Pervasive myth, origin of life.

There is a pervasive myth out there that has been reiterated at least a thousand times, from its origins in the 1940s or earlier to present day wikipedia. The myth is that the concentrations of carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide in the Earth’s primary atmosphere were so high that life couldn’t have developed from the Miller-Urey process on Earth’s surface.

This myth is so easy to disprove that I can do it in a single sentence. “While the Earth formed it was bathed in interplanetary gas that was dominated by hydrogen, so the Earth’s primary atmosphere was dominated by hydrogen.” Myth busted.

It is remarkably easy to calculate the composition of Earth’s primary atmosphere. The element composition (isotope composition) of the early solar system come from the spectral lines in the Sun, confirmed by measurements of meteorites and Moon rocks.

The elemental oxygen in the interplanetary gas combined at different temperatures with different elements. First the oxygen combined with calcium, titanium and aluminium, then with magnesium and silicon. Then hydrogen mops up the remainder. It’s well known that there’s no oxygen left to combine with iron, and any carbon monoxide quickly turns into methane and water in a hydrogen atmosphere as it cools.

There’s nearly 500 times as much hydrogen as oxygen to start with, no free oxygen is left to form carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide. Conditions are perfect for a reducing primary atmosphere for the Miller-Urey reactions and an origin of life on Earth’s surface.

As for how we know that the Earth and its progenitor planetesimals were bathed in interplanetary gas to start with. The proof is in the near-circular orbits of the planets and the fact that they’re all revolving around the Sun in the same direction. A circular orbit is the minimum energy orbit for given momentum. Energy is lost by both fluid drag from interplanetary gas and from inelastic collisions. But inelastic collisions at high speed result in smashing up asteroids into tiny chunks, and so without gas drag they couldn’t have grown into planetesimals or planets. The density of this interplanetary hydrogen gas has been calculated and is well known. It was only later that hydrogen was purged from the solar system by the solar wind, and even then it remained gravitationally bound to the Earth.

So there’s no need for panspermia, for the development of life in hydrothermal vents, or intelligent clays. Life as we know it developed on the surface of the Earth the way that Miller and Urey envisaged.

OK, got it.

I wasn’t aware of that myth

mollwollfumble said:

Pervasive myth, origin of life.

There is a pervasive myth out there that has been reiterated at least a thousand times, from its origins in the 1940s or earlier to present day wikipedia. The myth is that the concentrations of carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide in the Earth’s primary atmosphere were so high that life couldn’t have developed from the Miller-Urey process on Earth’s surface.

This myth is so easy to disprove that I can do it in a single sentence. “While the Earth formed it was bathed in interplanetary gas that was dominated by hydrogen, so the Earth’s primary atmosphere was dominated by hydrogen.” Myth busted.

It is remarkably easy to calculate the composition of Earth’s primary atmosphere. The element composition (isotope composition) of the early solar system come from the spectral lines in the Sun, confirmed by measurements of meteorites and Moon rocks.

The elemental oxygen in the interplanetary gas combined at different temperatures with different elements. First the oxygen combined with calcium, titanium and aluminium, then with magnesium and silicon. Then hydrogen mops up the remainder. It’s well known that there’s no oxygen left to combine with iron, and any carbon monoxide quickly turns into methane and water in a hydrogen atmosphere as it cools.

There’s nearly 500 times as much hydrogen as oxygen to start with, no free oxygen is left to form carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide. Conditions are perfect for a reducing primary atmosphere for the Miller-Urey reactions and an origin of life on Earth’s surface.

As for how we know that the Earth and its progenitor planetesimals were bathed in interplanetary gas to start with. The proof is in the near-circular orbits of the planets and the fact that they’re all revolving around the Sun in the same direction. A circular orbit is the minimum energy orbit for given momentum. Energy is lost by both fluid drag from interplanetary gas and from inelastic collisions. But inelastic collisions at high speed result in smashing up asteroids into tiny chunks, and so without gas drag they couldn’t have grown into planetesimals or planets. The density of this interplanetary hydrogen gas has been calculated and is well known. It was only later that hydrogen was purged from the solar system by the solar wind, and even then it remained gravitationally bound to the Earth.

So there’s no need for panspermia, for the development of life in hydrothermal vents, or intelligent clays. Life as we know it developed on the surface of the Earth the way that Miller and Urey envisaged.

So what do people who are knowledgeable in this area, but do not accept your hypothesis, have to say in response?

(ps I agree about no need for panspermia, the anthropic principle disposes of the need for that).

i’d like to know if encoders (replicators) can in some way ‘see’ back in time, not entirely unlike when I look at the stars at night

transition said:

i’d like to know if encoders (replicators) can in some way ‘see’ back in time, not entirely unlike when I look at the stars at night

Depends what you mean by “see” I suppose.

I mean there is no doubt they carry information from the past, and this effects the results of their replication.

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

i’d like to know if encoders (replicators) can in some way ‘see’ back in time, not entirely unlike when I look at the stars at night

Depends what you mean by “see” I suppose.

I mean there is no doubt they carry information from the past, and this effects the results of their replication.

my view of the stars seems to be encoding one end to the other, i’m a replicator, descended of replicators, and my mind uses encoding too for perception, conception, ideas, thoughts

my experience is the past receded, but does it really, entirely, I wonder

clearly much of what existed in the past persists, has a trajectory into the future

could I see the stars at all without some sort of encoding

transition said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

i’d like to know if encoders (replicators) can in some way ‘see’ back in time, not entirely unlike when I look at the stars at night

Depends what you mean by “see” I suppose.

I mean there is no doubt they carry information from the past, and this effects the results of their replication.

my view of the stars seems to be encoding one end to the other, i’m a replicator, descended of replicators, and my mind uses encoding too for perception, conception, ideas, thoughts

my experience is the past receded, but does it really, entirely, I wonder

clearly much of what existed in the past persists, has a trajectory into the future

could I see the stars at all without some sort of encoding

recedes

transition said:

i’d like to know if encoders (replicators) can in some way ‘see’ back in time, not entirely unlike when I look at the stars at night

Ditto.

The Rev Dodgson said:

So what do people who are knowledgeable in this area, but do not accept your hypothesis, have to say in response?

I haven’t yet found one. Have asked on facebook. Have not yet gone specifically looking for their response in scientific papers.

My (limited) understanding is that they complain that hydrogen has not been found in rock vesicles in the oldest rocks. My response to that is that:

• Hydrogen and helium leach out of rock vesicles to the point of immeasurability after just a few thousand years.
• The rocks they’re looking at are not old enough.