Did Life Develop Shortly After Big Bang and Get Spread Throughout The Universe?

I woke up to a very interesting paper by Gibson, Wickramasinghe, and Schild that appeared on the ArXiv last night and suggests that life most likely developed shortly after the big bang and was then spread throughout the universe.   They call this the biological big bang. (And at this point I should say that universe here means the "local universe" that was in casual contact between 2-8 million years after the big bang.)

I will show some plots and quotes below, but before I do I want to give the main arguments of the paper:

1.  Complex life originating on this earth is very improbable and scientists who believe such a thing are dismissing how unlikely it is.

2.  However after the big bang there was a brief period, between 2 and 8 million years after the big bang, where the formation of life becomes highly probable for these reasons:

• The entire universe (not just one planet) was the in the critical temperature range (273-647K) for the formation of water and complex organic molecules like RNA.
• The first supernovas had already by this point ejected the necessary elements and chemical compounds needed for the formation of complex organic molecules.
• The elevated pressure and density of the universe at this stage contributed to very high reaction rates such that extremely unlikely molecules form quickly.
• The elevated pressure and density of the universe at this stage further kept the majority of the universes in constant communication such that a survival of the fittest scenario could play out.

3. Life is spread throughout the universe by comets and meteors providing the seeds of life to otherwise sterile planets.

4. Life did not originate on earth but came to this sterile earth from another sector of the universe through these comets and meteors.

5.  The fundamental building blocks of life might actually be the same throughout the whole universe. (With the reminder that here I mean the local section in causal contact between 2-8 millions years after the big bang.)

6.  There is evidence for extra-tereestrial life.

Now, I'm not a bio-physicist so experts can correct me if any of the above is inaccurate, but I'm pretty sure those are the main ideas and conclusions discussed in the paper.

Quotes and plots for more details:

Gibson et al. starts out with the following questions:

Why should Earth be the only planet with life? Astrophysical spectra show dust clouds dominated by polycyclic- aromatic-hydrocarbons (PAH), strongly indicating that biological processes are commonplace in the Galaxy. The theory of cometary panspermia provides the logical mechanism for distribution of the seeds of life, but how are sufficient numbers of comets and meteors formed? How, when, and where did life begin in the first place, how widely is it distributed, and are life forms likely to be similar everywhere?

To which they respond:

In the present paper we explore aspects of this HGD (hydro-gravitational-dynamics) model in greater detail, suggesting that the conditions within ultra-high pressure interiors of primordial planets at 647K provide optimal conditions for life’s first origin. Given the large cosmological volumes available and the numerous panspermial mechanisms for communication of life templates provided by HGD cosmology, first life most plausibly appeared and was scattered among 10^80 available planetary interiors produced by the big bang in the time period t = 2-8 Myr. We term this period the biological big bang.

And here are some plots:

In this plot above, the authors contend that the supernovas, in the case type II but elsewhere they discuss type Ia, ejected the material needed for life in time for their "biological big bang" to begin.

In this above plot they show their timeline of the early universe.  Life begins at the "Goldilocks" temperatures and conditions and the necessary DNA/RNA molecules are carried away by comets.

This image is given as evidence for extra terrestrial life like ours.  It is an image of "Cyanobacteria fossils observed by Richard Hoover in Orgueil and Murchison meteorites."  In their paper they give evidence that the Red Rain organism is extra-terrestrial.

One more choice quote:

First life is assumed to have occurred on Earth since we see life everywhere and are taught to believe no convincing evidence exists for extraterrestrial life. Copernicus convinced the scientific community, and finally even the Vatican, that the Earth is not the center of the universe, and has recently been buried in hallowed ground. However, with respect to living organisms the scientific community remains in a pre-Copernican position, fiercely resisting concepts that DNA and many diseases and possibly antigens on Earth are continuously supplied by extraterrestrial sources. Because life exists profusely on Earth it is assumed that the formation of life must be a rather trivial matter, and that possibly life began spontaneously on this planet in several ways since life has existed from its beginning 4.6 Gyr ago. However, all laboratory attempts to create life have consis- tently failed and all serious attempts to model probabilities suggest they will always fail. Life chemistry is too complex to replicate with present technologies on human-life-time scales.

The standard Earth-based models for the origin of life, inspired by early suggestions of Haldane (1929) and Oparin (1957), are all based upon an unprovable article of faith. Faith comes in by pos- iting the existence of complex chemical pathways that are yet to be discovered, reaction networks that are somehow capable of bridging the difficult gap between chemistry and biology... Fred Hoyle in his classic book and lectures “Frontiers of Astronomy”, Maddox (2003), proposed the entire solar system as a better venue than Earth for the origin of life.

So again, if the paper is correct, it appears that life may have originated shortly after the big bang in a "biological big bang" and was then distributed throughout an otherwise sterile universe on planets like our own earth.

Carl H. Gibson, N. Chandra Wickramasinghe, & Rudolph E. Schild (2010). First life in primordial-planet oceans: the biological big bang Submitted to International Journal of Astrobiology. arXiv: 1009.1760v1

The Evolution Of Morality. (And Parallels With Language.)

