Life might be older than Earth

[InformedIgnorance]

"measure genetic complexity by the length of functional and nonredundant DNA sequence rather than by total DNA length" (page 3)

"If we plot genome complexity of major phylogenetic lineages on a logarithmic scale against the time of origin, the points appear to fit well to a straight line (Sharov, 2006) (Fig. 1). This indicates that genome complexity increased exponentially and doubled about every 376 million years." (page 3)

Full paper available: http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1304/1304.3381.pdf

 

[Reptillian]

"measure genetic complexity by the length of functional and nonredundant DNA sequence rather than by total DNA length" (page 3)

"If we plot genome complexity of major phylogenetic lineages on a logarithmic scale against the time of origin, the points appear to fit well to a straight line (Sharov, 2006) (Fig. 1). This indicates that genome complexity increased exponentially and doubled about every 376 million years." (page 3)

Full paper available: http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1304/1304.3381.pdf

All right... you talked me into it... I'm analyzing this article... sigh, there goes my weekend.

 

[The Wizard]

New study suggests to the possibility that life might have started before Earth's formation: Could Life Be Older Than Earth Itself?

I don't buy using technology as a measuring stick towards biological evolution. I don't see what the debate could possibly be about. I'm perfectly happy accepting "both". It took things from space and things from Earth to create the perfect combo for life to evolve. Both are involved. Everything was/is involved in the creation. It can rightly be looked at in both ways on the nonreligious end... Imo

 

[Reptillian]

So far it's an interesting and well thought out article. If you can get past the pedantic pompous verbosity, it's a fascinating read. They seemed to have addressed several of my potential criticisms, yet a few nagging doubts remain. One big one is that they deny punctuated equilibrium having any effect upon genetic complexity, yet their logarithmically linear law seems to imply that life continued to evolve even in the absence of a planet to evolve on.

So suppose their hypothesis is correct and that there was some planet orbiting an ancient primordial star with life on it and the star went nova. Further suppose that some of the remnants of said nova coalesced to form our Sun and Earth and that the life we now see descends from that original primordial planetary life. Would the primordial life have continued to evolve in the vacuum of space in their predicted fashion? I'd say "no". The slowly changing vacuum of space is about as stable as an environment can be. Space is volatile, harsh, and unforgiving, but it ebbs and flows on a scale that humans generally don't notice.

 

[Reptillian]

Another criticism of a mathematical nature. They use an exponential law, take the log, then look at where the line crosses the x-axis and say "life began here at the value of 9 billion years ago". An exponential never crosses the x-axis! The log of the exponential crosses where the exponent on the base changes from positive to negative, but is physically meaningless. A "life follows Moore's Law" theory shouldn't have an origin of life....life would be a fundamental property of the universe like charge or mass if their model is correct! So far from this article I get shoddy math, problematic biochemistry, and questionable evolutionary biology. I might just write my own article and have it published just to counteract this hogwash.

 

[Ouroboros]

And what about retrovirus? I only saw a short reference to computer virus in the paper, but we know that we share some 22 ERV mutations with the chimps. (I think I got the number right)

 

[Reptillian]

And what about retrovirus? I only saw a short reference to computer virus in the paper, but we know that we share some 22 ERV mutations with the chimps. (I think I got the number right)

I think their reasoning is that retroviruses contribute to short term mutations and diversification, but that the overall trend follows a nice Moore's Law formulation.

On a side note, I recently learned that retroviruses might be to blame for schizophrenia and other genetic diseases in humans. Fascinating stuff. It's strange to think that a genetic disease that person now has might be traced to some cold virus that their great great grandparents caught.

 

[Katzpur]

Well, this concept fits into Mormonism perfectly.

 

[Reptillian]

Well, this concept fits into Mormonism perfectly.

Oh? How so?

 

[Katzpur]

Well, this concept fits into Mormonism perfectly.

Oh? How so?

Kind of hard to explain, and probably not what you may have been thinking, but we believe that...

1. Matter can neither be created nor destroyed. (In other words, we reject the concept of a creation ex nihilo).

2. All things were created spiritually prior to being created physically. We believe that God created the spirits of all things out of highly refined matter that was co-existent with Him.

3. Life (in the sense that the spirit is a cognizant entity) has therefore existed for far longer than the 4.5 billions years that earth has supposedly existed.

 

[fantome profane]

Kind of hard to explain, and probably not what you may have been thinking, but we believe that...

1. Matter can neither be created nor destroyed. (In other words, we reject the concept of a creation ex nihilo).

2. All things were created spiritually prior to being created physically. We believe that God created the spirits of all things out of highly refined matter that was co-existent with Him.

3. Life (in the sense that the spirit is a cognizant entity) has therefore existed for far longer than the 4.5 billions years that earth has supposedly existed.

I think you would be further ahead if you said that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, and that matter is just one form of energy.

But quantum theory calls even this conservation into question.

 

[idav]

I think you would be further ahead if you said that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, and that matter is just one form of energy.

But quantum theory calls even this conservation into question.

You could actually get closer to proving a creator if conservation was ever violated in experimentation. I don't think it's been shown that the law of conservation can be violated.