It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Where's the evidence that life needed to start and didn't always exist?

page: 4
11
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 24 2019 @ 05:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: whereislogic

Building Blocks of DNA Found in Meteorites from Space


The components of DNA have now been confirmed to exist in extraterrestrial meteorites, researchers announced.

A different team of scientists also discovered a number of molecules linked with a vital ancient biological process, adding weight to the idea that the earliest forms of life on Earth may have been made up in part from materials delivered to Earth the planet by from space.


www.space.com...

Have you ever heard of terrestrial contamination of meteorites? So the meteorite lands on earth, gets contaminated by sources from earth, then they study the meteorite and claim to have found things like "a diverse array of nucleobases and structurally similar compounds known as nucleobase analogs" as the article claims (the latter not actually being used in any known lifeform). Then they attempt to rule out terrestrial contamination by wishful speculation and hogwash that the lay person wouldn't catch. Here is where they mention contamination in your article:

However, it has been very difficult to prove that these molecules are not contamination from sources on Earth. [5 Bold Claims of Alien Life]

And here's how they use wishful speculation and hogwash to pretend they've sufficiently ruled out terrestrial contamination and determined why the so-called "nucleobase compounds" 'strongly support an extraterrestrial origin' (for these molecules that are not actually nucleobases used in known lifeforms and seemingly the so-called "wide array of nucleobases" as well, they're being a bit vague at this point), i.e. they can't prove squat conclusively regarding the earlier mentioned problem where they did use the word "prove", that's why they phrase that as "strongly supports". They haven't actually addressed the problem of contamination at all, even though they're pretending that they did in this phrase:

"Finding nucleobase compounds not typically found in Earth's biochemistry strongly supports an extraterrestrial origin," Cleaves said.

Hogwash and wishful speculation.

Wouldn't it be more productive to study the meteorites in space to rule out terrestrial contamination? And at what point are they going to be clear about what is actually used in lifeforms in contrast to compounds that are similar so one can imagine a chemical evolutionary storyline how those evolved into nucleobases that are ready to be linked for a specific functionality in an actual lifeform?

This article may be of interest to consider:

Contamination of Impacted Meteorites Can Happen Quickly - Astrobiology Magazine

But let's go back to a phrase you quoted from the article again:

The components of DNA have now been confirmed to exist in extraterrestrial meteorites, researchers announced.

Did you notice how "strongly supports" switched to "confirmed" and meteorites that have landed on earth, lying around for a while before they are discovered, then studied on earth with all the contamination problems discussed in the article above and more, have switched to "extraterrestrial meteorites", in that claim compared to the details? That's called spin while capitalizing on the ambiguity of language, sifting the facts, exploiting the useful ones and concealing the others, distorting and twisting facts, specializing in lies and half-truths.

All propaganda and marketing techniques.

"Strongly supports" (which isn't even so but only in the eyes of biased beholders) isn't "confirmed", and meteorites currently on earth (and having been there for a while to allow contamination) are not "extraterrestrial meteorites".

Another thing to wonder about (or coming back to an earlier point again), wouldn't finding actual nucleobases, complete with all the trimmings that allow them to be linked into a functional chain of DNA or RNA as found in living organisms, in a meteorite studied in space be at least a bit more significant than finding them in meteorites on earth? Of course taking good care to avoid any contamination by human handling or equipment.

For me, a molecule that can be appropiately referred to as a "nucleobase" comes complete with all the trimmings that allow them to be linked into a functional chain of DNA or RNA as found in living organisms. I'm not sure if that's the way they use the word "nucleobases" in their article on every occasion, in particular the sentence I partially quoted earlier where it was claimed that 2 of the meteorites (called "carbonaceous chondrites") "contained a diverse array of nucleobases". There are only 5 types of nucleobases in living lifeforms right (not counting so-called "modified nucleobases", see wiki for that term)? Abbreviated with the letters A,C,T,G and U (used in RNA). Adenine (A), cytosine (C), guanine (G), thymine (T), and uracil (U). So what's this talk about "a diverse array of nucleobases" if there are only 5 that can be appropiately referred to as nucleobases when one is contemplating any chemical evolutionary origin or storyline for the origin of life (as that's the context this article is written in where the term "diverse array of nucleobases" is used to imply a relation to the origin of life)?

