Denial of Evolution VI.

[Robittybob1]

In the link provided it says the following in the section on panspermia
http://garvandwane.com/evolution/panspermia.html

The Murchison meteorite, which fell in Australia in 1969 has been extensively studied. When examined under an electron microscope, complex structures were identified, Their shape along with some precise details such as reproductive structures, suggested evidence of life in that it appeared to contain the remains of living organisms. But this claim is contentious.

It might be pertinent to really understand what was found in the Murchison Meteorite.

This looks pretty convincing doesn't it?
"Fossilized Bacteria in Murchison and Efremovka"
http://www.panspermia.org/zhmur1.htm

Now if the meteorite already contained life forms I wonder if the actual meteorite has been aged?

I don't know how accurate this is but if it is anywhere near the truth life didn't form on Earth first.
http://www.astronomycafe.net/qadir/q998.html

It was dated by Cyril Ponnaperuma and his colleagues at Ames Research Center, and found to be 4.5 billion years old, making it the oldest known remnant of the pre-Earth solar system environment. More recent dating sets its age at nearly 4.95 billion years; nearly 500 million years older than the age of the Earth!

 

[Write4U]

Thanks. I think you have given me the clue, for if the first cell in your opinion formed on Earth and needed methane for the synthesis of the amino acids, this process needed to have occurred prior to the Sun going thermonuclear, for methane is apparently very unstable in UV light. UV from the Sun would have destroyed the atmospheric methane. So you have the problem of life forming prior to the Sun and surviving the Moon formation where the whole Earth was molten if you accept the Giant Impact theory. Those are the reasons I have proposed that life formed off planet Earth, possibly on Mercury in the late proto-sun period, as most of you know. "Life First Started On Planet Mercury?"
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=29842

On the face of it you could be right, but there are other conditions on Mercury that may hinder the relatively "undisturbed" evolution of life.

Mercury is both the hottest and the coldest planet in our solar system with an average temperature of 350F.

One of the obvious reasons that Mercury is so hot is because of its proximity to the sun. It is the closest planet to the sun in the entire solar system, with an average distance of 36 million miles. Another is that Mercury rotates once on its axis every 59 days. This means that for every three times Mercury has orbited the star it has rotated completely just twice. This slow rotation means that the surface of Mercury gets prolonged exposure to the sun's rays, which bake it like an oven.

Read more: http://www.ehow.com/about_4578520_what-average-temperature-mercury.html#ixzz2bFleNVra

And during "nighttime" the temperature would drop by several hundred degrees

Question: Mercury is the closest planet to our sun. So why do nights on Mercury get so extremely cold if it’s closer to the sun than earth or even Venus?

Answer:
On Mercury temperatures can get as hot as 430 degrees Celsius during the day and as cold as -180 degrees Celsius at night.
Mercury is the planet in our solar system that sits closest to the sun. The distance between Mercury and the sun ranges from 46 million kilometers to 69.8 million kilometers. The earth sits at a comfy 150 million kilometers. This is one reason why it gets so hot on Mercury during the day.

http://scitalk.wordpress.com/2008/03/12/temperature-difference-on-mercury-why/

In addition, as Merury's magnetic field it is only about 1% the strength of earth's magnetic field, it is exposed to much greater amounts of destructive radiation. Combine this with its proximity to the sun and it's solar flares spewing deadly (scattering) radiation, I wonder if there was that much chance for Mercury to develop anything of any complexity. The ingredients are there, but perhaps need to follow different expressions such as growing crystals during the cold phase, which promptly melt when the sun phase starts. But who knows? Nothing in nature surprises me anymore. It's evolution appears to allow almost infinite expression under an enormous range of conditions, each producing a different adaptation.

Now, if we could find evidence of a planet which is much older than earth and which does have life (in any form), it is entirely possible that the potential of life has existed long before the earth did it's own "improvisation on a theme" and has an even older evolutionary chain as we can ascertain.

After all, we are all made of the stuff of stars.

