I remember reading about a hybrid approach called exogenesis, which combines the ideas of abiogenesis and panspermia.
In this theory, the building blocks of life, such as organic molecules, may have been delivered to Earth via comets or meteorites; the actual development of life occurred through natural processes on Earth.
Would we ever know the answer to this question? If we can find life outside of Earth in the future, we will probably have a better theory around this topic.
I've read that exogenesis is a synonym for panspermia, but I definitely like the idea of organic molecules hitching rides on comets or meteorites. Here's what I had to say:
What’s far more provocative (for me, anyway) is that organic molecules—the building blocks of life—really are out there in the cosmos. We know that some meteorites contain amino acids, and that’s what RNA is made up of.
There’s also the increasingly prominent idea that comets and asteroids can deliver water to a planet. Is it possible that both amino acids and water were delivered from outer space, like some kind of Amazon Prime life starter kit?
As I get older, I believe that the truth lies somewhere in the middle (or a hybrid approach) in many cases across every field. Still, we generally take one side over another very quickly rather than keeping the door ajar for further exploration like Richard Feynman suggested:
“I can live with doubt and uncertainty and not knowing. I think it is much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers that might be wrong. If we will only allow that, as we progress, we remain unsure, we will leave opportunities for alternatives. We will not become enthusiastic for the fact, the knowledge, the absolute truth of the day, but remain always uncertain … In order to make progress, one must leave the door to the unknown ajar.”
Considering that our carbon came from stars and we are carbon-based life forms, the idea that our building blocks came from cosmic sources makes sense. Will we ever know, however, how life first pulsed into being life?
I personally would hesitate to say that's doubtful, but only because I think we just don't know what's possible yet. Also, it might not need to be AGI if it's just good at narrow brainstorming.
This is an excellent way to look at any problem or explanation for an existing phenomenon; otherwise, we will stop looking for a solution or theory.
I believe there are certain problems for which we will never find a solution or a theory to explain them. There is always a cost/benefit to keep exploring for a solution, and for certain things, the cost will be so high that it will not be worth spending money on them over other important items. It may be a different story in a perfect world with unlimited resources, but I do not think we will get there anytime soon.
Can I say for certain if this is one of them? The answer is no, but we may find out this is the case in the future. So, for now, we need to keep exploring a theory until we reach a point where spending further time will prevent us from solving other important problems.
As you say, the idea of panspermia kicks the can down the road...and hence is intellectually unsatisfying. It still had to have an origin somewhere. Parsimony dictates we consider the origin to be here rather than extraterrestrial; we can't prove it either way, so the most parsimonious explanation is it arose here. The famous Miller-Urey experiment shows it's unnecessary to even invoke exogenesis (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%E2%80%93Urey_experiment).
Interestingly, because all organisms share the same genetic code (that is, which three-nucleotide sequence codes for which amino acid) we know life on earth had only one origin point that survived to the present. This is because which three-nucleotide sequence corresponds to which amino acid is arbitrary, and it's highly unlikely all life would share that code unless we all had a single ancestor with that code.
Pretty wild stuff to consider, Ernie! I am guessing you already read my thingy about abiogenesis. I absolutely feel like it's entirely possible that life originated here on Earth without any additional bombardment from meteors and comets, but it's also very plausible that those impending pieces of doom ultimately brought some of the chemical building blocks for life. I personally think it's very unlikely that panspermia is how life arose here, but I'd give a lot of weight to those 2 variations within the mainstream narrative.
I agree, but for parsimony’s sake if we can explain it without invoking external causes then we can explain occurrences elsewhere as well…thus, no kicking the can down the road, so to speak.
The fact is, though, is it appears as if the abiotic synthesis of basic amino acids and proteins is remarkably common so it’s not remarkable that these occur elsewhere in the solar systems. If I remember my “primordial” biochemistry it’s the nucleic acid creation that’s rare…not nucleotides but the longer chain polymers constituting RNA and DNA.
Well sure, but water is also remarkably common in the universe, and yet it still seems very plausible that comets are what brought most of the water here. I think it's reasonable to say that that might be true for a few amino acids as well.
I get what you mean, though, about not wanting to kick the can down the road. I'm just simply stating that it nevertheless could well have begun either way, and it would be kind of silly to pretend otherwise. Parsimony is good, but only insofar as it allows us to determine what reality actually is!
Past Andrew: "I could address the juvenile jokes and get out in front of it, telling my readers to get their minds out of the gutter, somewhat playfully, but my readers deserve more credit than this."
I remember reading about a hybrid approach called exogenesis, which combines the ideas of abiogenesis and panspermia.
In this theory, the building blocks of life, such as organic molecules, may have been delivered to Earth via comets or meteorites; the actual development of life occurred through natural processes on Earth.
