What in the actual...fark?
No, it doesn't...chemistry...do you speak it?
No, it doesn't...chemistry...do you speak it?
Has the Origins of Human Life on Earth Been Discovered?
- Thread starter Dryson
- Start date
...What in the world are you talking about?
Except life DID survive. Birds, Crocodiles, Mammals, and other terrestrials survived.
Only 65% of life was wiped out in the k-t. The Earth was blanked in a dust cloud, but it wasn't totally destroyed. The area around the impact, yes. Probably, the traps in India, too. But life survived. Terrestrial life. Aerial life. Aquatic life. It wasn't a 100% killer.
The filter was *size*. Small birds. Small mammals. They survived, plainly. Plant life survived - Figs, Planes, and Magnolias have their roots in the Cretacous. Conifers. Fungi bloomed, and by that route the smaller animals survived, along with small predation of each other. Bees and Ants come from this time. Sharks from even before.
It's not like 'rock hit - all life gone'.
Let's look at the water element. Earth would have been to hot for a certain time period where water would have split into its base components of hydrogen and oxygen due to the heat of the Earth.
Since hydrogen is present in a sun, hydrogen from in an ice asteroid would have been to survive a collision with Earth during Earth's hot phase. Oxygen would not have survived.
Therefore life would not have been able to take hold on Earth until the planet cooled to a point hydrogen and oxygen was able to maintain a chemical bond to create water.
Asteroids containing the DNA and RNA blueprints or the base compounds for animal and plant life to take shape on Earth had to have come from a distant and remote location of the galaxy. Which would also suggest that life could have taken hold on other planets in the galaxy if the same type of asteroid collided with hot Earth like planets after the planet had cooled to allow water to remain cohesive on the planet.
Some of these very special asteroids would have collided with a hot Earth like planet before cooling and would not have started life while some of the asteroids would still be roaming the galaxy.
The Origin Asteroids would be very limited and not be common like the more abundant metallic roids that were hot at one point as well.
An Orifin Asteroid would have formed after the metallic roids cooled, so that water was able to retain its chemical compounds.
Since hydrogen is present in a sun, hydrogen from in an ice asteroid would have been to survive a collision with Earth during Earth's hot phase. Oxygen would not have survived.
Therefore life would not have been able to take hold on Earth until the planet cooled to a point hydrogen and oxygen was able to maintain a chemical bond to create water.
Asteroids containing the DNA and RNA blueprints or the base compounds for animal and plant life to take shape on Earth had to have come from a distant and remote location of the galaxy. Which would also suggest that life could have taken hold on other planets in the galaxy if the same type of asteroid collided with hot Earth like planets after the planet had cooled to allow water to remain cohesive on the planet.
Some of these very special asteroids would have collided with a hot Earth like planet before cooling and would not have started life while some of the asteroids would still be roaming the galaxy.
The Origin Asteroids would be very limited and not be common like the more abundant metallic roids that were hot at one point as well.
An Orifin Asteroid would have formed after the metallic roids cooled, so that water was able to retain its chemical compounds.
Where did you get your science education, if I may ask?
I think they might be talking about a few billion years in the past when the solar system was forming. Or at least, I hope so, because then they would be correct about Earth not being able to sustain life. As I recall, asteroids then brought water to Earth, and possibly with them, the correct chemicals to form RNA, which eventually brings about life after millions (billions) of years.
^ This.
But oxygen isotoping of comets has shown that water delivery by comets was not the source of Earth's water, but more likely due to condensation reactions inside the mantle i.e Ringwoodite.
Also water is quite a durbale molecule, won't breakdown until at least 3000 K, and then will recombine back to water due to its lower energy state. Only the inner core of the solar nebula (Mercury) during formation was above 3000 K.
But oxygen isotoping of comets has shown that water delivery by comets was not the source of Earth's water, but more likely due to condensation reactions inside the mantle i.e Ringwoodite.
Also water is quite a durbale molecule, won't breakdown until at least 3000 K, and then will recombine back to water due to its lower energy state. Only the inner core of the solar nebula (Mercury) during formation was above 3000 K.
My suspicion is that sapient life or indeed any life can only exist if reality is a multiverse. However, I can't think of any way to falsify this so it's not science.
A good article on whether the existence of the multiverse is scientifically testable:
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/can-physicists-ever-prove-multiverse-real-180958813/
I have read that it is theoretically possible to communicate with other branches of the multiverse if the the time-dependent Schrödinger equation is modified slightly to make it non-linear yet still make predictions in agreement with observation. However, this channel might only allow for one bit of information to be exchanged before the branch states diverge. Perhaps research in quantum computation will shed light on whether such a communication channel in feasible.
