Abiogenesis Harder than Once Thought

[Tuur]

Stumbled across this article while doing my usual search on "science news" ( a poor man's news aggregator). Basically, a new study has determines that life on earth is a more unlikely event than thought:

New Study Reveals Life on Earth May Be Far More Unlikely Than We Ever Imagined

This caught my attention because abiogenesis has long required a good bit of handwaving. Various compounds used by life as we know it can be synthesized under conditions thought to exist early in earth's history, but that's not necessarily the same as putting them together in a meaningful way, and once it gets put together there's the issue of them persisting. The handwaving deals with number of "tries" and number of locations and amount of time involved and usually culminates with something like "It must have because we're here."

This study seems to tackle the question mathematically. Its conclusion is interesting.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

So, asking this as a genuine question and not an attempt at a 'gotcha' type question, how does the math for panspermia look then? And I'm not talking about the 'directed' panspermia that we see referenced in the article (which sounds a lot more along the lines of pseudoscience and outright science-fiction than anything actually scientific), but just general panspermia. Earth does show a vast array of impacts extraterrestrial asteroids and meteorites.

I also feel that looking at anything through a mathematical lense of chance will always end up looking bad, since if you number crunch anything hard enough, you can virtually say that anything is, to use the article's own words, 'unimaginably difficult'.

 

[Tuur]

So, asking this as a genuine question and not an attempt at a 'gotcha' type question, how does the math for panspermia look then? And I'm not talking about the 'directed' panspermia that we see referenced in the article (which sounds a lot more along the lines of pseudoscience and outright science-fiction than anything actually scientific), but just general panspermia. Earth does show a vast array of impacts extraterrestrial asteroids and meteorites.

I also feel that looking at anything through a mathematical lense of chance will always end up looking bad, since if you number crunch anything hard enough, you can virtually say that anything is, to use the article's own words, 'unimaginably difficult'.

My opinion is panspermia simply passes the buck. If life started elsewhere and arrived here, how did arise where it came from? There's something else: Is the sun second or third generation? First generation stars would be all hydrogen until they fused down to iron and the bigger ones made more elements when they went boom. If the sun is second generation, then doesn't that roughly put us in the first tier possible for life, which makes panspermia unlikely? Of course, if there are second generation suns older than earths, or if the sun is third generation, there's the question of how could life from "there" get to "here" in the time involved.

Mathematics shows the problems involved. Take the assumption that since life on earth is common, life elsewhere must be common, too. But what if the probabilities for abiogenesis is so low that it's not? Then there's also what some will find an uncomfortable idea for life originating on earth if the probabilities of it are so low as to make that unlikely.

 

[truthuprootsevil]

Stumbled across this article while doing my usual search on "science news" ( a poor man's news aggregator). Basically, a new study has determines that life on earth is a more unlikely event than thought:

New Study Reveals Life on Earth May Be Far More Unlikely Than We Ever Imagined

This caught my attention because abiogenesis has long required a good bit of handwaving. Various compounds used by life as we know it can be synthesized under conditions thought to exist early in earth's history, but that's not necessarily the same as putting them together in a meaningful way, and once it gets put together there's the issue of them persisting. The handwaving deals with number of "tries" and number of locations and amount of time involved and usually culminates with something like "It must have because we're here."

This study seems to tackle the question mathematically. Its conclusion is interesting.

Abiogenesis harder than thought!

Considering that process tells us that life started from none life, I would think it's impossible. Primordial soup mix / chemicals.

Yet it is said God could not / did not create life.

At least with the theory of panspermia living organisms did come from space, keywords living organisms.

 

[Bradskii]

Stumbled across this article while doing my usual search on "science news" ( a poor man's news aggregator). Basically, a new study has determines that life on earth is a more unlikely event than thought:

New Study Reveals Life on Earth May Be Far More Unlikely Than We Ever Imagined

From the link:

'At the heart of Endres’s argument is a fundamental principle of physics: entropy. The second law of thermodynamics states that, left to themselves, systems tend to move from order to disorder.'

Which would be the case in a closed system. Except that abiogenesis took place in an open system. And where are the figures from Endres's calculations?

 

[Hans Blaster]

Oh groovy. Entropy and "information theory".

 

[SelfSim]

...
Mathematics shows the problems involved. Take the assumption that since life on earth is common, life elsewhere must be common, too. But what if the probabilities for abiogenesis is so low that it's not? Then there's also what some will find an uncomfortable idea for life originating on earth if the probabilities of it are so low as to make that unlikely.

The calculation of the probability of life emerging on another world, is entirely dependent on firstly finding another instance of life that has emerged independently from Earth's, on at least one other world.

The probability of life existing on another world however, is at least calculable by examining the spectra of exo-planets with already established physical and orbital parameters and then comparing them with Earth's.
Abiotic explanations consistent with known spectral patterns taken from Earth's, will typically be preferred over biotic explanations for other observed worlds.
Abiotic explanations are thus more probable.

