Live data from Hacker News

Radical Study Suggests Life on Earth Arose Twice

sciencealert.com

71–80 of 116 posts

Re: Radical Study Suggests Life on Earth Arose Twice

#71
post #61
post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

you don't think there is even single-cell life anywhere else but Earth? why would Earth be that incredibly unique? it's even plausible Earth was accidentally seeded by panspermia (bacteria on comets)

Sorry, when you make an assertion, you don't get to demand I justify questioning it. You need to explain why I should believe you. Your reversal of burden of proof is a red flag that you don't have a good argument. IMO, it is quite plausible that OoL is extremely unlikely and that our solar system is the only place where life occurs in the visible universe. Not proved, of course, but the possibility is by no means un…

wasn't demanding, just wanted to hear what your own logic was instead

but it's pointless to go any further I guess as it's getting outside science

the weak anthropic principle can't be falsified so it cannot be argued

I don't think we'll ever hear from "ET" but I do think it's perfectly plausible to find single-celled or simple bacteria elsewhere someday (ie. Europa, comet or asteroid)

Re: Radical Study Suggests Life on Earth Arose Twice

#72
post #47
post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Likely we don't need to replicate. We just need to get a sample of life with completely independent origin to our kind of life here on Earth, to study. This way we would be able to separate what are universal properties for any life from historical contingencies specific to us. To have samples of a single kind of life complicates things.

Were that to happen it could be the worst news humanity ever receives, since it would greatly increase the chance the "Great Filter" is in front of us, not behind us.

The Great Filter is only one possible answer to the Fermi Paradox.

Re: Radical Study Suggests Life on Earth Arose Twice

#73
post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You would think there would be some isolated places where proto-life still exists for this to be true.

No, because conditions have changed markedly. For metals to act as catalysts, and replace some metabolic enzymes, they need to be in highly reduced conditions. This was true in early Earth, but about 2.5 billion years ago, we had the great oxygenation event, and over the next billion years free oxygen has gone up enough that you won’t find the reduced conditions where metal can take over the job of metabolic enzymes…

Just curious, are there lifeforms today that rely on these metals to live in anaerobic environments? Maybe the hydrothermal vents that are talked about?

Do you think complex life could develop (perhaps by moving backwards) in a way that they rely on an anaerobic metal-rich environment?

I guess the oxidation event maybe was necessary for life to develop enzymes (since there wasn't sufficient evolutionary advantage for it to develop in an anaerobic environment?) but maybe something could go backwards? I'm just curious if there might be advantages for live in that sort of environment.

Re: Radical Study Suggests Life on Earth Arose Twice

#74

The metabolic science is really cool. The conclusion that life arose twice requires you to buy that proto-cells that grew on these vents and needed those metallic surfaces to survive didn’t count as “life”. Then, free living cells, bacteria and archea, could maybe be argued as having independent paths as they plugged the gaps in their metabolism independently. Same DNA/RNA, same proteins. Same broad rules of metaboli…

"proto-cells that grew on these vents and needed those metallic surfaces to survive didn’t count as “life”"

What makes that argument extremely weak is analogies with contemporary obviously living animals.

For example, humans are not alive, because we get 100% of our vitamin D ascorbic acid by scavenging from the environment, along with a handful of other animals that presumably evolved in an extremely vitamin C rich environment. If any animal, including humans, ever evolve a new ability to internally synthesize vitamin C from glucose like every other animal, then given that there were non-synthesizer animals in their ancestry who we arbitrarily define as not-alive aka dead, then we could say that life evolved twice.

Note that humans could be defined as dead because we can't synthesize our own oxygen and have to scavenge 100% of it from the environment using lungs and so forth.

If you pencil whip the English language hard enough, anything with lungs or stomachs is not alive. A similar line of argument would lead to all saprophytes not being alive, which is pretty ridiculous. Wood eating mushrooms are not alive because they rely on the environment to provide all their wood dietary needs. Yeah OK whatever.

Re: Radical Study Suggests Life on Earth Arose Twice

#76

The metabolic science is really cool. The conclusion that life arose twice requires you to buy that proto-cells that grew on these vents and needed those metallic surfaces to survive didn’t count as “life”. Then, free living cells, bacteria and archea, could maybe be argued as having independent paths as they plugged the gaps in their metabolism independently. Same DNA/RNA, same proteins. Same broad rules of metaboli…

> The conclusion that life arose twice requires you to buy that proto-cells that grew on these vents and needed those metallic surfaces to survive didn’t count as “life”.