Something seems a bit fishy in the choice of words, 5 is not best described as "a diverse array" (5 isn't much) and if you include more than 5 as supposed "nucleobases" then that creates the impression that these other so-called "nucleobases" (other than the 5) have something to do with life, even though they aren't actually used in lifeforms, i.e. it gives the wrong impression by also referring to those as "nucleobases" in such a context as it's used.

Oh btw, I wouldn't be so quick to simply expect to automatically get a reproducing lifeform without having all 5 either without the intervention of someone who knows what he's going to do with all those loose components prone to chemical reactions that will prevent them ever forming an informational chain that can direct protein synthesis and ultimately reproduction, a requirement for any further progress (in this idea from life's origin from the compounds without the outside intervention I mentioned, the idea promoted by Panspermia as promoted in the article, which is also called "chemical evolution"*).

*: described in the part you quoted as "the idea that the earliest forms of life on Earth may have been made up in part from materials delivered to Earth the planet by from space." (english is hard for them it seems, what a mess of a sentence, at least we can still tell what they mean) So that implies that these delivered materials underwent chemical evolution to evolve into "the earliest forms of life on Earth", an idea or part of the storyline that follows this idea of Panspermia. So the idea of Panspermia is also promoting that idea of the chemical evolution of "the earliest forms of life on Earth", no matter if it's honestly spelled out or not. That's the whole reason for promoting Panspermia, to also promote the notion of "the chemical evolution theory of life" as Haldane and Oparin put it.
edit on 24-9-2019 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 24 2019 @ 07:45 AM
link   
The earth was not always here, thus life on it was not always here.

Even if life was seeded after the fact, many questions remain.



posted on Sep, 24 2019 @ 07:49 AM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

There's also an issue with the methodology to classify whatever is being found, not being conclusive and possibly leading to false identifications. Identifying molecules as nucleobases that aren't nucleobases at all, in any sense of the word. Of course, those who desire to find or see nucleobases (or pretend that they've seen them, or that the meteorites contain them*), may not want to do any further spectral analysis or other forms of analysis to rule out any misclassification. *: you can never really be sure what's up with these guys, to what extend they are aware of their behaviour of trying to make the 'evidence' seem to fit their preferred storyline, sort of 'fabricating' it where needed, if that's the right word for it, intentionally not verifying an interpretation based on a particular spectral analysis method, that may or may not be rather dodgy (which the lay person wouldn't know, and which you might notice, no details are given about in the article you linked; I can't find a link to the original published paper either on that page, which would discuss such methodologies, in case more than 1 method was used).

The topic of misclassification during spectral analysis (which has different methods) is discussed regarding other types of molecules than nucleobases but still referred to as "certain types of organic materials" and "organic compounds" in the article I linked.

To put what I said here about classification into perspective (you can also call it "characterization", you're trying to tell what you're looking at, usually by using spectroscopy, spectral analysis or spectrum analysis), check out some of the details regarding that endeavor discussed by Dr. James Tour below starting at 1:40 (note the slide for part 1 of the characterization of just one molecule at 2:15):

Other things he mentions are relevant as well to this idea of panspermia followed by chemical evolution to lead to the origin (evolution) of "the earliest forms of life on Earth" as the article you linked puts it.
edit on 24-9-2019 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 24 2019 @ 08:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: neoholographic

[snip] but there was also a time when this planet didn't exist...

[snip]



Please elaborate... I find it hard to believe that there's proof of these planets' nonexistence.



posted on Sep, 24 2019 @ 09:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: whereislogic

For me, a molecule that can be appropiately referred to as a "nucleobase" comes complete with all the trimmings that allow them to be linked into a functional chain of DNA or RNA as found in living organisms.

