timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Jan, 2006 11:25 am
Whether life here - or its enabling precursors - rode in on a comet, or arose through inevitable, inexorable chemical process makes little difference; either makes infinitely more sense than that some supernatural entity picked this one speck of wet rock orbiting this one unremarkable star in this one relatively remote arm of this one entirely typical galaxy among all the billions and billions of galaxies as the place to generate a fan club.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Jan, 2006 11:41 am
water rode in on comets. Life may have hitched a ride. Genesis is all wrong. However all that does is put the chemical reactions farther back in time and farther out there.

The problem weve always had with a "abiogenetic" explanation was an imperfect understanding of the early earths chemical environment. It would have had to be reducing. Thats sorta what were beginning to see in the earliest preCambrian rocks from The Canadian and Asian shields.We cant see back much before 3.9 By because of the plasticity of the rocks and the "recycling" of the crust/mantle boundaries.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Jan, 2006 02:48 pm
wandeljw wrote:
rosborne,
Looking at the first two sentences is unintentionally humorous. If Mr. DeRosa had seen the hand of a caveman in the jaw, it would have been better support for his theory.


Good point Wand Smile
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Jan, 2006 03:02 pm
farmerman wrote:
water rode in on comets. Life may have hitched a ride. Genesis is all wrong. However all that does is put the chemical reactions farther back in time and farther out there.


Agreed.

And the other interesting question is just how far out there and how far back might it have come from.

Salt deposits in deep mines have ancient ocean water (hundreds of millions of years old) in them with microbes in the water. And those microbes, once given food and warmth, are still alive. Simple forms of life might survive billions of years, and that means that they could come from VERY distant ancient sources.

I'll try to find the link on the Salt Deposit Ocean Water Microbes which have been reconstituted.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Jan, 2006 03:48 pm
Theres a book possibility therein. A bunch of scientists ressurect Permian aged microorganisms. They have the ability to reproduce and expand asym-exponentially and begin using up the oxygen (they are archean bacters that have reverse chemical synthesis as their metabolisis. They grow and continue sucking the oxygen out of the atmosphere and leave NMOC compounds as respiration products, people die, nations starte hoarding oxygen , world governments fight over sea and forest O2 production. Itd be a page turner.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Jan, 2006 04:03 pm
rosborne979 wrote:
I'll try to find the link on the Salt Deposit Ocean Water Microbes which have been reconstituted.


Here's the most recent articleI can find.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Jan, 2006 04:04 pm
What is a big mystery for me are those insects that live in the caves of Tennessee without any source of light. Some are literally blind, and they survive using other senses.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Jan, 2006 04:11 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
What is a big mystery for me are those insects that live in the caves of Tennessee without any source of light. Some are literally blind, and they survive using other senses.


Why is that a mystery CI?
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Jan, 2006 04:14 pm
I once thought (sun) light was a necessary component of life.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Jan, 2006 04:32 pm
ros, a book you might appreciate, if you are not already familiar with it, is

The Neutral Theory of Molecular Evolution: Kimura, M.
The Cambridge University Press, Cambidge, UK (1983)
ISBN: 0521317932

Kimura argues compellingly that molecular-level evolutionary changes are driven not so much by successful adaptive selection - "Darwinian style" - but rather more by genetic drift. While writing in a most accessible, largely non-technical manner, Kimura develops and supports his hypothesis very concretely with extensive research and absolutely exquisite math ... nothing more nor less than logic hard at work and getting the job done.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Jan, 2006 04:36 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
I once thought (sun) light was a necessary component of life.


c.i. - not sun/light, just suitable environment, appropriate chemistry, and thermal energy; cf deep ocean vents - which happen to be highly credible "original-origin-of-life-on-earth" candidates, BTW
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Jan, 2006 04:48 pm
Your mention of the deep ocean vents and the ability of life to sustain that heat is also amazing.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Jan, 2006 04:56 pm
timberlandko wrote:
ros, a book you might appreciate, if you are not already familiar with it, is

The Neutral Theory of Molecular Evolution: Kimura, M.
The Cambridge University Press, Cambidge, UK (1983)
ISBN: 0521317932

Kimura argues compellingly that molecular-level evolutionary changes are driven not so much by successful adaptive selection - "Darwinian style" - but rather more by genetic drift. While writing in a most accessible, largely non-technical manner, Kimura develops and supports his hypothesis very concretely with extensive research and absolutely exquisite math ... nothing more nor less than logic hard at work and getting the job done.