 

[Tuur]

The calculation of the probability of life emerging on another world, is entirely dependent on firstly finding another instance of life that has emerged independently from Earth's, on at least one other world.

The probability of life existing on another world however, is at least calculable by examining the spectra of exo-planets with already established physical and orbital parameters and then comparing them with Earth's.
Abiotic explanations consistent with known spectral patterns taken from Earth's, will typically be preferred over biotic explanations for other observed worlds.
Abiotic explanations are thus more probable.

At this point preferring one origin of life theory over another is pretty much a matter of faith. Abiogenesis has never been observed, so it's taken to have existed because we exist. Divine creation (please refrain from hissing and booing until the end of the post) has rarely been observed, Thus probabilities, particularly for abiogenesis, are unknown. Without knowing the probability behind life on earth, we can't assume that the probability of a world with a large moon around a sun in the "Goldilocks Zone" is 100%

Now commence the booing and hissing.

 

[Tuur]

Oh groovy. Entropy and "information theory".

I prefer 1-(1-D/P)^n myself, but we don't know the number of "draws" (spots where abiogenesis could take place), the probability of abiogenesis occurring, or the number of "attempts." It's at least someone looking at the probabilities rather than assuming abiogenesis is a "just add water" sort of thing.

 

[Tuur]

Which would be the case in a closed system. Except that abiogenesis took place in an open system. And where are the figures from Endres's calculations?

More likely algorithms for modeling rather than a single equation. Science news articles only tell the existence of this or that and don't carry papers in detail.

But yet, the entropy question overlooks energy from the sun, heat of formation, and heat from radioactive decay.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I prefer 1-(1-D/P)^n myself, but we don't know the number of "draws" (spots where abiogenesis could take place), the probability of abiogenesis occurring, or the number of "attempts." It's at least someone looking at the probabilities rather than assuming abiogenesis is a "just add water" sort of thing.

I don't think you get my meaning. I don't think this "probability" notion has anything to do with the history of life on this planet. Neither has anyone demonstrated that "information theory" or "entropy" have a single thing to do with it either.

 

[SelfSim]

At this point preferring one origin of life theory over another is pretty much a matter of faith. Abiogenesis has never been observed, so it's taken to have existed because we exist.

I take the 'Abiogenesis' you're referring to there, as being not what the paper is about. They are exploring models which may provide clues about the abstracted infomational conditions under which a second instance of life can feasibly emerge. Science explores theoretically based models which can provide clues about where to go next in the investigation and is agnostic about pre-existing truths, (even where conjectures might be at the core of the models).
The paper's discussion section re-assures me they are on a path that will lead onto testable hypotheses .. perhaps testable right here in Earth labs and within information processing space.

Divine creation (please refrain from hissing and booing until the end of the post) has rarely been observed, Thus probabilities, particularly for abiogenesis, are unknown.

See, your whole enquiry there is your own. Its not what the paper is about.

Without knowing the probability behind life on earth, we can't assume that the probability of a world with a large moon around a sun in the "Goldilocks Zone" is 100%

The probability behind life on Earth is 1 .. Everyone knows this regardless of what one thinks about its origins.

Now commence the booing and hissing.

I can take that light-heartedly (from my perch in the peanut gallery perspective).

 

[SelfSim]

Neither has anyone demonstrated that "information theory" or "entropy" have a single thing to do with it either.

Hmm .. I imagine the principle of information conservation acts as a boundary condition for everything which evolves, (or has evolved), on this planet(?)
Relating it to OOL however, seems to be the challenge nowadays .. likely because of the vast computing power available to throw at it(?)

 

[Tuur]

I don't think you get my meaning. I don't think this "probability" notion has anything to do with the history of life on this planet. Neither has anyone demonstrated that "information theory" or "entropy" have a single thing to do with it either.

I look at it like "assume a solenoid of infinite length" in order to come up with equations without having to take into account end effects. Or the old joke "Assume a spherical cow." It could be a convenient short cut. He could have just as easily said that order tends to become disorder and called it a day on that one.

Disclosure: It's been well over forty years since I had to "'assume a solenoid of infinite length" and can only remember I had to do it for some equations.

I strongly disagree that probability has anything to do with life on earth. On the contrary, it's something that hasn't been explored enough. Unless we're satisfied with "There's life here - what else is there to know" I think it could turn out to be something important.

 

[Tuur]

See, your whole enquiry there is your own. Its not what the paper is about.

And yet it looks at what may be extreme rare instance of life originating on earth. And no, the probability wasn't 100% unless we hold that the earth was made for the creation of life. That's like saying the probability of someone who won a lottery is 100%. Uh-uh. His odds of winning were exactly the same as anyone else's per draw. He could only reduce that to 100% if he bought tickets with all possible combinations.

 

[Bradskii]

More likely algorithms for modeling rather than a single equation. Science news articles only tell the existence of this or that and don't carry papers in detail.

