[meteorite-list] THE ODDS OF LIFE

From: Francis Graham <francisgraham_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Tue Jul 26 10:18:52 2005
Message-ID: <20050726141850.1408.qmail_at_web54710.mail.yahoo.com>

Dear List,
  The question of life on Mars has sometimes been
approached with the Saganism "Extraordinary claims
require extraordinary evidence", and this has been
used to justify "IF the biomarker can possibly in some
way be produced inorganically, then it is no
biomarker."
  Nonsense. The Copernican Principle states that we
are not special in the Universe, never were. If that
is true, then the claim that life exists/existed on
Mars is NOT an extraordinary claim. The claim that
life *only exists on Earth* is the extraordinary
claim.
  Biomarkers on Mars, though possibly by some weird
mechanism produced by inorganic processes, must, in
the absence of the demonstration of that inorganic
mechanism, must be held to be evidence of life there.
In other words, the onus should be the other way.
   A recent Icarus article discussed how the
measurement of isotopic composition of the methane on
Mars could further enhance its credibility as a
biomarker: Hari Nair et al "Isotopic Fractionation of
Methane in the Martian Atmosphere" Icarus 175 (2005)
32-35.
  If the isotopic fractionation of methane points to a
biogenic source, again, there will be people who say
there might be some unknown inorganic mechanism , or
known hypothetical mechanism, which makes it appear as
if there is biology. These people will using the same
argument as Simplicio in the book that introduced
Copernicus to the people, the Dialogo.
 Lethal as the Martian environment is to most forms of
life as we know it, it was not always that lethal and
life had plenty of time to adapt...the mechanism of
evolution is very robust in that respect.
 We cannot accept the dictum that we dare not
postulate the existence of life while some sort of
inorganic process for known biomarkers can be
imagined. Recognizing that while there are some things
that look like a duck and really aren't, and that all
science is tentative, the evidence of more Mars
biomarkers must be taken for what they seem to be.

Francis Graham




 

--- MexicoDoug_at_aol.com wrote:

> Sterling W. wrote:
>
> >The key has to be that the creation of life was NOT
> a random
> >process. For every molecule that fits a template,
> millions did not.
> >That's a selective mechanism, not a random one. If
> you allow a strong
> >selective effect at every step instead of random
> chance, it's done in
> >short order, IF there is a preferred pathway.
>
> Hola Sterling, The answer you seek has been mostly
> written...If you have the
> time, I highly recommend picking up a copy of this
> book and meandering
> through its delightful respect for the
> accomplishments of biology, but at the same
> time, its brazen and bold disregard for the
> groupthink in the field. The
> implications are more limited by your imagination
> than the pages upon which it
> is written!
> "The Origins of Order: Self-Organization and
> Selection in Evolution"
> by Stuart Kauffman
>
> What is "primitive" life other than a continuous
> process, soap bubble-like
> filled micelle of catalysts with linked reactant
> intermediates? And is it any
> wonder at all that such bags of plasm form,
> considering they are the
> structures, by definition [of life], with the
> property of non-equilibrium
> homeostasis, after countless other reactions, well -
> react, i.e.,"die".
>
> We've glorified primitive life to religious
> proportions, yet I think it is
> much an overrated miracle. While you wait for that
> landmark discovery that
> life evolved or can be made to evolve more than once
> (whether it comes from out
> of this world of from our own Earth right under our
> noses), an accepting
> humanity will take it in stride, go to work
> tomorrow, still elect lousy
> politicians, and folks like us will need to find new
> topics to stay happily
> entertained just over the edge of chaos.
>
> What surprises me is your take on the significance
> of a confirmation of a
> so-far hypothetical confirmation of panspermia.
> While you seem fine with the
> possibility of seeding life throughout the universe,
> you think it doesn't do
> much except transfer the "problem" of creation
> elsewhere. While this may be
> true, I believe the sheepdogs have tricked you into
> drinking from their
> tainted watering hole.
>
> Did you know that your own red blood cells lack DNA
> and are anaerobic
> (utilizing glucose and no oxygen in solution, not
> aerobic (Krebs cycle) respiration
> to generate energy)? Your red cells are alive,
> right? Really, finding
> (viruses), bacteria, yeasts, perhaps fungi and
> other primitive bags of reactants
> developing elsewhere with at least RNA won't solve
> THE QUESTION to forgetful
> and greedy human satisfaction, as THE QUESTION has
> become somewhat of a
> moving target. It used to be: What started life on
> Earth?
>
> Think about human nature - so accepting (as long as
> not under threat by
> killer alien microbes) I say we best learn to solve
> the simple harmonic
> oscillator problem before asking questions of the
> Gods around the Universe and stick
> to this original question. Not that a foray into a
> generalized THE QUESTION
> isn't entertaining and informative - it is. But if
> we take the attitude of
> minimizing the significance of the problems and
> true progress which is within
> our grasp and possibly during our lifetime, we'll
> just remain an unsatisfied
> bunch. Ah, the destiny of human spirit:(
>
> Getting back to proving the Andromeda Strain that
> spontaneously appeared in
> another galaxy ... sure it'll cause a bigger impact
> than Surveyor 3's bacteria
> which could have survived on the Moon for a few
> years. But how much
> bigger? Don't hold your breath. A bag of cytoplasm
> proven to have been hatched in
> a far off galaxy will not impress the average person
> on the street any more
> than one bug delivered ambiguously on a meteorite.
> Afterall we've known you
> can deep freeze yeast and nematodes for years, and
> they come back to life...
>
> THE QUESTION will just move to become, ok, we have
> proof of concept once,
> twice, whatever. Now where's the extraterrestrial
> beef? Those bags of wierd
> enzymes are one thing, but THE QUESTION will always
> has been, can they
> organize, intercommunicate and form conscious beings
> with souls? And the
> closedminded will say - only on Earth. The
> visionaries will say - In the name of
> Copernicus, get over it! And some will be burned at
> the stake by the experts of
> their day.
>
> Saludos, Doug
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ______________________________________________
> Meteorite-list mailing list
> Meteorite-list_at_meteoritecentral.com
>
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
>



__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Received on Tue 26 Jul 2005 10:18:50 AM PDT