Hi Timber, thanks. Yes, I'm familiar with Neutral Theory of Molecular Evolution, though I think I first read about it on the web somewhere a few years back.

I wish I had more time to spend reading books like this, but lately I've been running a business, and getting first hand exposure to the forces of business survival (No genetic drift here. When exposed to competition, drift is a luxury which never has time to develop).
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Jan, 2006 05:06 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
I once thought (sun) light was a necessary component of life.


In most cases it is the driving force to life on this planet. But there are exceptions (geothermal vents hosting lightless environments, and deep badrock bacteria subsisting on water and chemicals filtering through the rock). And caves are not sealed environments in most cases. Food items, or bacteria subsisting from external sources, find their ways into caves and are consumed.

In the most simplistic sense, energy is a necessary component of life. Energy in the form of sunlight is common and accessible through photosynthesis. Energy in the form of heat is available from geothermal sources. But energy is also available in the form of food (which is essentially chemical energy (sugars which are formed in photosynthesis)).

In cave environments food from the outside usually finds its way into the cave environment. Animals come and go from the cave, and water containing bacteria seep through the rocks. Most cave creatures live off of each other, and from the various food items which find their way into the caves.
0 Replies
 
Eorl
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Jan, 2006 09:05 pm
farmerman wrote:
Theres a book possibility therein. A bunch of scientists ressurect Permian aged microorganisms. They have the ability to reproduce and expand asym-exponentially and begin using up the oxygen (they are archean bacters that have reverse chemical synthesis as their metabolisis. They grow and continue sucking the oxygen out of the atmosphere and leave NMOC compounds as respiration products, people die, nations starte hoarding oxygen , world governments fight over sea and forest O2 production. Itd be a page turner.


Sounds like something John Wyndham didn't get around to writing.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Jan, 2006 10:50 pm
farmerman wrote:
Ros has brought up a point that Ive always found interesting. The Isua Rocks of Greenland give us a highly "life support based" Carbonaceous shale that dates back to about 3.8 BY (+/- 3 weeks next Thursady).


Hi Farmerman,

How solid is the evidence in the Isua Rocks of living processes being the source of the carbon?

Within reason of course, could the carbon have come from some other source?
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Jan, 2006 01:30 am
rosborne979 wrote:

Many people are starting to think that Mars was actually may have been the first incubator of life in our solar system (because it cooled sooner), and may have "seeded" Earth very early on.


Hi Ros,

And you talk about me[/i][/b] believing things without evidence. Laughing

A little closer to reality, if you're interested in Mars maybe you can explain why the polar regions on Mars seem to be melting in the same fashion as the polar regions on a neighboring planet. Do you think there's any connection? (Oh yeah it's the emissions from that car we sent up there.)
0 Replies
 
talk72000
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Jan, 2006 02:23 am
real life, do you take FDA-approved medicine if you develop a cough, cold or stomach ache or do you take it from a faith-healing TV evangelist?
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Jan, 2006 08:20 am
real life wrote:
rosborne979 wrote:

Many people are starting to think that Mars was actually may have been the first incubator of life in our solar system (because it cooled sooner), and may have "seeded" Earth very early on.


Hi Ros,

And you talk about me[/i][/b] believing things without evidence. Laughing

A little closer to reality, if you're interested in Mars maybe you can explain why the polar regions on Mars seem to be melting in the same fashion as the polar regions on a neighboring planet. Do you think there's any connection? (Oh yeah it's the emissions from that car we sent up there.)


Hi RL,

Yeh, it's probably the greenhouse effect from the rovers we sent up there Smile I like it.

Well, the difference between us here RL is that I don't *believe* Mars seeded the Earth (yet). I only say it seems like a possibility, and I would like more data from which to draw a reasonable conclusion. What you seem to believe has no evidence to support it, and to make matters worse, you're not even asking for more data to analyze, and those are big differences in our positions.
0 Replies
 
thunder runner32
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Jan, 2006 08:31 am
Quote:

Your mention of the deep ocean vents and the ability of life to sustain that heat is also amazing.


Why is that so amazing c.i?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » Evolution? How?
  3. » Page 327
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 05/16/2024 at 11:33:46