Thursday, February 23, 2006


THE FUNDAMENTAL QUESTIONS OF ASTROBIOLOGY
by John Umana

I thought I'd share my current thinking on the deep questions of astrobiology and the emergence of life:

(1) There is no other life in this sun system. Mars contains no life and never did -- notwithstanding that 70% of scientists polled believe that there is or was life on Mars at one time. Saturn's moon Titan contains no life and never did. No other planet or object, no comet, no asteroid in this sun system contains any form of life. Europa does not contain liquid seas under the ice. When NASA gets there after 2010 or so, we’ll see that there are no fishes swimming around. Only Earth in this sun system contains seas of liquid water at this time, though Mars once did have shallow seas as the rovers Spirit and Opportunity and the orbiters have established. Where did/does the water come from on Earth and (billions of years ago) on Mars? Volcanoes produce large amounts of water steam, and they are largely responsible for Earth's waters. Other released gases from volcanoes included carbon dioxide (CO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), hydrochloric acid (HCl), hydrogen fluoride (HF), hydrogen sulfide (H2S), carbon monoxide (CO), molecular hydrogen gas (H2), NH3, methane (CH4), silicon tetrafluoride (SiF4), and minor amounts of nitrogen (N2) and argon (Ar). But no oxygen. … And no life. Plenty of hydrogen, however, is a great start. The name is derived from the Greek ‘hydro genes,’ meaning water forming. Though most of our planet's water came from steam emitted by volcanoes (ditto Mars when it had seas a few billion years ago), carbonaceous chondrites, among the most primitive objects in our sun system, contributed, as they contain water locked up in phyllosilicate minerals with the water content making up about 10% by weight of the meteorites. (2) In my opinion, the Universe including our galaxy is teeming with life. All life throughout the vast cosmos is nucleotide, DNA-based. This is the structure of life throughout the universe.(3) In my opinion, the Universe including our galaxy is teeming with intelligent life. The reason that SETI is not picking them up is that they are unlikely to be communicating by radio or any type of electromagnetic communication -- far too slow for the distances involved. There's got to be another way to communicate over interstellar distances. (4) Extraterrestrial astronauts did not “seed” mankind or life on Earth. The theory of panspermia is way off the mark. No need to keep worrying about whether comets could have carried spores of life here; that's not what happened and the distances are too vast for a living spore to hitch a ride on a comet in any event. There is no life beyond Earth for a long, long ways. (5) Darwin's/Wallace's theory of the evolutionary theory of common ancestry is proved conclusively by the convergence of the entire scientific and fossil record, including paleontology, molecular biology, genetics, mitochondrial DNA, Y-chromosome DNA, comparative anatomy and physiology, biogeography, geology and archaeology. Yet, I do not believe there was a single common ancestor RNA strand. Rather; there was differentiation right from the first period of emergence 3.9 Ga into what would become the plant and animal kingdoms (eukaryota), bacteria and archaea. Life on Earth does not share a common ancestor with life on other habitable worlds. Life emerged separately and independently on Earth.(6) The Darwinian theory of "natural selection" as the mechanism for origin of the species is unsubstantiated, overly simplistic, and runs contrary to what is observed in modern microbiology. It is bad science as theory of emergence or origin of species, though natural selection is a true force of nature and accounts for microevolution, such phenomena as pesticide resistance of insects (e.g., the mosquitos that survive an application of a given pesticide eventually develop an immunity to it over time) or the resistance of bacteria to antibiotics. Natural selection (NS) is not the causative mechanism for the evolution of a single species on Earth or anywhere else, in my view. Rather, natural selection (a.k.a. CHANCE) leads to greater disorganization, entropy, not to more advanced structures. The neo-Darwinists are way, way off the mark as to the specific mechanism of evolution as microbiology is beginning to demonstrate. NS was Dr. Darwin's Wild Guess back in the 1800’s. But it is less interesting today with microbiology. Whatever the right answer is as to emergence and origin of species, it isn't NS. (7) Life emerged on Earth independently of other habitable worlds – 3.9 billion years ago at the tail end of the Heavy Bombardment. In my view: At dawn one day 3.9 billion years ago, the sun rose, and there was no life. At dusk that day, Earth was life-bearing in several locations under the seas. (8) Where/how first life emerged on Earth? Pick an area where the critical amino acids are found. Prep needed. Areas under the shallow seas at that time and areas where seas met rocky shore, protected from UV rays. (Black smokers come much later; emergence of life there was much more difficult.) Still massive comet strikes every few days, equivalent to thermonuclear blasts, sending massive seismic shock waves throughout mantle and core. Temperature out a balmy 200-300 degrees; more inhospitable as approach live volcanos. Pre-biotic Earth temperature range roughly -288 F to +260 F. At night, temperatures dropped sharply as on our moon. No free oxygen to speak of on Earth. No ozone screen 10-15 miles up in atmosphere to protect emergence of first life from lethal UV. Earth highly radioactive as remnant of solar nebula, creating enormous challenge to emergence of first RNA strand that emerged under the seas; no membrane at first; highly unstable molecule. Thin atmosphere of H2O, CO2, SO2, N2. Stark sunlight. Pristine earth. No blue sky. Orangy, whispy clouds occasionally high up. More like sunlight falling across face of moon or Mars. Because of gamma radiation, UV and wide temperature swings, only rapidly reproducing self-replicating helix strand possible, containing backup files for self-repair when damaged by radiation or UV -- until Earth cools off radioactively within the next few billion years (as of 4 Ga). That's the reason why there was no evolution beyond single cells until 1.2 Ga or so.

