet spot for organics…

 

[Asbo Zaprudder]

Organically were found on Ceres.

The Moon has a down, most asteroids you could dock with.

I wonder if Ceres gravity level is a sweet spot for organics…

The acceleration due to gravity on the surface of Ceres is 0.284 m/s² (0.0290g) - about 1/34th Earth gravity. The acceleration due to gravity on the lunar surface is 1.622 m/s² (0.1654g) - about 1/6th Earth gravity. If water ice within 5 AU is exposed to vacuum and direct sunlight, it sublimates on a short timescale. Out of direct sunlight water ice can remain stable for many millions of years provided its temperature remains low enough. Ceres' orbit has a semi-major axis of 2.77 AU and lies on the lower estimate for the ice line during the formation of the Solar System. It appears to have an icy mantle and could even have a water ocean below the surface. There are deposits on various salts on its surface where impacts appear to have disturbed the subsurface water layer. There are organic molecules on Ceres - that just means they contain carbon - but that doesn't mean there's life. The only way to be sure is to land a probe, but that might well contaminate Ceres with Earth microbes.

 

[publiusr]

Besides, the worries folks had about the LM sinking might be apt here…

 

[Asbo Zaprudder]

 

[Asbo Zaprudder]

I would suggest that purpose is irrelevant to the concept of a universal mind. No prime mover is implied.

The universe, to those of us who look at it with a conscious awareness, is filled with analogies. The identified forces can create relationships that are reflected in the other forces. Gravity creates star systems and galaxies, among other astronomical phenomenon that appear to mirror atomic and sub atomic structures created by electromagnetic forces. The growth patterns of fungi across a surface mimic the spread of human civilization and even appear to reflect the synaptic structure of a network of brain cells.

(neuron networking)

(city by satellite)

Just as I don't have control over the neurons and cells in my body, a Universal Consciousness is not likely to be any more aware of us or any other structure that helps bring it into being. That is not to say these structures don't move towards an identifiable singular destination. We get hungry, so we go looking for food. Where does our hunger come from? Why are we motivated to satisfy that hunger? Why would we not think such circumstances exist outside our limited perception of life on Earth? Hunger is such a natural state.

-Will

Sabine Hossenfelder just put out a video in which she states that a sapient universe can't be ruled out:

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

However, she doesn't base her analysis on topological considerations of the cosmic web.

 

[Will The Serious]

However, she doesn't base her analysis on topological considerations of the cosmic web.

Of course. However, two creatures that look alike, are more likely to be closely related, than not. That doesn't mean there aren't look-alikes that are unrelated, just that their physical similarities suggests an initial direction to investigate as possibly productive.

How would a planet sized neutral network likely look? What would identify a vast cosmic neutral network and the consequent "mind" that came out of it?

-Will

 

[Asbo Zaprudder]

I assume those questions are rhetorical.