Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Mystery about origin of life possibly solved?


Merc14

Recommended Posts

Interesting new theory on how life may have been kick-started on a very young earth   http://gizmodo.com/astronomers-might-have-just-solved-a-key-mystery-about-1778095567

 

If a massive solar storm struck the Earth today, it could wipe out our technology and hurl us back to the dark ages. Lucky for us, events like this are quite rare. But four billion years ago, extreme space weather was probably the norm. And rather than bringing the apocalypse, it might have kickstarted life.

That’s the startling conclusion of research published in Nature Geoscience today, which builds on an earlier discovery about young, sun-like stars made with NASA’s Kepler Space Telescope. Baby suns, it turns out, are extremely eruptive, releasing mind-boggling amounts of energy during “solar superflares” that make our wildest space weather look like drizzle.

Now, NASA’s Vladimir Airapetian has shown that if our sun was equally active 4 billion years ago, it could have made the Earth more habitable. According to Airapetian’s models, as solar superflares pounded our atmosphere, they initiated chemical reactions that yielded climate-warming greenhouse gases and other essential ingredients for life.

 

article continues:  http://gizmodo.com/astronomers-might-have-just-solved-a-key-mystery-about-1778095567

Edited by Merc14
  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Old news with modern packaging, not fundamentally different than what I was taught in high school. They still haven't nailed down how or why all those ingredients assembled themselves into living, self-replicating structures. They always gloss over and rush past that point to the next step. God did it doesn't even work, since according to Hebrew creation myths he merely called life into being. It would still have to occur according to some yet to be discovered natural sequence, or impetus.

Edited by Hammerclaw
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure it is old news as no one has hypothesized that massive solar flares made the young earth warmer and created the building blocks of life.  As you said, however, it doesn't explain how those complex molecules assembled themselves into a living cell.  Over to the biologists to test. 

One more new bit of science Kepler has played a part in developing.  That is one very successful spacecraft.

 

Edited by Merc14
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When scientists re-examined the Miller Urey Experiment in 2007, they found that over 20 amino acids had developed, which was more than was originally recognised. (11 acids)

I wonder if they missed it, or if time allowed for catalysts to take place.

I wonder how their experiment would fare given this additional knowledge? It might be "The Answer" staring us in the face all along. 


Work in he field of RNA is very promising with regards to uncovering that secret.

 

LINK - The evolutionary transition from RNA to DNA in early cells

Edited by psyche101
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just a gripe here.  The origin of life is not a "mystery." That we don't know exactly what happened is hardly surprising, but there are dozens of theories that could do it.  At first all you need is a molecule able to take things from the environment and make copies of itself.  Not necessarily even good copies.  Natural selection goes from there.  Given undersea vents and comets coming down just loaded with RNA over millions of years, seems inevitable.  I think the magic words are that RNA can catalyze itself.

 

 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes Frank, but as you correctly say there are many hypothesis as to how it happened  and we don't know which is correct, surely that qualifies as mysterious. 

 

Add to that the the "cool, faint sun paradox" which, up until now has been a problem for most, if not all, of the hypotheses and you have, what the original article describes as, "a key mystery".

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Analagies are a good way to describe things and ive always been a firm believer that planets are like eggs and comets are like sperm. Recent findings have validated this, although where they came from, now that is too big for our miniscule eyes to see.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Nnicolette said:

Analagies are a good way to describe things and ive always been a firm believer that planets are like eggs and comets are like sperm. Recent findings have validated this, although where they came from, now that is too big for our miniscule eyes to see.

Really?  What findings have validated that belief and, um, what do you mean " where they came from, now that is too big for our miniscule eyes to see."  You don't know?  You obviously spend hours reading your CT sites but can't spare a minute reading about our solar system? 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Merc14 said:

Really?  What findings have validated that belief and, um, what do you mean " where they came from, now that is too big for our miniscule eyes to see."  You don't know?  You obviously spend hours reading your CT sites but can't spare a minute reading about our solar system? 

Whats ct? I actually dont wander sites you guys find all the interesting articles and im referring to some of the recent ones here. 

And whats this about i dont know? Is it always to be assumed that every time you dont know what im talking about i dont either? You should try asking next time, its much more effective if you are actually seeking an answer.

Well even though you rude and dont really want an answer i will clarify. When someone says recent findings confirm something, and then add a vague opinion afterward, the confirmation is in relation to the part which is stated directly before the 'as recently validated' and not to the 'although' statement that comes after. I suggest revisiting english class and then perhaps you can read "ct sites" too whatever that is. 

What else i can help you with is in understanding that people think in two ways. Some are great at cataloging and repeating facts but cant figure out jack on thier own unless they read it from a validated source. While others draw from thier vast life experiences and thier ability to adapt by figuring out whatever life throws at them on thier own. Both are very intelligent but thier comprehensive abilities differ. 