 

[Robittybob1]

On the face of it you could be right, but there are other conditions on Mercury that may hinder the relatively "undisturbed" evolution of life.

Mercury is both the hottest and the coldest planet in our solar system with an average temperature of 350F.

Read more: http://www.ehow.com/about_4578520_what-average-temperature-mercury.html#ixzz2bFleNVra

And during "nighttime" the temperature would drop by several hundred degrees

http://scitalk.wordpress.com/2008/03/12/temperature-difference-on-mercury-why/

In addition, as Merury's magnetic field it is only about 1% the strength of earth's magnetic field, it is exposed to much greater amounts of destructive radiation. Combine this with its proximity to the sun and it's solar flares spewing deadly (scattering) radiation, I wonder if there was that much chance for Mercury to develop anything of any complexity. The ingredients are there, but perhaps need to follow different expressions such as growing crystals during the cold phase, which promptly melt when the sun phase starts. But who knows? Nothing in nature surprises me anymore. It's evolution appears to allow almost infinite expression under an enormous range of conditions, each producing a different adaptation.

Only one major objection to what you have said above and that is all of the facts that you've mentioned relate to Mercury after the Sun has passed out of the proto-Sun period. It is in the main sequence stage now, OK, and all of the facts (above) are true but try and conceive what it was like during the late proto-sun period. That is the secret which seems to stump most but if you are getting meteorites with "bacteria" in them that are really old as mentioned, this life formed in the protosun period so it is essential that at least one planet formed early and I have shown why it was Mercury. (Note I show in the "Life on Mercury" thread that the 4 terrestrial planets formed during this period but only Mercury would have been warm enough for life.)
Tell me what Mercury was like in the proto-sun period? You won't find it on the net for it is a new idea. But use your imagination and tell me if you can please?

 

[Write4U]

Only one major objection to what you have said above and that is all of the facts that you've mentioned relate to Mercury after the Sun has passed out of the proto-Sun period. It is in the main sequence stage now, OK, and all of the facts (above) are true but try and conceive what it was like during the late proto-sun period. That is the secret which seems to stump most but if you are getting meteorites with "bacteria" in them that are really old as mentioned, this life formed in the protosun period so it is essential that at least one planet formed early and I have shown why it was Mercury. (Note I show in the "Life on Mercury" thread that the 4 terrestrial planets formed during this period but only Mercury would have been warm enough for life.)
Tell me what Mercury was like in the proto-sun period? You won't find it on the net for it is a new idea. But use your imagination and tell me if you can please?

Perhaps this may help in our discovery

The formation of the Solar System is estimated to have begun 4.6 billion years ago with the gravitational collapse of a small part of a giant molecular cloud.[1] Most of the collapsing mass collected in the centre, forming the Sun, while the rest flattened into a protoplanetary disk out of which the planets, moons, asteroids, and other small Solar System bodies formed.

and

The inner Solar System, the region of the Solar System inside 4 AU, was too warm for volatile molecules like water and methane to condense, so the planetesimals that formed there could only form from compounds with high melting points, such as metals (like iron, nickel, and aluminium) and rocky silicates. These rocky bodies would become the terrestrial planets (Mercury, Venus, Earth, and Mars). These compounds are quite rare in the universe, comprising only 0.6% of the mass of the nebula, so the terrestrial planets could not grow very large.[10]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formation_and_evolution_of_the_Solar_System

 

[Robittybob1]

Perhaps this may help in our discovery


and

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formation_and_evolution_of_the_Solar_System

When you look at the changes that occurred between the start of the collapse of the nebula to the formation of the Earth it always seems so rushed to me. So if they say the meteorite is 4.95 billion years old they are virtually saying it came in from another star system as did the rest of the heavier elements. So do you agree with that, or do you think the dating just a little bit out?