But yet, the entropy question overlooks energy from the sun, heat of formation, and heat from radioactive decay.

So if his calcs are based on an incorrect understanding of entropy, then they're pretty much useless.

 

[JSRG]

And where are the figures from Endres's calculations?

The link in the opening post offers a link to the article at the end:

The unreasonable likelihood of being: origin of life, terraforming, and AI

The origin of life on Earth via the spontaneous emergence of a protocell prior to Darwinian evolution remains a fundamental open question in physics and chemistry. Here, we develop a conceptual framework based on information theory and algorithmic complexity. Using estimates grounded in modern...

arxiv.org

To read it, click on the "View PDF" on the right--or click here for a direct link to it.

 

[SelfSim]

And yet it looks at what may be extreme rare instance of life originating on earth. And no, the probability wasn't 100% unless we hold that the earth was made for the creation of life. That's like saying the probability of someone who won a lottery is 100%. Uh-uh. His odds of winning were exactly the same as anyone else's per draw. He could only reduce that to 100% if he bought tickets with all possible combinations.

I don't think you've read (or understood) the paper.

Here's some quotes from it, relevant to the point I made prior to your above response:

Still, the exercise offers a quantitative scaffold for framing the problem—and perhaps guiding future investigations.
..
If life is the ultimate emergent phenomenon, perhaps it resists prediction not because the physics is wrong, but because the framework is incomplete. ... The reaction path may be immensely long, contingent, and distributed across scales—too delicate to reconstruct after four billion years. In such a landscape, quantitative feasibility may be the most we can achieve. But feasibility, even without full predictability, can still inform what is physically possible—and that, for now, is enough to keep the question alive.

He's making the case for a missing theory of life to guide future investigations.
The connection with information theory arises from viewing life's biomolecules, (eg: ribosomes, DNA etc), from an informational perspective:

For example, (not included in the paper), ribosomes are present in all cellular life we know of and are believed to have been present in the earliest known life on Earth. They are among the oldest physical structures on the planet, even older than most rocks. They are continually rebuilt by cells because their half-life is only five to ten days. They are older than rocks from an informational perspective because they are an informational pattern propagating on our planet, which we observe in the construction of individual ribosome molecules. It is the lineage of them being rebuilt again and again over billions of years that is old .. (not just the individual molecules). This is the insight the Informational viewpoint affords. It reveals a persistent structure deeper than can be learnt from the molecular biology viewpoint which may well be the basis of the 'missing framework' he refers to above. (Its already a viewpoint adopted by many modern-day OOL researchers, I might add).

The references to Kolmogorov Algorithmic complexity (as far as OOL research is concerned) then arises as a:

measure of the shortest description required to reproduce a system—the more structured or regular a system, the more it can be compressed and the easier it can be made [39]. Here, by combining such complexity estimates with basic rate-distortion theory [40, 41], we aim to shed new light on the plausibility of life’s rapid emergence.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I look at it like "assume a solenoid of infinite length" in order to come up with equations without having to take into account end effects. Or the old joke "Assume a spherical cow." It could be a convenient short cut. He could have just as easily said that order tends to become disorder and called it a day on that one.

I am aware of how to approximate things in physics. This isn't a physics problem. It is one of complex systems chemistry.

Disclosure: It's been well over forty years since I had to "'assume a solenoid of infinite length" and can only remember I had to do it for some equations.

I could have spared myself a lot of trouble if I'd remembered it on a particular August afternoon 3 decades ago.

I strongly disagree that probability has anything to do with life on earth. On the contrary, it's something that hasn't been explored enough. Unless we're satisfied with "There's life here - what else is there to know" I think it could turn out to be something important.

The probability of life on Earth is 1. It is a boring topic. Speculative talk of probability for alternative Earths is not useful.

 

[Tuur]

I am aware of how to approximate things in physics. This isn't a physics problem. It is one of complex systems chemistry.

Approximation shows up in places besides physics. Each year I have to model some information for work. For years I modeled each piece to combine it the finished model. Then it finally dawned on me that for some numbers, all of that was baked-in. Modeling those numbers produced the same results with significantly less work. No doubt a smarter person would have realized that from the start, but so it goes.

The problem, from a complex systems chemistry standpoint, is that we don't have a clue as to how abiogenesis would actually occur. There has to be approximations to even tackle the problem and hope the results are at least in the ballpark. It does give a sense of what's required, and that's the point.

The probability of life on Earth is 1. It is a boring topic. Speculative talk of probability for alternative Earths is not useful.

That's like saying that if I bought a lottery ticket and won, the probability of me winning is 1. No. Even if I won, the probability of me winning would be good ol' n!/(r!*(n-r)!) to 1.

Probabilities are important. If we go into a game and notice the probabilities aren't working out, then our understanding of the game is off. Maybe we don't have a good grasp of the rules or maybe it's fixed. Either way, it shows when something funny is going on. In particle physics, what would you think if a certain particle showed up more or less often than the numbers indicate it should?