Actually, come to think of it (because I watched the James Tour video), I would still call them "nucleotides" just like James Tour. They become bases, or nucleobases once they are a part of a chain of DNA or RNA. That seems to be a more appropiate usage of the term "bases". These guys seem to agree with that type of usage:

The term nucleobase refers to those nucleotides found in nucleic acids—adenine, guanine, cytosine, and uracil in RNA, and adenine, guanine, cytosine, and thymine in DNA, plus the quantitatively minor bases found in both nucleic acids.

Source: Nucleotides, Nucleosides, And Nucleobases (Molecular Biology)

So yes, the term "nucleobase" requires that the nucleotide is found within a chain of a nucleic acid such as DNA and RNA. The same counts for "the quantitatively minor bases" with which they seem to be referring to only a portion of a nucleotide, the portion that identifies what base it is (A, C, T, G, or U), seeing that the sugar and phosphate parts (the backbone of a chain of DNA or RNA) don't do that. I can see that this double usage of the term nucleobase can lead to some confusion once you drag it over to discussions of what has actually been found in meteorites in the context of panspermia, chemical evolution and the origin of life.

After thinking this through and realizing that the term "nucleobase" is only appropiate to use for any complete nucleotide present in a chain of DNA or RNA, or any of the 'base-identifying' portions of these nucleotides present in a chain of DNA or RNA; I have come to the conclusion that the term "nucleobases" simply does not apply to what has supposedly been found in the meteorites discussed in the article neoholographic linked (where that term was used as such, as if these meteorites "contained a diverse array of nucleobases", i.e. contained chains of DNA or RNA). Since they didn't detect chains of DNA or RNA from what I can gather from what's being said and conveniently not said in that article. And only then the term "nucleobases" applies, when they are present in chains of DNA and RNA ("nucleic acids" as the link in this comment puts it). So when you claim the detection of "nucleobases", by implication you claim the detection of chains of DNA and RNA. That's why I said, "i.e.". Otherwise, they should call them nucleotides, or make it more clear that they are only referring to the 'base-identifying' portion of a nucleotide if that's the case. Surely they can't be referring to the sugar and phosphate parts of a nucleotide when using the term "nucleobases", can they? That would be even more inappropiate, even though some people also refer to those parts as "bases" sometimes.

The "sugar bases" (or sugar-phosphate parts) don't carry the information for protein synthesis, or anything else, since they're all the same for all the nucleotides used in DNA and RNA (at least the sugar part I think). Note how the term "sugar bases" is used below:

Prefix d- and r-refers to deoxyribose and ribose sugar bases of DNA and RNA, respectively.

Source: DNA–RNA chimera indicates the flexibility of the backbone influences the encapsulation of fluorescent AgNC emitters - Chemical Communications (RSC Publishing)

I also noticed the term "sugar-phosphate-base" somewhere on the internet. Confusing again to also use the word "bases" for that part of a nucleotide or nucleobase.

And note how Meyer explains which parts of the nucleotides are all the same (if you consider the depiction of "the backbone"), at 3:43:

edit on 24-9-2019 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 24 2019 @ 09:12 AM
link   
I think/belive that life "evolves".
Put the ingredients together in
a blender, and there it is.

But seeding, i have to ask.

Planet A
Planet B
Planet C
Planet D
Planet "E"arth.

We DO have life here, but some claims it comes from "elswere".
Lets say Planet B.. How did it get there???
Maybe form C... How did it get there???

Big Bang perhaps...
edit on 2019/9/24 by Miccey because: spelling



posted on Sep, 24 2019 @ 10:37 AM
link   
This fits with any model of the universe how? Panspermia is a great idea, but eventually must have had an origin point. Far too many new questions from this "solution" to be viable.

a reply to: neoholographic



posted on Sep, 24 2019 @ 11:30 AM
link   
There's not a shred of evidence to support life always has been while the contrary at least has had some informed minds labor on the subject. Why can't we find it anywhere but our little wet rock?

