Did Life Start in a Pond, Not Oceans? : Discovery News

There was very little free oxygen in earth's early atmosphere, in fact, not faith, we can date the time oxygen built up enough in the atmosphere to the point where iron in the oceans was able to oxydize creating the well known geologic features known as red beds.

First life was anaerobic, living without oxygen.

smithichie Thanks hence the Key, that so many do not seem to comprehend With the plethora of " what Ifs " , here i will bring your attention to three(3):

1) Did Gravity pre exist the BB, if it did the BB could not take Place, if NOT then the rotational spin that coagulation of materials is so dependent on, would not be, so no " us "

SO then Gravity had to be " turned off miraculously for MILLISECONDS for the BB to take place then Turned on " at the opportune time " so that directional spin to seed.

2) Millers experiment for the creation of Amino Acids, recall that the " sparks " where a fundamental part, those sparks represented Lightning, but the same " sparks " that created the amino acid in one Strike, also turned the amino acid to " tar like mush " on the next strike, so the amino acids once created by the first spark HAD to be removed from any future events.

How does that happen in a real word where a lightning creates a " viable amino acid and then is negated from turning it into a tar mush? " So a point of " Blind Faith " it DID happen?

3) Is the point that you so well pointed out, for the amino acids to be ably to become a group that would lead to life it had to be in an anaerobic environment, so when you have WATER what are the chemical compositions of water?

Eagle: I don't understand (1). Could you spell it out more clearly? What is BB and what does gravity have to do with the creation of life?

(2) What is this tar you're talking about?

(3) You do realize the oxygen that makes water is bound to hydrogen atoms? It's not free to be metabolized, hence the need for early life to be anaerobic.

AG99 Sure BB=Big Bang

" What is BB and what does gravity have to do with the creation of life? " Simple As stated above and as You can verify, when Singularity existed in a give " Point " its mass would have been larger then the largest Black Hole now assumed to exist or known to exist, and that theory states " Gravitational effect of the Black Hole is so great that NOTHING can escape it nor even light (photons).

So then the Big Bang, could not have happned with Gravity on " ON "

" (2) What is this tar you're talking about? " Why not take the time to look up MIllers amino experimentation? Here is a Helping Hand :: http://www.chem.duke.edu/~jds/cruise_chem/Exobiology/miller.html

3 ) Evaporation and electrochemical reactions can break that Bond and even in water we know that that Bond breaks and changes, therefore free oxygen can be pressent.

Eagle: The link you provided didn't say anything about tar. Instead it speculated amino acids came from space. Whatever, they seem easy enough to come by. Perhaps they were deposited by comets or perhaps they were produced by lightning in the ocean or pools of water. Subsequent strikes may have produced this tar business you speak of, but it doesn't seem enough to wipe out all the amino acids being produced.

And while free oxygen can be present in water, I'd have to ask how much. I'm not a chemist so I don't know how prevalent free oxygen would be in a proto-environment. Is it enough to make much of a difference to anaerobic bacteria? And aren't the global rust deposits explained by the sudden increase of free oxygen brought about by a new breed of aerobic microorganism?

As for the BB, as I understand it, it was an explosion of space and energy. Gravity is a property of space, shaped by matter and energy, so I don't see why it would be "switched off" to allow for a BB. It would be part of the BB itself. Comparing it to a black hole isn't very accurate.

Life is known as " The University of learning " and I Am glad as i am sure YOU are to be in it..so keep reading, am always amazed with changing in teachings over time.

If you do not understand how Gravity is a function of energy then i recommend you do some further up reading on the BB and also " Protoplanet formation " I am sure you will find it enthralling.

Huh? That's no answer at all. If you don't want to discuss the topic seriously, then say so. Implying I'm too uneducated to understand you is hardly going to win you any supporters.

Eagle,

Before the big bang would be a bit meaningless, as there'd be no matter. If there is no matter, then there can be no time. Time is the distance between events, and events require matter.

So, yes, the big bang creating the matter, eventually formed that gravity. For a brief time there was no matter, but only energy which would soon start coalescing into matter.

It's really all covered in cosmology. But gravity would start taking hold around 10 ^ -12th seconds. See the Quark Epoch, and the effect would become greater as matter forms during nucleosynthesis (at most, over the next 20 minutes).

And, regarding lightning strikes, well, it happens all the time in nature. Lightning could hit a wet rockwall, and the material that was struck would continue to slide down the wall. The odds of lightning hitting the exact same point twice would be unlikely, but the odds of it striking the same MOVING target twice would be rather improbable, wouldn't it?

And the Miller-Urey was a demonstration of amino acids forming from conditions that would be likely in parts of the pre-biotic world (as then understood). We now have about 40 different methods for their formation (from clays, to silicates, to thermal vents and so on).

See Mass defect and entropy

Eagle, ok. Yes.. looked it up. It meant the same thing it did when I studied in back in the 1980s.

How does that apply?

In that what you assume was before the BB, is just that an assumption, pure energy cannot go BANG, so something else must have existed for it to go explosive, and the assumption that gravity could not exist before BB is again a " dogma " based idea, not a reality.

But since you already knew about Mass Defect, tell me how does that tie in with e=mc2 and why have i stated oft that in reality it is e-mc2 Minus 1% ?

In that what you assume was before the BB, is just that an assumption, pure energy cannot go BANG, so something else must have existed for it to go explosive, and the assumption that gravity could not exist before BB is again a " dogma " based idea, not a reality.

The Big Bang didn't go BANG.. It was an expansion.. And btw, Supernova's will disagree with you.

Before the big bang would be a bit meaningless, as there'd be no matter. If there is no matter, then there can be no time. Time is the distance between events, and events require matter.

A pure vacuum is considered the ground state of matter. :)

how does that tie in with e=mc2

Matter and energy are the same thing.

for the amino acids to be ably to become a group that would lead to life it had to be in an anaerobic environment, so when you have WATER what are the chemical compositions of water?

Why can a fish suffocate in water even though water is made up of oxygen? Simple, the oxygen making up water is linked with hydrogen and is not 'free oxygen' and is thus unable to be used for respiration or oxidizing iron. The time when free oxygen built up to the point where it was able to oxidize iron is marked in the striking red rocks and soils seen around the world.

As for the big bang and the origins of life on earth, they are two events separated by some 9 billion years of time and really doesn't matter all that much in the discussion of life starting on earth.

Eagle,

The Big Bang is called a bang because it's an explosive-rate for expansion of space (or space-time). Energy can start moving outward, or, in fact, in any direction.

Because e still is mc^2. It's the description of mass and energy itself. The energy isn't missing, it's not gone. You add two things, like two bowling balls together. But to put them together you need to energy. When you release that, you get the energy back.

If you drop an electron, you get precisely the energy of the drop out as a photon of that amount of energy (from the drop). You can slam that photon back in and the electron pops up again

It's rather why it's called QUANTUM physics -- every is based on the quanta. You don't get electrons in half orbitals, nor spectral lines in odd places.

Eagle Averro - No matter what your reason for debating, keep on looking stuff up for yourself and investigating with a thirst for the truth. Any reason is a good reason to learn; I have learned a ton just investigating and looking up concepts mentioned on Newsvine.

Everyone should keep learning all throughout their lives, there is always something new.

MarkD-555 well said that is the key of life!!