As far as the temperature of the early inner solar system goes, I wonder how they worked that out. I wouldn't be surprised that it is just an educated guess to explain the composition of the terrestrial planets and not really based on any actual scientific measurement.
Since Kepler has been finding exo-planets they have had to revise the planet building theories, so this may need updating too. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kepler_(spacecraft)

 

[Write4U]

When you look at the changes that occurred between the start of the collapse of the nebula to the formation of the Earth it always seems so rushed to me. So if they say the meteorite is 4.95 billion years old they are virtually saying it came in from another star system as did the rest of the heavier elements. So do you agree with that, or do you think the dating just a little bit out?

As far as the temperature of the early inner solar system goes, I wonder how they worked that out. I wouldn't be surprised that it is just an educated guess to explain the composition of the terrestrial planets and not really based on any actual scientific measurement.
Since Kepler has been finding exo-planets they have had to revise the planet building theories, so this may need updating too. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kepler_(spacecraft)

Thanks for the link, very interesting stuff, but it does not seem to explain the evolutionary process of solar and/or planetary systems.

The link I cited does explain that temperatures are very high during the formation of a star and undoubtedly, any matter that is not pulled in and orbits close to the intense heat generated are unable to form certain elements or indeed molecules, except heavy metals which are heat resistant. IMO, this is how they can declare with some accuracy that the 4 planets closest to the sun consist of metals, while those farther removed could remain gaseous, even as the may be considerably larger and massive?

 

[Robittybob1]

Thanks for the link, very interesting stuff, but it does not seem to explain the evolutionary process of solar and/or planetary systems.

The link I cited does explain that temperatures are very high during the formation of a star and undoubtedly, any matter that is not pulled in and orbits close to the intense heat generated are unable to form certain elements or indeed molecules, except heavy metals which are heat resistant. IMO, this is how they can declare with some accuracy that the 4 planets closest to the sun consist of metals, while those farther removed could remain gaseous, even as the may be considerably larger and massive?

I'll look into it again tomorrow, late here.
It is pretty important to my hypotheses that this is challenged so I will consider the whole problem and see if there is some other solution possible. Thanks for the debate. I did remember that this was on the denial of Evolution thread, but it locks in closely to where life formed and the evolution of the pre-cellular replicators so it was still on topic.

 

[Write4U]

I'll look into it again tomorrow, late here.
It is pretty important to my hypotheses that this is challenged so I will consider the whole problem and see if there is some other solution possible. Thanks for the debate. I did remember that this was on the denial of Evolution thread, but it locks in closely to where life formed and the evolution of the pre-cellular replicators so it was still on topic.

I agree and it is a fascinating subject. If we could find a complex molecular system elsewhere that would change a lot of our understanding. I believe that on Mars they have found some interesting objects resembling complex systems, which suggest that there may indeed be life on other planets.

 

[wellwisher]

So if they say the meteorite is 4.95 billion years old they are virtually saying it came in from another star system as did the rest of the heavier elements. So do you agree with that, or do you think the dating just a little bit out?

I believe our sun is a second generation star, with its first demise/boom, the source of the material for our solar system. This scenario would keep all the material centered on the original solar site for the subsequent solar system.

Other solar systems are out there, but these are not quite as common as one would expect. This could be explained as being dependent on the size of the stage one boom. If it is too powerful you don't get a solar system but only new stars will form from sparse debris, since sparse debris can't collapse into planets with a star nearby.

 

[river]

I believe our sun is a second generation star, with its first demise/boom, the source of the material for our solar system.

Explain further , by what you mean by , " our sun is a second generation star " I'm curious

 

[Robittybob1]

I believe our sun is a second generation star, with its first demise/boom, the source of the material for our solar system. This scenario would keep all the material centered on the original solar site for the subsequent solar system.

Other solar systems are out there, but these are not quite as common as one would expect. This could be explained as being dependent on the size of the stage one boom. If it is too powerful you don't get a solar system but only new stars will form from sparse debris, since sparse debris can't collapse into planets with a star nearby.

