I find it fascinating that abiotic chemical/physical cycles are considered an integral part of early life (e.g. if your nutrient transport is environmental osmosis/tides/whatever, you're still alive but the larger environment is an integral part of your biochemistry).
From that perspective the freshwater cycle is still a major component of biochemistry (bulk ion transport) on Earth, despite arguably being a physical state change and not chemistry per se.
The Sun provides photons that most cells need in order to live but Desulforudis audaxviator have decoupled themselves from that source of energy. In theory they could outlast the solar system or hitch a ride on a rogue planet.
>The Sun provides photons that most cells need in order to live but Desulforudis audaxviator have decoupled themselves from that source of energy. In theory they could outlast the solar system or hitch a ride on a rogue planet.
I suspect it's the opposite; first there was life and then it evolved to use sunlight.
How did life arise on earth right after the rocks stopped being red hot? The only reasonable theory in my opinion is that the original life forms were inside the rocks on some jetsam that wasn't totally molten and if you go back further, lived off a little heat and water underground, quite possibly on a "rogue planet".
One reason this seems obvious to me is that there must be orders of magnitude more planets without stars than with. Just like there are more asteroids than planets, more dim red stars than sun-like stars, etc.
The other reason is that I think it helps a great deal with the Fermi paradox. If life just zapped into existence on Earth, 4.5 billion years ago, then it could've happened at any time, anywhere else, over the prior (almost) 10 billion years or so.
But if it took most of that time, since the Big Bang, to develop what we think of as the most primitive life, in the much larger arena of rubble or rogue planets in deep space, then it looks more like we are the earliest life that could develop, and that's why we wouldn't have been overrun by space invaders.
Looking the exponential development of life, even if you choose somewhat arbitrary milestones, it's basically a self-similar curve; each "step" takes a fraction of the previous one. Going backwards, each step should take the corresponding multiple. The great oxidation event was about 2.5 billion years ago. The first life we know about was about twice that. It seems to me a near perfect fit, timing wise, for the origin of that life to be about twice that ago, rather than suddenly arise from nothing in a few million years.
What it comes down to is I think creationists who are skeptical of abiogenesis really have a good point, about how the simplest life is unbelievably complex, in spite of not having a viable theory to explain it. But I think the answer is staring us in the face.
And of course panspermia isn't new or my idea particularly, but what bugs me is instead of saying there needs to be more evidence, it should be the default assumption. Our environment is just not representative of most of the universe even if you ignore non-baryonic dark matter.
> And of course panspermia isn't new or my idea particularly, but what bugs me is instead of saying there needs to be more evidence, it should be the default assumption. Our environment is just not representative of most of the universe even if you ignore non-baryonic dark matter.
One might dismiss this by invoking the anthropic principle (a blunt argument, sorry). Most of the universe is void, and planets with no sun have little energy being tossed into their closed system. It seems adding whatever the hell can be found on asteroids into a planet bombarded by energy (a star being most convenient) is a necessary catalyst for life.
I'm sure I haven't thought about this as much as you have. What makes you think life can be formed without the presence of a star? Is it simply how much more not-near-a-star places there are?
If panspermia is true, I think it’s most likely life evolved on a planet orbiting a star. It just seems to me that the energy availability and chances of having liquid water are more conducive.
That planet then was destroyed or fragments broken off, scattering life enriched matter into star forming nebulae. This seeded more planets, which then broke up scattering more life enriched matter. After several cycles of this you’d end up with life, or at least sophisticated organic molecule enriched matter all over the galaxy.
>It just seems to me that the energy availability and chances of having liquid water are more conducive.
It seems to me the very concept of a "habitable zone" tends to imply liquid water on the surface of a planet is implausible/rare. There's a whole bunch of additional requirements besides distance and temperature, which some people think makes life in red dwarf systems doubtful, and even looking at earth's history, surface dwelling life seems precarious with all the extinction events.
And we have Enceladus as an example of the alternative. There must be orders of magnitude more bodies like this, with undersea oceans and some internal warmth, than bodies with surface conditions conducive to life. Perhaps life needs an environment like earth to develop fully, but if 99.x% of the potential habitat for the most basic life is indifferent to our particular conditions, then it seems to me overwhelmingly likely that's where it started.
> despite arguably being a physical state change and not chemistry per se.
It remove salt from the water but more importantly move it to the top of mountains, which adds energy into the system.
Chemistry happens when the water disolves sediments and carry them back to the oceans.
From that perspective the freshwater cycle is still a major component of biochemistry (bulk ion transport) on Earth, despite arguably being a physical state change and not chemistry per se.
The Sun provides photons that most cells need in order to live but Desulforudis audaxviator have decoupled themselves from that source of energy. In theory they could outlast the solar system or hitch a ride on a rogue planet.