[John Umana All rights reserved.]

Have a good day!

John Umana


2 Comments:

Blogger John Umana said...

Stephen E. Jones said
John,

>THE FUNDAMENTAL QUESTIONS OF ASTROBIOLOGY
by John Umana http://johnumana4.blogspot.com/
>
>I thought I'd share my current thinking on the deep questions of astrobiology and the emergence of life:

Thanks for your comments on "astrobiology", formerly called "exobiology", the "science of extraterrestrial life", which Simpson noted *40+ years ago* (and is still the case today) is a "`science' [that] has yet to demonstrate that its subject matter exists":

"There is even increasing recognition of a new science of extraterrestrial life, sometimes called exobiology-a curious development in view of the fact that this `science' has yet to demonstrate that its subject matter exists!" (Simpson G.G., "The Nonprevalence of Humanoids," in "This View of Life," 1964, pp.253-254)

>(1) There is no other life in this sun system. Mars contains no life and never did ...

I don't rule out that there may have been (and may still be) life on Mars, but if there was/is, I predict it will have come from Earth or vice-versa. IOW, life only even began *once*, not only in the Solar System, not only in our galaxy, but in the entire *Universe*.

>(2) In my respectful opinion, the Universe including our galaxy is teeming with life. ...

My opinion is that the only life in the entire *Universe* is on Earth (or possibly was, or still is, on Mars). That is life began (i.e. was created) *once* in the entire Universe, either on Earth, or on Mars and was then transported to Earth via asteroid impact ejecta.

>(3) In my respectful opinion, the Universe including our galaxy is teeming with intelligent life. ...

In mine its not. See above.

>(4) Extraterrestrial astronauts did not “seed” mankind or life on Earth. ...

Agreed. In my view there never were any "Extraterrestrial astronauts".

>(5) Darwin's/Wallace's theory of the evolutionary theory of common ancestry ...

There is *no* Darwin's/Wallace ... theory of common ancestry." A scientific theory is named after its first proposer. And Darwin, in the third edition (1861) of his Origin of Species, belatedly acknowledged that Lamarck ~50 years before him, proposed the first scientific theory of common ancestry, "that all species, including man, are descended from other species":

"Lamarck was the first man whose conclusions on the subject excited much attention. This justly celebrated naturalist first published his views in 1801; he much enlarged them in 1809 in his Philosophie Zoologique, and subsequently, in 1815, in the Introduction to his Hist. Nat. des Animaux sans Vertebres. In these works he upholds the doctrine that all species, including man, are descended from other species." (Darwin C.R., "The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection," [1872], 6th Edition, J.M. Dent & Sons: London, 1928, reprint, pp.7-8)

While Darwin added other evidence in support of Lamarck's theory of common ancestry, it does not cease to be Lamarck's theory, anymore than Einstein's theory of Relativity ceases to be his because later scientists have provided further evidence in support of it.

