I'm not the one struggling to understand anything. I'll post more when I have time, however, at this point you're coming across as a troll.
For the alternative theorists:
- Thread starter paddoboy
- Start date
The early Earth was hot and molten.
The Asteroids and comets are most likely from our solar system, from the Oort Cloud.
I am rather non plussed as to what you cannot understand.
I think I can see the failure in his understanding, however, I have neither the time nor the patience to go into it in the detail required whilst at work using my S4.
Let me try this out on you. Obviously water has been found in meteorites. I suspect Trippy can name some common minerals that contain water in his sleep, so I'll leave it there. That leaves the more interesting question: have amino acids been found in meteorites? Then it's highly likely that certain meteorites falling to Earth in the prebiotic era supplied amino acids wherever they fell, even if only in trace amounts. So that establishes the central idea behind this one piece of trivia. It would be great to understand it more. But can't we just cut to the chase? That's not moving the question at all, it's answering it, with direct evidence. And of course we don't want to omit any evidence, do we? Because that would be dishonest. If and when anyone figures out how and why amino acids might form in the primordial stellar soup, then more power to them. But it doesn't change the current state of the science concerning abiogenesis. This is not a religion. It's a deliberated examination of evidence.
Well no, Earth is not a meteorite since it's not falling into another atmosphere. We usually just call it a planet, and brings with it all the baggage of planetary accretion, which brings in the baggage of solar system accretion, which begins with some remnant of some supernovae, which connects back to the Big Bang.
I think you're mistaken that anyone claims that amino acids did not form on Earth. Miller Urey addressed that to some extent 60 yrs ago. There are a few explanations for how amino acids can form in nature. The explanation that wants to explain amino acid formation in some early rock from the primordial solar system is way, way, way, way out there. So why bother? I mean it would be great to know, if and when some evidence alerts us to such an explanation. But in the mean time, who cares? No scientist worth his/her weight in tiddly winks cares one whit about disproving Creationism. (All you need is a History class to do that.) Usually they're just working with the careful analysis of empirical evidence. That is, all that matters is the truth, so Creationism doesn't even make the list. It's not even as credible as terraforming aliens, which at least has a modicom of biology behind it. But that didn't even make the list.
Well, no. It's almost Ok to say the Earth is made of asteroids I suppose but that sounds weird too. How about just say it like science teaches: that the Earth evolved from an accretion disk that formed out of the larger disk of the solar system which evolved from remnants of an earlier supernova. That's all that really matters anyway.
Correction: the accretion disk that formed the Earth contained remnants of earlier supernovae which included (roughly) the first several rows of the periodic table in copious amounts. (That's very rough.) Hydrogen and oxygen were present in sufficient amounts to account for all water formation now known to us, and/or those elements fell to Earth directly or on the backs of other rocks and/or ice chunks, and/or some combination of these accounts for the total water content, and/or through hydrogen and oxygen trapped inside the accretion disk which for some reason did not escape as the material became molten. Same-same for the case where another object slammed into the Earth creating the Moon. But also we know that extremophiles that thrive on chemicals like hydrogen gas will create water too. No one has any idea how much water it took to thread abiogenesis through the needle of, say, the RNA-world hypothesis. For all we know, all of abiogenesis began in one small pool of water. But who cares? it happened, or we wouldn't be here to chew the fat about it.
Amino acid production can be explained by several tests, beginning with Miller-Urey. I doubt anyone has an analogue for their demonstration that applies to rocks from the early stellar disk. As I said, trying to extrapolate that far is a hell of an exercise, just to confirm the thing already known, namely, that amino acids can be transported to Earth through meteorites, if only in trace amounts. That's all we need to know on this end of the table. We're just talking about the history of life, as is known to us through the history of the Earth. The remaining details add nothing to the state of this particular branch of science. As I said, if someone finds more evidence to interpret in the future, more power to them. But the current science works with"best evidence" as currently known. There is no accounting for unknowns.
I think it's more correct to say "before the solar system". All of the ingredients (the natural elements) are attributed to a prior supernova.
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
http://www.livescience.com/29673-how-much-water-on-earth.html
a) In space everything without an internal heat source or close proximity to a heat source is frozen and as hydrogen and oxygen are the most abundant elements in the universe, probably most comets or meteors are composed of water (mixed with other stuff).
If the earth started as a barren rock, where would the water come from, once the earths gravity has drawn all the free hydrogen and oxygen particles in its gravitational pocket?
Trippy, for Christmas your loyal fans are getting you the S4-X which reads your mind, debunks the cranks, bans the trolls, and makes the rest of your job a walk in the park. And for a fraction of the energy. And without reversing entropy since that would hurt your cred. (Besides that model keeps blowing up.