Well the way I think you are imagining the generations is completely different to the way I think of it. I imagine the Earth and the Solar System being the result of several exploding stars plus a large amount primordial interstellar hydrogen and Helium all coalesced.
Even I struggle with my own conception of how it all works, for I'd like to know how far away were these exploding stars and just where are their remnant black hole cores?
They recently worked out that gold was formed from two colliding stars. Uranium I believe must be from a super nova explosion. These two events were not the same, am I correct? Is it essential to have a total mixture of many catastrophic events to provide the material for a life supporting solar system?

 

[river]

Well the way I think you are imagining the generations is completely different to the way I think of it. I imagine the Earth and the Solar System being the result of several exploding stars plus a large amount primordial interstellar hydrogen and Helium all coalesced.
Even I struggle with my own conception of how it all works, for I'd like to know how far away were these exploding stars and just where are their remnant black hole cores?
They recently worked out that gold was formed from two colliding stars. Uranium I believe must be from a super nova explosion. These two events were not the same, am I correct? Is it essential to have a total mixture of many catastrophic events to provide the material for a life supporting solar system?

Interesting , but disagree

I see the Earth and all planets , as ejections from the Sun its self

 

[Write4U]

Interesting , but disagree

I see the Earth and all planets , as ejections from the Sun its self

The formation of the Solar System is estimated to have begun 4.6 billion years ago with the gravitational collapse of a small part of a giant molecular cloud.[1] Most of the collapsing mass collected in the centre, forming the Sun, while the rest flattened into a protoplanetary disk out of which the planets, moons, asteroids, and other small Solar System bodies formed.

and

The Solar System has evolved considerably since its initial formation. Many moons have formed from circling discs of gas and dust around their parent planets, while other moons are thought to have formed independently and later been captured by their planets. Still others, as the Earth's Moon, may be the result of giant collisions. Collisions between bodies have occurred continually up to the present day and have been central to the evolution of the Solar System. The positions of the planets often shifted, and planets have switched places.[2] This planetary migration is now thought to have been responsible for much of the Solar System's early evolution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formation_and_evolution_of_the_Solar_System

The problem with your interpretation is that once matter enters the gravitational field of the sun it is absorbed, or (if moving fast enough) flung out into space.

 

[river]

and


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formation_and_evolution_of_the_Solar_System

The problem with your interpretation is that once matter enters the gravitational field of the sun it is absorbed, or (if moving fast enough) flung out into space.

My thinking has nothing to do with the Sun , absorbing matter

Rather the Sun ejects matter in order to balance its self

 

[Robittybob1]

Interesting , but disagree

I see the Earth and all planets , as ejections from the Sun its self

In a way you could be right but you need to say "Proto-sun" instead of "Sun".
The diffuse nebula changes into the Proto-sun once the contraction begins, as it contracts the angular momentum of the heavier parts force themselves (flung could be a description) to the outer edges. The material collapsing into center is predominantly hydrogen and helium for these elements can never generate the angular momentum to begin orbiting the proto-sun. (The protosun acts like a huge centrifuge spinning the heavier elements to the outer edge of the proto-sun, till they break away forming the protoplanetary dust disc.
So the heavier elements exiting protosun reduce the net angular momentum of what remains in the protosun.

Ending up with the ratios of the Sun having 95 % of the mass of the original nebula, but only 5% of the total angular momentum.
And the 5% of the mass in the planets has 95% of the total angular momentum.
(These figures aren't meant to be accurate but that is how I remember it.
You get the picture. Refine the quantities if you need to be accurate.)

 

[river]

In a way you could be right but you need to say "Proto-sun" instead of "Sun".
The diffuse nebula changes into the Proto-sun once the contraction begins, as it contracts the angular momentum of the heavier parts force themselves (flung could be a description) to the outer edges. The material collapsing into center is predominantly hydrogen and helium for these elements can never generate the angular momentum to begin orbiting the proto-sun. (The protosun acts like a huge centrifuge spinning the heavier elements to the outer edge of the proto-sun, till they break away forming the protoplanetary dust disc.
So the heavier elements exiting protosun reduce the net angular momentum of what remains in the protosun.

