Remarkably complete’ 3.8-million-year-old cranium of human ancestor discovered in Ethiopia

[ImmortalFlame]

I just did what I suggested you do, Google'd it
Did life begin on land rather than in the sea? A paradigm-shifting hypothesis could reshape our idea about the origin of life

"But Deamer, who describes himself as a scientist who loves playing with new ideas, thought the theory
had flaws. For instance, molecules essential for the origin of life would be dispersed too quickly into a
vast ocean, he thought, and salty seawater would inhibit some of the processes he knew are necessary
for life to begin...
In Deamer's vision, ancient Earth consisted of a huge ocean spotted with volcanic land masses. Rain
would fall on the land, creating pools of fresh water that would be heated by geothermal energy and then
cooled by runoff. Some of the key building blocks of life, created during the formation of our solar system,
would have fallen to Earth and gathered in these pools, becoming concentrated enough to form more
complex organic compounds.
The edges of the pools would go through periods of wetting and drying as water levels rose and fell. During
these periods of wet and dry, lipid membranes would first help stitch together the organic compounds called
polymers and then form compartments that encapsulated different sets of these polymers. The membranes
would act like incubators for the functions of life..."



Genesis states there was no land at some point in the early Earth. Just a sterile ocean under a thick cloud cover.

Do you not understand that a "new hypothesis" does not equal a "new consensus"?

 

[PruePhillip]

Do you not understand that a "new hypothesis" does not equal a "new consensus"?

Yes I do. Now, let me repeat. Reports in science journals speak of a
new consensus. We still don't know HOW life began, but we can see
the pathway needs this fresh water wetting and drying process to get
the organics concentrated - unlike the oceans.

 

[shunyadragon]

I just did what I suggested you do, Google'd it
Did life begin on land rather than in the sea? A paradigm-shifting hypothesis could reshape our idea about the origin of life

"But Deamer, who describes himself as a scientist who loves playing with new ideas, thought the theory
had flaws. For instance, molecules essential for the origin of life would be dispersed too quickly into a
vast ocean, he thought, and salty seawater would inhibit some of the processes he knew are necessary
for life to begin...
In Deamer's vision, ancient Earth consisted of a huge ocean spotted with volcanic land masses. Rain
would fall on the land, creating pools of fresh water that would be heated by geothermal energy and then
cooled by runoff. Some of the key building blocks of life, created during the formation of our solar system,
would have fallen to Earth and gathered in these pools, becoming concentrated enough to form more
complex organic compounds.
The edges of the pools would go through periods of wetting and drying as water levels rose and fell. During
these periods of wet and dry, lipid membranes would first help stitch together the organic compounds called
polymers and then form compartments that encapsulated different sets of these polymers. The membranes
would act like incubators for the functions of life..."

First the rain is freshwater. Once the water forms pools and springs from volcanics it is not freshwater, as noted above. It contained salts and other chemical. Not that much of the water that forms the springs and pools comes from rain it comes from thermal springs around volcanoes is NOT freshwater.

Deamer reference is only one, and does not represent the views of science as whole. I will provide references to the Mid Ocean Ridge and the origins of life next.

Genesis states there was no land at some point in the early Earth. Just a sterile ocean under a thick cloud cover.

Genesis does not state this.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Yes I do. Now, let me repeat. Reports in science journals speak of a
new consensus.

False. They wrote of a new hypothesis.

The article you quoted does not say that this is the "new consensus".

Please stop deliberately misrepresenting the truth.

 

[shunyadragon]

Yes I do. Now, let me repeat. Reports in science journals speak of a
new consensus. We still don't know HOW life began, but we can see
the pathway needs this fresh water wetting and drying process to get
the organics concentrated - unlike the oceans.

No, it is not one 'new consensus,' and Deamer;s description is not the 'consensus.' Again, the pools and springs around volcanoes are NOT freshwater.

 

[shunyadragon]

False. They wrote of a new hypothesis.

The article you quoted does not say that this is the "new consensus".

Please stop deliberately misrepresenting the truth.

Actually the hypothesis is not really new, but has evolved as more knowledge concerning abiogenesis is available through discoveries and research.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well, YOU interpret this, "and God commanded the seas to bring forth life."
Sounded strange in the ears of people for four or five thousand years - how
can water create life?
So please, give me your own interpretation.

ps do you think a "magic spell" caused the universe to appear, when there
were no magic spells to speak of, and no universe to hear them?

