Abiogenesis -- Another Theory

[Bishadi]

According to the authors of the above paper, "the early Earth would have become a permanently frozen planet because the young Sun was less luminous than it is today." I have no expertise in this area. Is there evidence to the contrary?

abiogenesis is about how mass and energy associate within a system


no wonder the evolution of comprehending has taken so long

 

[Dinwar]

The bolide impact idea has the advantage of being untestable. We don't have the sea floor from that time, and the continents have changed FAR too much to leave any traces available to scientists to study.

As for the atmosphere, here's a discussion about it, saying that it was made up largely of CO2, methane, water vapor, ammonia, hydrogen, and halogen gasses. The first three are important greenhouse gasses. That said, here's a talk that agrees with you. I think my best bet, right now at least, is to say "I don't know what the atmosphere was like" and to look into it next time I get a chance.

abiogenesis is about how mass and energy associate within a system

No, that's chemistry. Abiogenesis is about how life arose. Nothing else. By definition.

 

[Bishadi]

The bolide impact idea has the advantage of being untestable. We don't have the sea floor from that time, and the continents have changed FAR too much to leave any traces available to scientists to study.

who is talking about the alamo?

is the reason you like the untestable because then you can let your imagination run wild?

I mean, the impact did this and the impact did that but not a damn thing about abiogenesis.

As for the atmosphere, here's a discussion about it, saying that it was made up largely of CO2, methane, water vapor, ammonia, hydrogen, and halogen gasses. The first three are important greenhouse gasses. That said, here's a talk that agrees with you. I think my best bet, right now at least, is to say "I don't know what the atmosphere was like" and to look into it next time I get a chance.

you have far too many chances.......

No, that's chemistry. Abiogenesis is about how life arose. Nothing else. By definition.

and HOW is based on COMPREHENDING how mass-energy associate, not in observing the rocks of the untestable of 300 plus million years ago.


Do you see the difference of our approach? You dont think about the mechanisms at the subatomic and molecular scale, you prefer letting others do that. Then lke here on this thread too, debating about impacts and the atmosphere from way back when.


If someone asked you where fish come from are you going to say an impact brought'em here?


.


.

 

[Perpetual Student]

The temperature of the early earth was, and probably still is, determined by two factors, the sun's luminosity, which is progressively increasing, and its atmospheric composition. The currently prevailing opinion is that it is the atmospheric composition that has dominated the earth's temperature history and that the early earth was hotter than it is today.

See for example, this link
http://www.astrobio.net/pressrelease/2232/earths-early-temperature

Thanks for that link. You will note that the link provided by Dinwar below, is to to a paper with the opposite opinion, that of a cold early earth. Since specialists disagree, it seems to this layman that the question is open at this point.

The bolide impact idea has the advantage of being untestable. We don't have the sea floor from that time, and the continents have changed FAR too much to leave any traces available to scientists to study.

As for the atmosphere, here's a discussion about it, saying that it was made up largely of CO2, methane, water vapor, ammonia, hydrogen, and halogen gasses. The first three are important greenhouse gasses. That said, here's a talk that agrees with you. I think my best bet, right now at least, is to say "I don't know what the atmosphere was like" and to look into it next time I get a chance.

No, that's chemistry. Abiogenesis is about how life arose. Nothing else. By definition.

I'm not sure that untestability is an advantage. In any case, thanks for the links. The only thing clear seems to be that we do not know much about the earth's early climate and atmosphere. The specialists seem to be making methodical guesses.

 

[Dinwar]

I'm not sure that untestability is an advantage.

Oh, my tongue was FIRMLY in my cheek with that comment. It's probably not untestable, in reality--I'm just not good enough at Hadean geology (or Precambrian geology in general) to know how to do it.

I agree with you, though--right now, all we can say is "We're working on it."

 

[aleCcowaN]

According to the authors of the above paper, "the early Earth would have become a permanently frozen planet because the young Sun was less luminous than it is today." I have no expertise in this area. Is there evidence to the contrary?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faint_young_Sun_paradox

 

[Bishadi]

Oh, my tongue was FIRMLY in my cheek with that comment. It's probably not untestable, in reality--I'm just not good enough at Hadean geology (or Precambrian geology in general) to know how to do it.

I agree with you, though--right now, all we can say is "We're working on it."

i thought abigenesis was based on the simplest forms of atoms and energy?


who cares what the geology is? As long as the base elements existed, then there is enough environment all over this universe to sustain the 'processes' of life.


To comprehend any abiogenesis requires comprehending how mass and energy work, not the ignorance of the accident or even if the weather could sustain a life.

 

[Bishadi]

i wanted to know if people believe that to comprehend how the processes of living organisms operate, could every ailment known to mankind be easier to identify and address?





.