Ending up with the ratios of the Sun having 95 % of the mass of the original nebula, but only 5% of the total angular momentum.
And the 5% of the mass in the planets has 95% of the total angular momentum.
(These figures aren't meant to be accurate but that is how I remember it.
You get the picture. Refine the quantities if you need to be accurate.)

So your still defending the theory that planets are the result of the coalescing of dust particles

 

[Write4U]

My thinking has nothing to do with the Sun , absorbing matter

Rather the Sun ejects matter in order to balance its self

You keep ignoring the actual interpretation. I'll repeat it once more.

The formation of the Solar System is estimated to have begun 4.6 billion years ago with the gravitational collapse of a small part of a giant molecular cloud.[1] Most of the collapsing mass collected in the centre, forming the Sun, while the rest flattened into a protoplanetary disk out of which the planets, moons, asteroids, and other small Solar System bodies formed.

The protoplanetary disk already contains many elements, and is the very reason why the disk is formed to begin with. As the the protostar collapses it gains in gravity, pulling things in, but also increases its spin and increasing the speed of the surrounding matter. The centrifugal rings can easily be identified by the composition of objects having the proper mass and speed to remain in orbit.
On a plenatary level, Saturn is a perfect example of separation of matter according to their mass and momentum.
http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/planets/profile.cfm?Object=Saturn&Display=Rings

What is so difficult to understand about that? Seems pretty straight forward to me. Unless you can demonstrate otherwise, I'll accept the conventional wisdom, which no doubt has been observed in other formations of other planetary systems. I am not saying this is the only way, but this is one scientifically accepted theory.

The sun contains no iron or ever did. If it did it would be on the verge of going nova. Heavy elements can only be created at extremely high pressure and temperatures, such as in the center of a star that has exhausted its fuel and is about to die. Therefore all heavy metals have come from other stars which went nova and no longer exist in their original form.

The moment a star can produce Iron in it's core, it produces ALL of the iron it can in a matter of seconds. The sudden change from producing energy to absorbing energy, in higher mass stars, tends to cause the core to collapse. The implosive shock wave is so great that the star goes super nova. The pressures generated within the SN is what causes fusion to the heavier elements.

Obviously in a protostar system these forces are not yet in play.

 

[river]

You keep ignoring the actual interpretation. I'll repeat it once more.


The protoplanetary disk already contains many elements, and is the very reason why the disk is formed to begin with. As the the protostar collapses it gains in gravity, pulling things in, but also increases its spin and increasing the speed of the surrounding matter. The centrifugal rings can easily be identified by the composition of objects having the proper mass and speed to remain in orbit.
On a plenatary level, Saturn is a perfect example of separation of matter according to their mass and momentum.
http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/planets/profile.cfm?Object=Saturn&Display=Rings

What is so difficult to understand about that? Seems pretty straight forward to me. Unless you can demonstrate otherwise, I'll accept the conventional wisdom, which no doubt has been observed in other formations of other planetary systems. I am not saying this is the only way, but this is one scientifically accepted theory.

The sun contains no iron or ever did. If it did it would be on the verge of going nova. Heavy elements can only be created at extremely high pressure and temperatures, such as in the center of a star that has exhausted its fuel and is about to die. Therefore all heavy metals have come from other stars which went nova and no longer exist in their original form.



Obviously in a protostar system these forces are not yet in play.

Conventional understanding is a start and a foundation on which to start , I have no problem with that

The thing is though can you flex your mind to think out of the conventional thinking box

 

[Robittybob1]

So your still defending the theory that planets are the result of the coalescing of dust particles

Is there another? Explain what is the alternative is then?

 

[Robittybob1]

Conventional understanding is a start and a foundation on which to start , I have no problem with that

The thing is though can you flex your mind to think out of the conventional thinking box

What Write4U is saying is already out of the box. The separation of the protosun into the protoplanetary disc is not widely known. It seems logical to me and it is great that you can see it working too.
So what is the reason you are promoting this other system which to me defies any logic. If you still think it is logical you'd better explain it again please.