Rather than attempt to answer a difficult question, how life began, you threw away the question and state it's always been so. It's not novel, it's intellectually lazy.


a reply to: neoholographic



posted on Sep, 24 2019 @ 02:21 PM
link   
You fail to grasp burden of proof, yet again. If you claim life always existed, you need to prove that instead of dishonestly flipping the burden of proof to the negative position. How many times do I have to tell you, "You can't prove it's not X" is not a valid argument for anything. You prove the positive not the negative.



posted on Sep, 24 2019 @ 02:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Nothin
a reply to: Blue Shift

Dude ! You may have just solved the mysteries of the OOPARTs !
They just weren't there then, they're just there now !
'Cause all we experience is the now.
We didn't experience anything pre our consciousness, and all ends when our consciousness ends.

Oh, and it reconciles evolution with creationism, too, as the tiny living things pushed "sideways" through time found a home and evolved, but creationists can still claim that the supernatural superbeing created the universe to be full of holes for just such a thing to happen. FWIW.



posted on Sep, 24 2019 @ 05:46 PM
link   
a reply to: thedigirati

Again, some proof would be grand. All I see is gnoses, not actual data.



posted on Sep, 25 2019 @ 06:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: LookingAtMars
a reply to: neoholographic

Life created by the so called big bang. If the big bang created the atoms & elements, why not life too?

Sounds more reasonable than life just sprang into existence from rocks and water.


The only elements created from the Big Bang were hydrogen, helium, a little lithium, and a trace amount of beryllium (elements 1-4 on the periodic table). Most of the rest of the elements (up to iron) were formed in stars, so those elements did not exist until stars formed, which happened about 100 million years after the big bang. The remaining elements were formed later than that from supernovae and by neutron stars.

So life as we understand it could not have formed in the Big Bang. Life processes as we know them, such as metabolic processes and nutrient transfer -- even in the simplest bacterial life one Earth -- require more complex molecules than those that can be formed from just hydrogen, helium, lithium, and beryllium.


As For Panspermia...

Granted, Life on Earth didn't need to start on Earth. Panspermia is a possibility (that is, the idea that life on Earth came from elsewhere, and got to Earth via an asteroid, comet, space dust, or something).

However, even in the Panspermia hypothesis, life had to begin somewhere, and it's likely it started in a place that had the right conditions for where long chains of more complex molecules could form, which is NOT during the Big Bang.


edit on 2019/9/25 by Box of Rain because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 25 2019 @ 11:02 AM
link   
What you’ve mentioned above is exactly what I was working on for a friend a couple years ago.

You have to ask yourselves how many supernova would it take to create all the non-gaseous material in the universe. Just earth alone is 13 billion trillion tons. How many supernova would it take to build just earth? Perhaps we are the only complex multi-cellular life in the universe because there was not enough material before earth?



posted on Sep, 25 2019 @ 02:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: TerraLiga
What you’ve mentioned above is exactly what I was working on for a friend a couple years ago.

You have to ask yourselves how many supernova would it take to create all the non-gaseous material in the universe. Just earth alone is 13 billion trillion tons. How many supernova would it take to build just earth? Perhaps we are the only complex multi-cellular life in the universe because there was not enough material before earth?


Earth isn't built completely from super novae and neither is all non gaseous material in the universe. Only the heavier elements like Iron and gold form from super novae and the earth is tiny compared to a star.
edit on 9 25 19 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 25 2019 @ 02:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Blue Shift

originally posted by: Nothin
a reply to: Blue Shift

Dude ! You may have just solved the mysteries of the OOPARTs !
They just weren't there then, they're just there now !
'Cause all we experience is the now.
We didn't experience anything pre our consciousness, and all ends when our consciousness ends.

Oh, and it reconciles evolution with creationism, too, as the tiny living things pushed "sideways" through time found a home and evolved, but creationists can still claim that the supernatural superbeing created the universe to be full of holes for just such a thing to happen. FWIW.


Surely everybody loves the idea of a cute little bacteria moving through the timeless voids of time sponges.
Also not a universe that is repeating cycles of big-bang-to-big-crunch: but a sponge-universe, that is expanding and contracting at the same time, as life grows in both directions simultaneously.
As our conceptual sponge expands and contracts by saturation, as Buddy bacteria crawls both ways at the same time.