)Merry Christmas in advance.
There is no such thing as free will. That's a term borrowed from Calvinist superstition. In higher vertebrates it's called will, instinct, drive or motive. It's a brain function that evolved the same way all other characters and traits evolve. It's just beyond our comprehension, so superstitious people invent their own explanations which are absurd, ludicrous and plain wrong.. But that's all it is, nothing more. WYSIWYG.
So?
When was it the Oort Cloud was forming, before Earth did or around the same time? Why would there be water molecules and amino acids in the Oort Cloud material, but not around Earth's orbit distance?
Your confused opinion about myself is irrelevant, stop boring us please.
So it boiled any water on Earth away.
Comets and Asteroids then may have added more, later on.
Around the same time I presume.
Who said there was no water around Earth's orbit?.
You are the one asking questions that have already been answered...quite boring actually. :shrug:
Trippy is on top of his game. You're just stuck in some nether world and the folks here are helping you find your way out. It's not as bad as you think. I only wish I had this kind of help when I was starting to get my feet wet.
Well, no. This is becoming so vaguely stated we don't really know what "water" really means any more. Is it liquid? That sounds impossible. Frozen? Not anywhere near the hot center of the stellar disk. Vapor? what does that really mean at zero pressure (space itself) yet in some ill defined crush of accretion. No, the properties of matter here are not at all cut and dry.(Or even wet.)
No, there was only the cloud of dust and rocks left by a recent supernova. Some form of water was probably present, but so were the ingredients which formed water as the disk began collapsing and forcing hydrogen to react with oxygen. But who cares?
You don't. You have this backwards. What do meteorites tell us about the conditions for abiogenesis on prebiotic Earth. Well, for one thing they tell us that it rained an unknown amount of water and amino acids, from remnants of the solar accretion disk, falling to Earth as meteorites. I don't understand your point at all. You have to accept the evidence into the court record or you're going to end up with a mistrial. Since that's all Creation Pseudoscience is good for, we avoid it like the plague.
You talk even if you have nothing to say, no point to make and no question to ask. You are the same person as paddoboy, aren't you?
This is among the things I will address after work. The short answanswer is temperature.
The sun was hot, deep space was cold. Things close to the sun were hot and water existed as a gas rather than a solid (as did all the other volatiles). Things further from the sun were cooler and ice was able to form solid crystals which were sticky and clumped together.
Earth formed in a part of the solar system where only things like silicates and metals (and some other stuff) were able to exist as solid grains. Further out volatiles such as water, carbon monoxide and ammonia were able to condense out. This temperature gradient set up a compositional gradient in what had been a nebula with a roughly uniform composition as the sun purged the solar system, from the middle outwards of gaseous volatiles.
The only water that was directly available to the earth when it formed was the water carried by hydrated minerals.
We have isotopic evidence that earths warer originated from a cooler part of the nebula.
We have measured and seen in a microscope the amount of water carried by carbonaceous chondrites arriving at earth today.
We have measured the amino acids carried by those same meteorites.
All of the available evidence suggests that these materials were delivered to earth by meteorites.
Trippy, for Christmas your loyal fans are getting you the S4-X which reads your mind, debunks the cranks, bans the trolls, and makes the rest of your job a walk in the park. And for a fraction of the energy. And without reversing entropy since that would hurt your cred. (Besides that model keeps blowing up.
Merry Christmas in advance.
Couldn't I have clone instead? It would be immensely helpful. Preferably with hive mind and paralell processing.
it told trippy i read the post.
you cannot possibly be serious.
paddoboy is scared to death to cross the line.
i can't believe you said that 'scope
Iron, lead or silicon could boil away too, but for something to really boil AWAY form Earth, it needs to accelerate beyond Earth's gravity escape velocity. Besides, only surface boils, most of the stuff is still inside.
You say meteorites brought water, it implies they are responsible for most of it, if not all of it. So again, why do you believe the majority of Earth's water and amino acids were not in fact assimilated from the material orbiting the Sun around the same distance as Earth's orbit, and merged along the same time as the planet was forming from the beginning?
You did not answer it. Please make yourself clear, YES or NO: - If your physical body is completely governed by the laws of physics, can your "free will" make it do anything different than what it was already going to do by itself anyway?
That's not the question. The accretion disk that formed the Earth contained most of the water and amino acid we have today on Earth, or it didn't. You are saying it didn't and that majority of water and amino acids came only later on with meteorites, which arrived from somewhere else presumably. By the way, why do you need some "prior supernova" to get molecules of water or amino acids?
It did contain a lot of the water. It did not contain amino acids.