Well, sure. For it to ever be possible to say "life arose more than once," one must decide where the boundary between life and non-life is. After all, every precursor of life arose all at once, in the Big Bang!

Re: Radical Study Suggests Life on Earth Arose Twice

#77
post #24
post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Until we get any tangible proof of life outside Earth, there is no difference

Actually I don't think there is life outside of Earth. I think we are truly alone in this universe.

Its an exciting time to be alive because as of recently we certainly can detect planetary atmosphere major components out to at least 700 or so light years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WASP-39b

There are astronomers actively working on minor component, more biologically interesting spectrographs like chlorophyll rather than spectrograms of carbon dioxide. That'll be harder to detect and limited to shorter ranges.

At some point, probably very soon, like less than a decade, we'll be able to definitively state that we have atmospheric data in an onion layer shaped shell where we have unequivocable proof that out to X lightyears from Earth there's no planetary scale chlorophyll higher than a minimal level aka there's no earth-like plants on that planet. That shell will likely expand over time. Or, perhaps we will find a forested, or at least algae covered, planet, some light years away, which would be very interesting indeed.

The question is rapidly changing from a purely philosophical belief to scientific observation, like right now, in real time, in the 2020s. What a cool time to be alive!

This follows old, old stuff from radio astronomy along the lines of how far away could a 1960s radio telescope realistically detect life on earth. The answer IIRC was not very far LOL. But there's been a lot of progress in radio astronomy, etc.

With respect to fermi filters etc people need to pay attention to how far away the Earth can be detected using radio telescopes. That distance has imploded since the end of analog UHF TV broadcasts. We still broadcast absolute swill, in fact more than ever, but digital detection range is much lower than analog AM carrier detection range from analog TV. The Earth has, to some extent, recently gone radio-quiet, which is interesting because we are still here, in fact more of us than ever. So WRT fermi filters of not being able to detect civilizations, disappearance of 1950s/1960s signals does not necessarily imply disappearance of civilization. Another example, if any aliens are watching the high altitude freon contamination of our atmosphere they're likely really confused right about now.

Re: Radical Study Suggests Life on Earth Arose Twice

#78
post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> As I see it life was clearly designed by God. Which one? There are so many to choose from... And what created that God? I know it's turtles all the way down but still want to know.

I believe that according to Catholic and Orthodox thought, God is Being itself. If you're familiar with Plato and Aristotle, God is the Form of Being. If not, I guess you could say God is Being as a noun, or God is where the idea of Being comes from. God exists because he is existence itself. (He is also Life and Love, in the same way)

Interesting comment. FWIW the idea of God as Being accords with Spinoza's philosophy, which in turn accords with Greek philosophy and ultimately accords with biblical philosophy. These are roots among the many roots of our modern world.

What we learn from these philosophies is that God is necessarily the author of life and love, but as well hatred and destruction. Worth noting that the latter are most (but not exclusively) expressed in human conduct. Among all animals humans have the most developed ability to decide how to act. That ability is not absolute, often enough logic or reasoning is bypassed and emotion rules.

Naturally cognition is not unbounded, we are limited by constraints of our construction. It means aspects of the universe are unknowable, we can't know what we're missing.

But knowing what we can know is an obligation of our privileged existence. As knowledge expands it exposes the utter complexity of all things emerging from common fundamental processes.

Seeing what is seen, a human may for a moment get a glimpse of the hand that binds everything together. That's a gift if there ever was one.

Re: Radical Study Suggests Life on Earth Arose Twice

#80

The metabolic science is really cool. The conclusion that life arose twice requires you to buy that proto-cells that grew on these vents and needed those metallic surfaces to survive didn’t count as “life”. Then, free living cells, bacteria and archea, could maybe be argued as having independent paths as they plugged the gaps in their metabolism independently. Same DNA/RNA, same proteins. Same broad rules of metaboli…

The paper claims LUCA doesn't count as life because it still depended on its environment to metabolize.

It's kind of interesting that there's parasites that arguably don't meet this definition either. Looking it up: Chlamydia can't reproduce independently; relies on its host's metabolism. Microsporidia can't make ATP on its own. Are these "life"?

Post reply on HN