Well: not limited to only two directions, but all conceivable, and inconceivable directions, simultaneously.

No need for duality, because all is.
No need for materialism, well, just 'cause it's more fun without it.

Anyways: it is a fun thought-experiment. Thanks !
Might be worth a thread of it's own, or perhaps some kind of short-story.



posted on Sep, 25 2019 @ 03:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: TerraLiga
What you’ve mentioned above is exactly what I was working on for a friend a couple years ago.

You have to ask yourselves how many supernova would it take to create all the non-gaseous material in the universe. Just earth alone is 13 billion trillion tons. How many supernova would it take to build just earth? Perhaps we are the only complex multi-cellular life in the universe because there was not enough material before earth?


Adding to what Barcs said in his post above, here is the elemental makeup of all regular matter in the galaxy in descending order of abundance:

Hydrogen = 74%
Helium = 24%
Oxygen = 1%
Carbon = 0.5%
Neon = 0.1%
Iron = 0.1%
Nitrogen = 0.1%
Silicon = 0.07%
Magnesium = 0.06%
All other elements < 0.05%


edit on 2019/9/25 by Box of Rain because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 25 2019 @ 03:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: LSU2018

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: neoholographic

[snip] but there was also a time when this planet didn't exist...

[snip]



Please elaborate... I find it hard to believe that there's proof of these planets' nonexistence.


I suppose it depends on what you would call proof...

From studying how meteorites are formed... we can use the same ideas to figure out how galaxies are formed as well...

it starts with a heavy mass of material which attracts all other material around it... eventually the heavier elements are crushed down towards the center of the mass... which creates a star after said mass reaches its critical point... the material ejected from said explosion goes through the same process... the gravity of larger bodys pull smaller material towards it, and eventually you get small planets... which grow in to larger and larger masses, eventually gathering all material in its orbit....

its the process every galaxy goes through... so yes... we have proof earth didn't exist at a point in the distant past




posted on Sep, 25 2019 @ 04:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: Noinden


So you have testable proof that there is other life in the Universe?


I have testable proof that chemical reactions happen throughout the universe and what we call life is just that...



posted on Sep, 25 2019 @ 04:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: TerraLiga
What you’ve mentioned above is exactly what I was working on for a friend a couple years ago.

You have to ask yourselves how many supernova would it take to create all the non-gaseous material in the universe. Just earth alone is 13 billion trillion tons. How many supernova would it take to build just earth? Perhaps we are the only complex multi-cellular life in the universe because there was not enough material before earth?


Earth isn't built completely from super novae and neither is all non gaseous material in the universe. Only the heavier elements like Iron and gold form from super novae and the earth is tiny compared to a star.

Of course, but the first billion years or so there were only four elements in the universe - all gasses. My thought experiment was to ask how many supernovae would it have taken to create enough mass to form rocky planets in order for other complex life to evolve. My research says a LOT and from truly enormous stars.



posted on Sep, 25 2019 @ 04:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: Box of Rain

originally posted by: TerraLiga
What you’ve mentioned above is exactly what I was working on for a friend a couple years ago.

You have to ask yourselves how many supernova would it take to create all the non-gaseous material in the universe. Just earth alone is 13 billion trillion tons. How many supernova would it take to build just earth? Perhaps we are the only complex multi-cellular life in the universe because there was not enough material before earth?


Adding to what Barcs said in his post above, here is the elemental makeup of all regular matter in the galaxy in descending order of abundance:

Hydrogen = 74%
Helium = 24%
Oxygen = 1%
Carbon = 0.5%
Neon = 0.1%
Iron = 0.1%
Nitrogen = 0.1%
Silicon = 0.07%
Magnesium = 0.06%
All other elements < 0.05%


You’re supporting my argument, not Barcs. The bulk of the first two are in the stars, so that doesn’t leave many metals to build the mass.




top topics



 
11
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join