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::
http://blogs.nature.com/news/2012/07...-to-earth.html
How did the Earth get its oceans? The primordial Earth was a seething ball of magma, so the water that it began with would have evaporated into space. As a result, planetary scientists have long debated which of two types of objects, comets or asteroids, were more responsible for delivering Earth’s water.
A new study, published today in Science, says that asteroids were the source. The authors, led by Conel Alexander of the Carnegie Institution of Washington, in Washington DC, analysed the isotopic abundances of nitrogen and hydrogen in 86 primitive meteorites, and found that they coordinate with Earth’s.
Asteroids had already been the favored source. Studies of solar system dynamics suggest that there was a period of time around 3.9 billion years ago, called the Late Heavy Bombardment, during which the Earth would have been barraged, mostly by asteroids.
Even though comets are ideal sources, with their high percentage content of water, rich with amino acids, there are a few strikes against them. Six studies of comets from the Oort Cloud found that their isotopic ratios of heavy hydrogen (or deuterium) were much higher than Earth’s. When a 2011 Nature paper found isotopic levels of heavy hydrogen in the comet Hartley 2 to be similar to Earth’s, it revived interest in water-from-comets idea. But Alexander and his colleagues suggest that the overall levels of heavy hydrogen in Hartley 2 (and not just the levels in the comet’s ice) would be much higher
I think AId has answered that with regards to temperature gradients in the accretion disk.
Yes I did.
The BB is responsible for the laws of physics.
Evolution governs free will.
Science is what we know: Philosophy is what we don't know.
And any other phyco type crap like telekinesis or similar you are pushing is a load of hogwash.
You and leopold are so much alike...twisting, avoiding misconstruing, and down right lying, to support agendas that are both mythical.
I've crossed the line a few times. But I still do it while upholding truth and not lying and avoiding mythical nonsense that you are obviously attached to.
Scared to death?
You sound exactly like chinglu.
In the first place I was speaking about your posts in general. But you have to have chirality to get a double helix. This question is like asking why a circle has to be round. It's the other way around. The particular macromolecule (the template) has to be helical (to fit in a confined space) and it has to have end markers (the 3' and 5' ends) and it has to be able to zip and unzip and it has to be able to split and express the gene. All of that happens when these nucleotides are assembled during mitosis/meiosis. Since they form a helical structure (zipped) you get chirality. The round trace forms the circle. See what I mean. It's the other way around.
Not sure how this relates to my general remarks about Creationism. But this is why its so dangerous to give a Creationist a word like "chirality" to mangle and confuse the natural phenomena, just to prop up literal interpretation of myth. Hence, a mind is a terrible thing.
Babies aren't ridiculous. They're cute. For the first 5 minutes at least. Things "become alive" everytime the DNA divides and the machinery of the cell builds copies of the organelles. What's the problem there? It's a chemical machine. It fabricates spare parts from copious amounts of matter and energy. What is quintessentially "alive" about that? Except for complexity of the reactions, and the system level effects of the machinery of organelles (ribosomes using RNA like typewriter ribbon) it's no different than precipitating crystalline salt from the redox reaction of aqueous reactants. It's just molecules going into reaction, leopold. Some molecules just happen to work like machine parts. And that's all cells are -- the random combinations of molecular camshafts and gear trains that endowed primitive life with traits suitable for survival of the species (beginning with repair of the cell wall or membrane, and of course the nucleus.) The double helix can do that. It's not magic, it's just a complex set of characters that builds more machinery. We just precipitated out of solution. We are not special. I doubt you really think this way about slime molds or algae, or whatever. That sort invalidates that line of reasoning in itself.
That makes no sense. Intelligence (such as in a dog or monkey) arises through the complex chemical reactions of mere cells and tissues. They are not special. They are elaborate and complicated, but not special. They certainly are "by and through substance" whether it's the cell or tissue or the chemical signal flowing across the synaptic junction. Those are all substantive. So what in the world are you talking about?
Note also, microbes are not intelligent. Yet they comprise the bulk of any biome. So how is that relevant to abiogenesis. Intelligence didn't even evolve until about a billion years later
nothing is as faulty as Creationism. Nothing that debunks it is properly called faulty.
They lied when they took myth and declared it was literally true. They lied when they impersonated scientists simply by inverting their church robes into lab frocks, and putting covers over their Bibles labeled "Science". If you want me to go thrash away at another bogus site, I guess I can give you that,but since I debunked the Mexican prehistoric human claim, I don't recall that you acknowledged later that I was right and they were egregiously wrong. It makes me leery of continually flogging these dead horses. I mean, I can give it a shot but I suspect you're not inclined to accept the arguments that debunk them. (Plus I have to go back and find the link.) Yeah I can do that if that's what sinks your boat. But what a waste of time. They are wholly fraudulent, to the core. They're trash not suitable for a toxic cesspool.