>(6) The Darwinian theory of "natural selection" as the mechanism for origin of the species is unsubstantiated, overly simplistic, and runs contrary to what is observed in modern microbiology. …

My position is that "The Darwinian theory of" the "natural selection" of random micromutations (NSRM) is not *the* "mechanism for origin of the species" but it might well be "the mechanism for [the] origin of" *some* "species". Although there is little (if any) evidence of that.

>(7) Life emerged on Earth independently of other habitable worlds -- just shy of 4.0 billion years ago at the tail end of the Heavy Bombardment (LHB).

The Late Heavy Bombardment was between 4.0-3.8 bya [http://tinyurl.com/qd9lr; http://tinyurl.com/faa9k], and its giant impacts would have repeatedly melted the crust and boiled the ocean, sterilizing it of life. Although there may have been quiet intervals where the Earth cooled down [http://tinyurl.com/zh2o3]

The earliest evidence of life on Earth is carbon 13 isotopes dated at ~3.85 bya [http://tinyurl.com/eu6om]. But this too is disputed [http://tinyurl.com/osu68]. The earliest undisputed actual fossils (cyanobacteria) are 3.5 bya [http://tinyurl.com/kjffr].

If life did begin ~3.85 bya, then either the LHB ended before then, or it was not as severe, or life began (or was later sheltered) somewhere on Earth (e.g. deep underground) where crustal melting and ocean boiling from giant impacts did not occur.

(8) Where/how first life emerged on Earth? Just shy of 4 billion years ago. Pick an area where the critical amino acids are found. Prep needed. Areas under the shallow seas at that time and sheltered puddles where seas met rocky shore, protected from UV rays. ....

That's "Where". And it is problematic, bearing in mind that ~4.0 mya, LHB giant impacts would have sterilised the crust up to a kilometre deep and sterilised the ocean. There is also the problems of condensation reactions in watery environments and an oceanic soup would be too dilute. See my that

>Because of gamma radiation, UV and wild temperature swings, only rapidly reproducing self-replicating strands possible, containing backup DNA files for self-repair when damaged by radiation or UV -- until Earth cools off radioactively within the next few billion years (as of 4 bya).

That's *what*, not "how".

There is BTW no such thing as "self-replicating strands" of DNA (or RNA). They each require enzymes and ribosomes to self-replicate. There is also no evidence that a DNA/RNA + enzymes + ribosomes self-replicating system could exist outside a cell. And the cell walls, like the enzymes and ribosomes, are coded into DNA.

You still need to explain "*how* first life emerged on Earth" and "life" is a self-feeding, self-repairing, self-replicating *cell*, with a *minimum* of ~1,500+ gene products (DNA/RNA, ribosomes, enzymes and proteins). See my posts "The Minimal Cell" 1/2 [http://tinyurl.com/o3prh] and 2/2 [http://tinyurl.com/nm6dx].

>That's the reason why there was no evolution beyond single cells until 583 million years ago or so with emergence of Ediacara biota and some 40 million years later with the Cambrian explosion of life.

There are tracks, burrows and coprolite evidence of "bilaterally symmetrical, worm-like animals with a mouth-anus digestive tract" ~600 mya, i.e. ~ 70 mya before the Cambrian Explosion (533-525 mya), as per my Animal Physiology assignment (which one of these days I will post to my blog):

"However, undisputed trails and burrows have been found extending back to 550 Ma (Erwin & Davidson, 2002; Knoll & Carroll, 1999). Fossilised faecal pellets have also been found ~600 Ma (Knight, 1997). These trace fossils were evidently made by bilaterally symmetrical, worm-like animals with a mouth-anus digestive tract (Carroll, 2000)." (Stephen E. Jones, "The Cambrian Evolution of Animal Body Plans," 1 November 2004)

These "worm-like animals with a mouth-anus digestive tract" presumably were triploblastic (three basic body tissue layers) and therefore do not appear to be ancestral to the diploblastic (two basic body tissue layers) "Ediacara biota" (except maybe for some like Dickinsonia [http://tinyurl.com/lbcaa]), but they presumably were ancestral to the Cambrian explosion animals which were triploblastic.

[....]

>Have a good day!

Same to you.

Stephen E. Jones
4:49 PM
John Umana said...
Steve, finally somebody my age interested in many of the same subjects. Thanks for your thoughtful and highly informative comments on my piece on Astrobiology. I assume you taught once? (Didn't see much in your Profile.)