No, that was you again. I do not believe in a god.

And your second question is improper. It assumes the need of a god. Why think that one is needed at all?

 

[shunyadragon]

Yes I do. Now, let me repeat. Reports in science journals speak of a
new consensus. We still don't know HOW life began, but we can see
the pathway needs this fresh water wetting and drying process to get
the organics concentrated - unlike the oceans.

One further comment: The reason tidal zones are considered a candidate for the origins of life and early evolution is because some propose that the wet and drying action of tides is important in abiogenesis.

 

[PruePhillip]

First the rain is freshwater. Once the water forms pools and springs from volcanics it is not freshwater, as noted above. It contained salts and other chemical. Not that much of the water that forms the springs and pools around volcanoes is NOT freshwater.
Deamer reference is only one, and does not represent the views of science as whole. I will provide references to the Mid Ocean Ridge and the origins of life next.
Genesis does not state this.

By "fresh" water I mean "not sea water"
The argument is disingenuous - certainly this CAN'T be "fresh" if it is
concentrating minerals and organics in it. But Genesis said life first
emerged on "land", meaning, "not in the ocean."

 

[PruePhillip]

False. They wrote of a new hypothesis.

The article you quoted does not say that this is the "new consensus".

Please stop deliberately misrepresenting the truth.

Correct, but this isn't the article I originally read. Yes, there is a growing
consensus life began on land - it's all to do with the fossil record but more
importantly, new understandings of how complex organics form.

 

[PruePhillip]

Actually the hypothesis is not really new, but has evolved as more knowledge concerning abiogenesis is available through discoveries and research.

The hypothesis goes back to Darwin and his "little warm pond."

 

[PruePhillip]

No, that was you again. I do not believe in a god.

And your second question is improper. It assumes the need of a god. Why think that one is needed at all?

No, we don't "need" a god or gods for life to emerge. The bible doesn't say that
God created life in the manner creationists think - the bible says God "commanded"
and I take that as meaning GOD CREATED THE PHYSICAL LAWS WHICH MADE
LIFE POSSIBLE, IF NOT COMPULSORY.

Absolutely, God or an agency outside of the universe, created the conditions for life
to appear. There is simply no other way out of this. You can tell your children that life
is meaningless (and let them make of that what they will) but you can't tell them the
universe, with premeditation and magic, created itself. I don't accept that - neither do
you, actually, but you don't want to go there.

 

[PruePhillip]

One further comment: The reason tidal zones are considered a candidate for the origins of life and early evolution is because some propose that this is important in abiogenesis.

Maybe, but tidal zones don't explain the organic soup that dry land
can create.

 

[nPeace]

It's not an ideology, for a start.

Secondly, claiming that the basis for a belief is foolish is ridicule, yes. Especially when you aren't actually informed what that basis is.

I'm not interested in arguing.

Go right ahead.

Aw. I'm not really interested in that.

False. We can base your belief on objectively true statements.

Huh?

You appear to be missing the point. You ridiculed the idea that scientists can make accurate conclusions about the physiological structures of organisms based on bone fragments - yet this exact same thing is done to produce accurate images of dead bodies today. It is factually and objectively wrong to claim scientists cannot do this.

That's not accurate at all. I haven't missed the point, and no, you apparently stretched my statement to fit all conclusions. Not a fair tactic.

Perhaps you're confusing identification of a victim with identification of a perpetrator.

Nope. There were two prime suspects, in a murder case. I was asking you to prove which of the suspects was the murderer.

Genetics.

Genetics? What about it? It's a study, like biology, geology, zoology, etc.
Surely, you are not going to start rattling off names of existing methods to say that there are facts of evolution.
Strike one.

 

[shunyadragon]

Maybe, but tidal zones don't explain the organic soup that dry land
can create.

Dry land cannot create organic soup. There are not any scientists that propose this. The volcanic fluids that rise in vents and mid ocean ridges, and some coastal zones are rich with the chemicals that potentially are the basis for the origins of life.