The following video explains why the NASA ANITA experimental observations that have been widely touted as evidence for the existence of parallel universe maybe aren't:
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/can-physicists-ever-prove-multiverse-real-180958813/
I have read that it is theoretically possible to communicate with other branches of the multiverse if the the time-dependent Schrödinger equation is modified slightly to make it non-linear yet still make predictions in agreement with observation. However, this channel might only allow for one bit of information to be exchanged before the branch states diverge. Perhaps research in quantum computation will shed light on whether such a communication channel in feasible.
The following video explains why the NASA ANITA experimental observations that have been widely touted as evidence for the existence of parallel universe maybe aren't:
Last edited:
I didn't watch the whole video, sorry about that.
But I would like to point out in case it wasn't that, specifically in Everett's relative state formulation, the different universes would all share the same values for all physical constants. Said another way, any parameters that differ between them aren't physical constants.
But I would like to point out in case it wasn't that, specifically in Everett's relative state formulation, the different universes would all share the same values for all physical constants. Said another way, any parameters that differ between them aren't physical constants.
Yeah, YouTube videos can be a bit too long-winded if you're familiar with the background. There exist multiverse theories other than Everett's interpretation in any case. We aren't even certain that the physical constants in our branch are in fact constant. There have been theoretical speculation and experimental hints that G and α (which is actually e^2/4πε0ħc) might vary. The same could be true for ħ, e and c although large deviation over time of such constants might be observable cosmologically or even in geology and palaeontology. Certainly there have been measurements (Barrow, Webb et al) that claim the fine structure constant α varies across the universe and Oklo natural fission reactor measurements (Lamoreaux and Torgerson) seem to show a very small variation over 2 billion years. QED also predicts α varies with energy scale - the value usually quoted is the low-energy asymptotic value.
^ Now there’s some good technobabble! No idea what most of it means, but it sounds good. Physics is not my forte. Give me biology and geology any day, but not physics!
Yes, interpretations of what quantum mechanical equations imply about reality are more metaphysics than physics. I've lost count of the various ideas and none appear to be currently falsifiable and so are not really science. I'm not sure I'd go as far as this fellow and dismiss much of Physics done since the 1930s including QED, QFT, the Standard Model, string theory, etc but he might have a point.
Earth has had life on it for almost 4 billion years. Our ancestors came from whatever happened when chemistry turned into biology. Unless it really was aliens, in which case I'll accept NexGen's answer. Being related to Cardissians and Klingons would explain a few things.
Even if one were to accept panspermia, one still has to explain how biology developed elsewhere. Panspermia seems unlikely as all life on Earth appears to be related, although while it is possible that archaea and bacteria started in the same location (alkaline vent, black smoker, warm little pond, meteor, Salome Jens' petri dish, whatever), they have some fundamental differences such as cell wall composition, RNA polymerases, and reproduction mechanisms that might have developed independently after leaving this location. Eukaryotic cells (like our own) appear to be the result of an archaea successfully fusing with a bacterium and forming a symbiotic relationship - perhaps after unsuccessfully trying to ingest it - a seemingly very unlikely event.
800 million years ago we got hit worse than 65 Myr Now I think I posted somewhere here that 700 myr a small planet may have grazed us…from arxiv as best as I remember.
The Earth had not had life on it for the last four billion years.
Most, if not all life on Earth requires water and oxygen. The Earth would have been to hot during the first or second billion of years for life to exist.
If you take into account the asteroids orbiting the Sun for at least another 200 to 300 million years, where the asteroids would constantly collide with Earth creating inhabitants volumes of CO2, then life would not have been able to exist on Earth, in the form of dinosaurs and plants that both require sunlight and water. Both of which would have existed only after the levels of CO2 dramatically decreased after the solar asteroids were depleted, then we are looking at life starting on Earth, maybe 1.8 to 1.9 billion years ago.
I would have to say that a small asteroid impacted the Earth after the CO2 had receeded to allow sunlight, CO2 and water to do its thing with proteins in the DNA and RNA chains of soon to be plants and animals.
I also think that all life, at one point and time, came from some type of shell. Dinos and trees came before humans and came from seeds or shells.
The very first humans most likely grew inside some type of shell and then reproduced like we do today, where human offspring grow inside of the placenta which is surrounded by a skin shell.
Who thinks that humans might have grown inside of skin like shell at first until the first humans began reproducing?
Could that small planet you are referring to possibly have been a solar orbital?
Not humans. But certainly the ancestors of mammals. Think platypus type creatures at first. Viviparous creatures have evolved more than once, too. There are some sharks, fish, and reptiles that bear live young. The difference between them and mammals (with the exception of platypus and echidna), is all mammals bear live young, whereas in other orders, it’s the exception and not the rule.
Wrong. Earth didn't even have any oxygen during the first two billion years of life. We've only had an oxygenated atmosphere for about two billion years or so. The first life didn't use oxygen. Proof of life in the fossil record goes back 3.5 to 3.8 billion years.
Similar threads