When i say there is something bigger than us it is because i notice every pattern and the fluidity in nature of scales. The similarity of atoms versus solar systems versus galaxies etc. It is obvious if you look at the largest map of the known universe and see that we are arranged like a porous material. To my understanding it is obvious that we are a part of something larger but that our eyes could not see it just as an ant cant see the shape of the tree it climbs. Just as a microscopic critter would not find a couch a solid place to sit as we do. If you dont get what i mean please dont try to insult me, rather learn to understand what im talking about so you can expand your avenues of understanding rather than demote your intelligence. Or watch horton hears a who. ;) its a prime example of the point i was trying to convey without spending this mych time doing it.

 

Also wtf do you mean i cant read about our solar system? How is that random a-hole statement even related? Does it make you feel smart to disrespect people for not apparent reason and constantly brandish your closed mindedness? It was a rhetorical question we all are very aware of the answer.

Edited by Nnicolette
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Nnicolette said:

Also wtf do you mean i cant read about our solar system? How is that random a-hole statement even related? Does it make you feel smart to disrespect people for not apparent reason and constantly brandish your closed mindedness? It was a rhetorical question we all are very aware of the answer.

Please cut out the personal attacks. How can you accuse someone else of being rude whilst making posts like this?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Waspie_Dwarf said:

Please cut out the personal attacks. How can you accuse someone else of being rude whilst making posts like this?

So it is ok to talk to people the way he treated me but not for me to respond to that or address the rudeness in a similar manner? Perhaps if he wasnt so constantly uncalled for in his insults i wouldn't constantly point out how distasteful it is.

I mean what are you trying to say, that i am less deserving of that same respect?

I mean you say that as if i was the one who started making up weird stuff about people. But he does this every time i talk. You would be annoyed too.

Edited by Nnicolette
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Ok i apologize.. I get it. If someone makes things up to insult you for no apparent reason everytime they catch sight of you for years dont respond likewise or point it out because its rude.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Nnicolette said:

Whats ct? I actually dont wander sites you guys find all the interesting articles and im referring to some of the recent ones here. 

And whats this about i dont know? Is it always to be assumed that every time you dont know what im talking about i dont either? You should try asking next time, its much more effective if you are actually seeking an answer.

Well even though you rude and dont really want an answer i will clarify. When someone says recent findings confirm something, and then add a vague opinion afterward, the confirmation is in relation to the part which is stated directly before the 'as recently validated' and not to the 'although' statement that comes after. I suggest revisiting english class and then perhaps you can read "ct sites" too whatever that is. 

What else i can help you with is in understanding that people think in two ways. Some are great at cataloging and repeating facts but cant figure out jack on thier own unless they read it from a validated source. While others draw from thier vast life experiences and thier ability to adapt by figuring out whatever life throws at them on thier own. Both are very intelligent but thier comprehensive abilities differ. 

When i say there is something bigger than us it is because i notice every pattern and the fluidity in nature of scales. The similarity of atoms versus solar systems versus galaxies etc. It is obvious if you look at the largest map of the known universe and see that we are arranged like a porous material. To my understanding it is obvious that we are a part of something larger but that our eyes could not see it just as an ant cant see the shape of the tree it climbs. Just as a microscopic critter would not find a couch a solid place to sit as we do. If you dont get what i mean please dont try to insult me, rather learn to understand what im talking about so you can expand your avenues of understanding rather than demote your intelligence. Or watch horton hears a who. ;) its a prime example of the point i was trying to convey without spending this mych time doing it.

 

Also wtf do you mean i cant read about our solar system? How is that random a-hole statement even related? Does it make you feel smart to disrespect people for not apparent reason and constantly brandish your closed mindedness? It was a rhetorical question we all are very aware of the answer.

Wow!  Quite touchy for someone who professes to be so open minded and you are very, very well known here for being a fan of various CTs such as chemtrails yet always seem surprised when your predilections are mentioned.  You made two statements which I questioned, the first of which was "ive always been a firm believer that planets are like eggs and comets are like sperm  Recent findings have validated this".  There is no evidence that comets are the progenitors of life on this planet or any other.  At best they may have delivered some of the basic building blocks but that is al. 

You second statement was "although where they came from, now that is too big for our miniscule eyes to see."   A quick goggle search "where do comets come from in our solar system" would lead you to several articles explaining our best theories about where comets come from, so our "miniscule eyes" pretty much figured it all out decades ago.   Google Kuiper Belt and Oort cloud for more information.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Merc14 said:

Wow!  Quite touchy for someone who professes to be so open minded

Merc14,

I've asked for personal attacks to stop so please cut out the flame-baiting. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.