From: Error - Cookies Turned Off

Abiogenic methane in deep‐seated mid‐ocean ridge environments: Insights from stable isotope analyses

Abstract
In this paper we examine geochemical processes that control volatile chemistry at depth in mid‐ocean ridge environments by focusing on CO2‐CH4‐H2O‐H2 fluids entrapped in plutonic rocks from the Southwest Indian Ridge (SWIR), Ocean Drilling Program Hole 735B. Compositional and isotopic analyses of CO2‐CH4‐H2O and CH4‐H2O‐H2 fluids show that methane production involved two phases of magma‐hydrothermal activity, which spanned supersolidus to greenschist facies metamorphic conditions. The first phase of methane generation is characterized by fluid inclusions that contain up to 30–50 mol % CO2 and 43 mol % CH4. Isotopic analyses of CO2, CH4, and H2O released at >900°C yields δ13C(CO2) values of −24‰ to −2‰, δ13C(CH4) values of −30‰ to −19‰, δD(CH4) values of −244‰ to −128‰, and average δD(H2O) values of −43±6‰. Phase equilibria and isotopic data strongly indicate that the CO2‐CH4‐H2O fluids reflect Rayleigh distillation of evolved magmatic CO2, subsequent closed‐system respeciation, and attendant graphite precipitation at temperatures of ∼500–800°C, and at fO2 from −3 log units below, to close to quartz‐fayalite‐magnetite oxygen fugacity (QFM) conditions. The second phase of CH4 production involves CH4‐H2O±H2±C‐fluids that contain >40 mol % CH4. Phase equilibria indicate that the CH4‐H2O fluids were trapped under equilibrium conditions at 400°C, very near to QFM conditions. Our study suggests that in the absence of CO2 as a stable fluid component, extensive distillation fractionation or alteration processes are required to form this later generation of methane. The mean δ13C values of methane extracted at 500°C from the gabbros (−25±4.4‰) are remarkably similar to the range of light carbon observed in studies of mantle rocks. We conclude that the presence of reduced carbon species in oceanic gabbros and mantle peridotites is a potential source of carbon in hydrothermal fluids and that serpentinization processes play a key role in the production of methane at greenschist facies conditions. Although total methane concentrations are low (0.3–0.6 mmol/kg) in the SWIR samples, on a global scale, plutonic layer 3 comprises ∼60% of the oceanic crust and thus represents a potentially immense reservoir (∼1019 gCH4) for abiogenic methane in mid‐ocean ridge hydrothermal systems. Production of methane and hydrocarbon species should be a common process in mid‐ocean ridge systems where high‐temperature fluids interact with mafic mineral phases. This is particularly significant because carbon‐bearing fluids may provide sustenance to subsurface‐and vent‐associated microbial communities and therefore represent an important link between deep‐seated hydrothermal systems and more shallow crustal environments.

 

[PruePhillip]

Dry land cannot create organic soup. There are not any scientists that propose this. The volcanic fluids that rise in vents and mid ocean ridges, and some coastal zones are rich with the chemicals that potentially are the basis for the origins of life.

From: Error - Cookies Turned Off

Abiogenic methane in deep‐seated mid‐ocean ridge environments: Insights from stable isotope analyses

Abstract
In this paper we examine geochemical processes that control volatile chemistry at depth in mid‐ocean ridge environments by focusing on CO2‐CH4‐H2O‐H2 fluids entrapped in plutonic rocks from the Southwest Indian Ridge (SWIR), Ocean Drilling Program Hole 735B. Compositional and isotopic analyses of CO2‐CH4‐H2O and CH4‐H2O‐H2 fluids show that methane production involved two phases of magma‐hydrothermal activity, which spanned supersolidus to greenschist facies metamorphic conditions. The first phase of methane generation is characterized by fluid inclusions that contain up to 30–50 mol % CO2 and 43 mol % CH4. Isotopic analyses of CO2, CH4, and H2O released at >900°C yields δ13C(CO2) values of −24‰ to −2‰, δ13C(CH4) values of −30‰ to −19‰, δD(CH4) values of −244‰ to −128‰, and average δD(H2O) values of −43±6‰. Phase equilibria and isotopic data strongly indicate that the CO2‐CH4‐H2O fluids reflect Rayleigh distillation of evolved magmatic CO2, subsequent closed‐system respeciation, and attendant graphite precipitation at temperatures of ∼500–800°C, and at fO2 from −3 log units below, to close to quartz‐fayalite‐magnetite oxygen fugacity (QFM) conditions. The second phase of CH4 production involves CH4‐H2O±H2±C‐fluids that contain >40 mol % CH4. Phase equilibria indicate that the CH4‐H2O fluids were trapped under equilibrium conditions at 400°C, very near to QFM conditions. Our study suggests that in the absence of CO2 as a stable fluid component, extensive distillation fractionation or alteration processes are required to form this later generation of methane. The mean δ13C values of methane extracted at 500°C from the gabbros (−25±4.4‰) are remarkably similar to the range of light carbon observed in studies of mantle rocks. We conclude that the presence of reduced carbon species in oceanic gabbros and mantle peridotites is a potential source of carbon in hydrothermal fluids and that serpentinization processes play a key role in the production of methane at greenschist facies conditions. Although total methane concentrations are low (0.3–0.6 mmol/kg) in the SWIR samples, on a global scale, plutonic layer 3 comprises ∼60% of the oceanic crust and thus represents a potentially immense reservoir (∼1019 gCH4) for abiogenic methane in mid‐ocean ridge hydrothermal systems. Production of methane and hydrocarbon species should be a common process in mid‐ocean ridge systems where high‐temperature fluids interact with mafic mineral phases. This is particularly significant because carbon‐bearing fluids may provide sustenance to subsurface‐and vent‐associated microbial communities and therefore represent an important link between deep‐seated hydrothermal systems and more shallow crustal environments.

