[meteorite-list] More evidence of building blocks of DNA inmeteorites

From: Sterling K. Webb <sterling_k_webb_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2011 17:38:34 -0500
Message-ID: <7DFAFB497CC34667AC870C3434AD0D34_at_ATARIENGINE2>

Phil, Listees,

I hate the "Probability" argument.

The first fallacy of it is that everything has an equal chance
of combining with everything.

Nope.

Think about cosmology. A new universe, all energy, cools
and condenses into an incredible variety of particles, all with
different properties. The neutrinos? They get the heck out
of Dodge as soon as they form. The photons? They slam
about the mosh pit until all their energy is gone. We end
up with atoms, protons paired with electrons. Why don't
we have atoms made out of the hundreds of other particles?
Because those pairings don't work, can't last, or can't even
take place.

The same situation is true for the combination of molecular
odds'n'ends in an organic soup as it is for a soup of particles.
(Only particle soup is thinner and hotter.) There is no "equal
chance" of simple molecules, broken molecules, elements, and
such combining in equal shares with each other. Certain
combinations are heavily favored. Others just don't happen.
Like particle soup, there are likely certain energy requirements.

Some likely combos may start a quick dash down a chain of 5-6
likely combos only to end as a hard inert goop stuck on rocks
and to which nothing interesting will ever happen again, or end
as something so fragile it breaks apart again. Most combinations
go nowhere. Well, gee (you say), that's no way to get life!

But if you eliminate much of the field with each round of
combinations, you get down to the real candidates in very
short order. It goes much faster than American Idol. If you
build a quantum Big Bang fluctuation with every particle
possible as it cools, you're going to end up with a universe of
hydrogen atoms that rapidly condense by gravity into stars
and space, and hey! you're on your way.

The mathematical analogue of endless equal combinations
does not model reality in the slightest. It is one of the silliest
arguments of the won't-go-away class. Like the argument
that evolution gave me a nose so I could wear eyeglasses...

Build universes over and over again and you will end up with
the same dam thing. Why? Because the outcome is determined
by the properties of matter and its interactions --- it's BUILT-IN.
Is there any reason to believe the combinatorics of atoms that
end up on the planets that inevitably condense wherever possible
and are made of the same dam minerals over and over again,
dripping with the same dam solvent over and over again, won't
we have pretty much the same dam result over and over again?

INHERENCY.

Doesn't mean it always happens. It's too cold; it's too hot; it's
too wet; it's not wet enough; whine, whine, whine... Maybe
every big body has a deep biosphere of slow-metabolizing, slow-
reproducing cellular endolithic life that is just waiting for the
neighborhood to improve before they get up on their hind legs
and get going. I don't know. I wouldn't be surprised either way.

I say the unusual habits of carbon-based molecules (writing
sonnets, flying to the Moon) arise out of their basic physical
properties, fundamental properties like the structure of carbon's
electron states and their characteristic energies as inevitably
as a universe of hydrogen stars and space arise out of a Big
Bang.

The Universe is like some Politics -- The Fix Is In.


Sterling K. Webb
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----- Original Message -----
From: "JoshuaTreeMuseum" <joshuatreemuseum at embarqmail.com>
To: <meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 12:30 PM
Subject: [meteorite-list] More evidence of building blocks of DNA
inmeteorites


> One of the few things I recall from college Probability Theory class
> is that if something happened once, no matter how unlikly, it can
> happen again. For example, since the Chicago Cubs won back to back
> World Series championships in 1907 and 1908, theoretically, they could
> do it again.
>
> Meteorites containing peptides, amino acids, nucleobase isomers and
> other building blocks bombard a planet that already more than likely
> contains the same stuff, since it is composed of accreted asteroids,
> comets and meteorites. So we have these compounds in an oxidizing
> atmosphere with lots of lightning storms. Add in the hundreds of known
> constraints on the parameters for carbon-based life forms, (distance
> from the nearest star, perfect magneto-field, etc., etc.) What is the
> logical probability that these compounds will randomly assemble
> themselves into DNA and RNA molecules that will self-replicate and
> start using proteins to build living cells. The cells will then
> assemble into tissues and organs until a complex multi-cellular
> organism results. These organisms then sexually reproduce (Yaaaay!)
> and diversify until they evolve into humans. The humans randomly
> develop consciousness, self-awareness and intelligence.
>
> Sure, this could happen again. And Ernie Banks could come out of
> retirement, suit up, and hit the game-winning home run as the Cubs
> cruise to a consecutive World Series victory!
>
> Phil Whitmer
> Joshua Tree Earth & Space Museum
>
> ------------------------------------
>
>
> Hello
> It is of course OK to be skeptical of claims of life elsewhere in the
> Universe. Carolus Linnaeus, the founder of biology, to avoid
> considering sailor tales (and later Bigfoot, Yeti, and Loch Ness
> claims) insisted on a type specimen. The controversy over ALH 84001
> boils down to whether the truncated hexaoctahedral magnetite crystals
> found constitute a type specimen, or were they produced abiotically on
> Mars (they are not produced abiotically on Earth). It is always
> possible to posit by some Rube Goldberg-like mechanism am abiotic
> origin to almost any trace biological evidence. Insisting that
> evidence absolutely not have any abiotic orgin possible under any
> circumstances is a hurdle too high and in my view, too illogical. That
> is the difficulty.
> Of possible use in this brouhaha is Rudolf Carnap's theory of logical
> probability assigned to theories. An accepted type specimen is of
> course, proof positive; the probability of extraterrestrial life then
> is 100%. But the probability is still nonzero that microscopic life
> indeed does exist under the frozen lake of Elysium. Assigning
> probability to a theory is a difficult task, and the popular media
> folks are totally clueless on the concept. IMVHO, the evidence is such
> that it is more probable microscopic life exists/existed on Mars that
> not.
> But Carnap's ideas, endorsed by Martin Gardner, will be helpful in
> this situation. An outline of them is found in Carnap, R.
> Philosophical Foundations of Physics, Basic Books, London 1966. edited
> by Martin Gardner.
>
> Francis Graham
> Kent State University
>
>
>
> ______________________________________________
> Visit the Archives at
> http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html
> Meteorite-list mailing list
> Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Received on Wed 10 Aug 2011 06:38:34 PM PDT