I suppose we cannot agree on the question of life elsewhere (though you reserve as to Mars). But I submit to you that something extremely significant is going on with the crop circles being created each year all over the globe. Some of these, sure enough, are fakes. But some are real -- that is, they are not being created by human pranksters, and they cannot be ignored. I've been in touch with the scientists investigating these pictograms, BLT Research, out of Cambridge Massachusetts. I've written some of this up at: http://drumana.blogspot.com/

If you're interested, I've just published a book on the evolution debate from the creationist (or ID)side of the spectrum, seeking to reconcile aspects of Darwinism with creationism. I firmly believe though that science is our best hope of achieving the truth about these matters, but also believe that science teaches us a hellova lot more about these fundamental questions than some scientists have recognized. My book is called Creation: Towards a Theory of All Things. It's on booksurge.com or amazon.com. http://www.booksurge.com/author.php3?accountID=GPUB02608&affiliateID=A000932

Again, thanks for taking the time to share your insights and comments.
Regards,
John Umana

8:20 PM

 
Blogger John Umana said...

June 6, 2006 email
[redacted],

Professor Behe is fundamantally correct on irreducible complexity. The case is overwhelming against natural selection or chance or random events leading to the emergence of life or randomly evolving from a prior mammal into, say, a giraffe or zebra. How did life emerge in the first place? For more than 1/2 billion years, Earth like every other body in our solar system was pre-biotic. It had no life of any sort. No bacteria spores. Nothing living.

One day something happened. Whatever happened cannot be explained by random events. http://johnumana4.blogspot.com/

The simple answer is that there is another World that lies behind this one, the spirit world. If Earth looks haphazard at times, chancey, cruel and even evil, that's because that is the way that it is.

Only spirit can create life from a prebiotic environment. That's why these scientists have been unable to synthesize a single nucleotide from prebiotic nature; and it just kills them that they can't. Is there a single Creator? No, there's not. What I talk about in my book is the Force (like a police force). A creator force, a spirit force, an angel force. Every single species on Earth was created from another world, [redacted], putting aside inter-species mating. That's why scientists can't take a group of gray wolves and come up with a chihuahua, no matter how much time they are given. Is selective breeding real? Yes, indeed. We can breed for specific features and colorings, tail and leg size, etc., applying Mendel's Laws. But what scientists cannot do is create life from prebiotic nature. They cannot create a new species from a prior existing species (putting aside mating two different species which of course is possible). Did the Force create the tiger? Yes. Did the Force create the lion? Yes. When a tiger and lion mate, did the Force create that offspring? No, that offspring was the result of a random mating of two different species; it was not created by the Force.

This is also a complex situation, because the Force is involved in nearly every aspect of human activity including in selective breeding programs. Creation takes real time and effort from another world. It was not just coincidence that dogs evolved for the first time 15,000 years ago in East China. Dogs are man's best friend because they were created for that purpose. Unfortunately, I can't prove much of what I have just said from this world -- neither can it be disproved, as it happens to be factual. We'll all have to wait to the next world.

Yes, there is a next world, as I know from personal experiences. The Force is very real. Is it possible to prove the existence of another world from science? Yes, I believe that it is. And that's what I set out to do. It's a different kind of proof for the existence of the Force or God. If scientists took off their horse blinders, they would be able to see from scientific proof that life did not just emerge on its own through coincidence. It took a great deal of preparation, time and effort from another World, acting upon what was then the prebiotic earth. While I'm a Christian, I do not believe that Holy Scripture can be relied upon as a science textbook; on that specific proposition, I agree with the neo-Darwinists.

I know some things that others do not from personal experience. What I have tried to do in my book is focus on the scientific evidence that should lead open-minded scientists to realize that Darwinism can't possibly be correct as an explanation of origin of species or emergence of life. But a great number of these neo-Darwinists wear horse-blinders. They dismiss by rote any scientific argument that indicates they are wrong. The fact that they get angry so quickly when their false views are challenged by anyone is a sad commentary. They have preset ideas, unpersuaded by scientific data, about what they will allow themselves to believe. Their views are largely bad science. I am all in favor of science and scientific investigation. If these guys could only take their blinders off, they would see far more than they imagine can be learned from science.

Best wishes,

John

9:50 AM

 

Post a Comment

<< Home