I understand that scientists don't do hydro vents anymore for abiogenesis.

 

[shunyadragon]

The hypothesis goes back to Darwin and his "little warm pond."

Well at the time it was an 'idea' by Charles Darwin, and not a proposal for a hypothesis for abiogenesis. His hypothesis was for evolution, and the objective verifiable evidence was his discoveries and research. He did not consider his work complete to falsify the hypothesis for evolution. He did outline to some extent the necessary discoveries and research need to falsify the hypothesis of evolution.

 

[shunyadragon]

I understand that scientists don't do hydro vents anymore for abiogenesis.

The scientists still consider the hydrothermal vents at the mid-ocean ridges as a likely location for abiogenesis, as cited in the research paper. Some hydrothermal vents occur in coastal tidal zones as around Iceland.

From: Serpentinization, abiogenic organic compounds, and deep life

Serpentinization, abiogenic organic compounds, and deep life

Abstract
The hydrocarbons and other organic compounds generated through abiogenic or inorganic processes are closely related to two science subjects, i.e., energy resources and life’s origin and evolution. “The earth’s primordial abiogenic hydrocarbon theory” and “the serpentinization of abiogenic hydrocarbon theory” are the two mainstream theories in the field of related studies. Serpentinization generally occurs in slow expanding mid-ocean ridges and continental ophiolites tectonic environment, etc. The abiogenic hydrocarbons and other organic compounds formed through the serpentinization of ultramafic rocks provide energy and raw materials to support chemosynthetic microbial communities, which probably was the most important hydration reaction for the origin and early evolution of life. The superposition of biological and abiological processes creates big challenge to the identification of the abiogenic organic materials in serpentinite-hosted ecosystem. Whether abiotic (inorganic) process can form oil and gas resource is a difficult question that has been explored continuously by scientific community for more than a century but has not yet been solved. However, some important progress has been made. The prospecting practice of abiogenic hydrocarbons in commercial gases from the Songliao Basin, China, provides an important example for exploring abiogenic natural gas resources.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, we don't "need" a god or gods for life to emerge. The bible doesn't say that
God created life in the manner creationists think - the bible says God "commanded"
and I take that as meaning GOD CREATED THE PHYSICAL LAWS WHICH MADE
LIFE POSSIBLE, IF NOT COMPULSORY.

Absolutely, God or an agency outside of the universe, created the conditions for life
to appear. There is simply no other way out of this. You can tell your children that life
is meaningless (and let them make of that what they will) but you can't tell them the
universe, with premeditation and magic, created itself. I don't accept that - neither do
you, actually, but you don't want to go there.

Too bad that there is no evidence for that belief. Actually you do not know of any other way besides a god. That is an argument from ignorance. It is a logical fallacy.

 

[PruePhillip]

Too bad that there is no evidence for that belief. Actually you do not know of any other way besides a god. That is an argument from ignorance. It is a logical fallacy.

Y.e.s.s.s. and NO. It's more than argument from ignorance - it goes to the whole
philosophy of science. Science is about the natural world, about causes and
effects, things which bump and grind, probabilities of things happening etc..
But something from deep utter NOTHING is no longer science. Out of that
"impossible" void the universe expands into what became the universe in the first
place.
People who think they know science, or boast of its achievements (I was a
science teacher myself) avoid this like creationists avoid the concepts of
natural selection.