Would we ever know the answer to this question? If we can find life outside of Earth in the future, we will probably have a better theory around this topic.
I've read that exogenesis is a synonym for panspermia, but I definitely like the idea of organic molecules hitching rides on comets or meteorites. Here's what I had to say:
What’s far more provocative (for me, anyway) is that organic molecules—the building blocks of life—really are out there in the cosmos. We know that some meteorites contain amino acids, and that’s what RNA is made up of.
There’s also the increasingly prominent idea that comets and asteroids can deliver water to a planet. Is it possible that both amino acids and water were delivered from outer space, like some kind of Amazon Prime life starter kit?
As I get older, I believe that the truth lies somewhere in the middle (or a hybrid approach) in many cases across every field. Still, we generally take one side over another very quickly rather than keeping the door ajar for further exploration like Richard Feynman suggested:
“I can live with doubt and uncertainty and not knowing. I think it is much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers that might be wrong. If we will only allow that, as we progress, we remain unsure, we will leave opportunities for alternatives. We will not become enthusiastic for the fact, the knowledge, the absolute truth of the day, but remain always uncertain … In order to make progress, one must leave the door to the unknown ajar.”
I love that Feynamn quote. It has inspired articles!
Considering that our carbon came from stars and we are carbon-based life forms, the idea that our building blocks came from cosmic sources makes sense. Will we ever know, however, how life first pulsed into being life?
Joyce, I have to say truthfully that I don't know if we'll ever know!
Not in our lifetimes is my guess. But what fun speculating.
I'll do what I can to figure it out while we're still alive!
It is doubtful, but maybe AGI will come up with a better theory 😄
I personally would hesitate to say that's doubtful, but only because I think we just don't know what's possible yet. Also, it might not need to be AGI if it's just good at narrow brainstorming.
This is an excellent way to look at any problem or explanation for an existing phenomenon; otherwise, we will stop looking for a solution or theory.
I believe there are certain problems for which we will never find a solution or a theory to explain them. There is always a cost/benefit to keep exploring for a solution, and for certain things, the cost will be so high that it will not be worth spending money on them over other important items. It may be a different story in a perfect world with unlimited resources, but I do not think we will get there anytime soon.
Can I say for certain if this is one of them? The answer is no, but we may find out this is the case in the future. So, for now, we need to keep exploring a theory until we reach a point where spending further time will prevent us from solving other important problems.
Never is a very long time.
As you say, the idea of panspermia kicks the can down the road...and hence is intellectually unsatisfying. It still had to have an origin somewhere. Parsimony dictates we consider the origin to be here rather than extraterrestrial; we can't prove it either way, so the most parsimonious explanation is it arose here. The famous Miller-Urey experiment shows it's unnecessary to even invoke exogenesis (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%E2%80%93Urey_experiment).
Interestingly, because all organisms share the same genetic code (that is, which three-nucleotide sequence codes for which amino acid) we know life on earth had only one origin point that survived to the present. This is because which three-nucleotide sequence corresponds to which amino acid is arbitrary, and it's highly unlikely all life would share that code unless we all had a single ancestor with that code.
Pretty wild stuff to consider, Ernie! I am guessing you already read my thingy about abiogenesis. I absolutely feel like it's entirely possible that life originated here on Earth without any additional bombardment from meteors and comets, but it's also very plausible that those impending pieces of doom ultimately brought some of the chemical building blocks for life. I personally think it's very unlikely that panspermia is how life arose here, but I'd give a lot of weight to those 2 variations within the mainstream narrative.
I agree, but for parsimony’s sake if we can explain it without invoking external causes then we can explain occurrences elsewhere as well…thus, no kicking the can down the road, so to speak.
The fact is, though, is it appears as if the abiotic synthesis of basic amino acids and proteins is remarkably common so it’s not remarkable that these occur elsewhere in the solar systems. If I remember my “primordial” biochemistry it’s the nucleic acid creation that’s rare…not nucleotides but the longer chain polymers constituting RNA and DNA.
Well sure, but water is also remarkably common in the universe, and yet it still seems very plausible that comets are what brought most of the water here. I think it's reasonable to say that that might be true for a few amino acids as well.
I get what you mean, though, about not wanting to kick the can down the road. I'm just simply stating that it nevertheless could well have begun either way, and it would be kind of silly to pretend otherwise. Parsimony is good, but only insofar as it allows us to determine what reality actually is!
"We're all just cosmic sperm. Maybe?" - Andrew Smith, 2024
Past Andrew: "I could address the juvenile jokes and get out in front of it, telling my readers to get their minds out of the gutter, somewhat playfully, but my readers deserve more credit than this."
Present Andrew knows better.
Who's got two thumbs and doesn't deserve any credit ever?! This guy!
You never told me you had two thumbs! I thought we were friends.
Don't worry, they're not my thumbs.
No like for this comment. Nope.