Francisco J. Ayala is a biologist here at UC Irvine and recently became a member of the National Academy of Sciences (One of the highest honors than at scientist can achieve) and was awarded the 2010 Templeton Prize. (He is giving the $1.5 million prize money to UCI's science library.)

He has some recent papers discussing the evolution of morality among humans and I would like to focus on one point: the parallel he draws with the evolution of language:

    One needs to distinguish the capacity to have morality/language with the actual system of morality/language one uses.  He argues the ability to speak languages is something that has resulted from biological evolution.  All humans have the capacity to communicate using some language or another. However, exactly what language one happens to speak is not a result of biological evolution but a result of cultural evolution.


     He claims the story is exactly the same for morality.  Biological evolution gave humans the capacity to have a system of morality.  Three things evolved biologically that gave rise to this capacity: "(a) the ability to anticipate the consequences of one's own actions; (b) the ability to make value judgments; and (c) the ability to choose between alternative courses of action."

    However, the exact moral code each person follows using that capacity is derived from cultural evolution: "Moral norms are products of cultural evolution, not of biological evolution."  It is analogous to the statement: I can speak because of my biological makeup but I choose to speak English over Chinese mostly do to the culture I was raised in.

Thoughts?
   

Resurrecting Old Species, Life on Mars and The Suns.

Three news stories struck me as interesting:

Scientists Rebuild Wooly Mammoth Blood

Scientists have already "resurrected" an extinct goat through cloning.  Now, it looks like scientists have used ancient DNA of a Woolly Mammoth to rebuild the extinct creature's blood.

Look, I know I should be more skeptical, but I just may live to see the day when Jurassic Park is more of a reality.

NASA cites new evidence for life on Mars.

This is another one of those "I hope to see before I die" things.  I'm sure there is life outside of planet Earth.

It really doesn't make sense that there wouldn't be, unless you are a skeptical extremist.  I say extremist because on one hand the evidence supporting the idea is mounting (the above link is one example) and then there's that whole Copernican Revolution from which good scientists learn that they shouldn't consider this Earth as "the one special place in all the cosmos". (And the cosmos is pretty big might I add.)


Suns to wear 'Los Suns' jerseys for Game 2

This is not a political statement.  No matter where you stand on this law, you have to admit the Suns wearing "Los Suns" for Cinco De Mayo in light of Arizona's new immigration law is pretty funny.

A Favorite Anti-Science Argument: The Strawman.

I hope readers of this blog become convinced this is the proper way to do science:

1. Come up with a theory about nature.
2. Work out the testable predictions of this theory. (Sometimes this takes time ...string theory...)
3. Verify the testable predictions falsify your theory if found incorrect.
4. Test the actual predictions.
5. If the theory fails the tests, reject the theory. (Or the part that fails.)
6. If the theory passes all tests, and there isn't a more sensible explanation, be willing to defend the theory as probably being correct.
   

Notice I emphasized the word actual in number three.  This takes me to my point.  I recently read a comment given as proof evolution isn't true:

Nowhere has the watchful eye of science observed horses give birth to a non-horse.

This "proof" against evolution is what they call a strawman argument. They set up something that looks like a real prediction, (but isn't) knock it down and say: "Ha, no evolution."

Nobody is benefited by these tactics. If people were successful in proving or disproving scientific theories based on strawman arguments science would be completely un-beneficial to mankind.  There is always someone clever enough to build a strawman that "disproves" anything: classical physics, modern physics, chemistry, biology, and you name it. Not only do such tactics have no place in science, they are dangerous.


Population thinking.  What evolution actually predicts is:  organisms do not live independently of other organisms but rather in large populations.  No large changes happen to a single organism.  Instead, small changes spread gradually throughout populations over many generations.  The actual prediction becomes: given enough time and other factors, steady gene changes cause different sectors of populations to slowly diverge until they have become different species.

This prediction is confirmed in every place you look: the fossil record, genetics, comparative anatomy, geographical distribution, etc...  These are the types of predictions evolution stands or falls on.  (As it should be since these are the real predictions.)

In short, though strawmans sound clever, the world would not be better off if we used them to prove or disprove scientific theories.  The time-tested prescription that is beneficial is the outline I made at the beginning of the post.  Stick to it, avoid strawmans, and we might actually make some progress.

Aquantic Ape Theory

Here is a uniquely interesting TED talk: Elaine Morgan says we evolved from aquatic apes.

My reaction to this talk went through 4 stages:

1. I laughed at the idea that some old lady wanted to give such a talk. I was excited to watch it to enjoy some comic relief.
2. I soon realized this "old lady" is actually very smart and raised some interesting points I have never considered. Interesting enough that I think they do deserve some serious contemplation.
3. I then reverted to my "the science community isn't a conspiracy. If there was really something to a theory mainstream science wouldn't ignore it."
4. I still feel like #3, but also admit this lady has me wanting to learn more about what is going on here.
   

Anyways, I think you will find this "old lady" to in fact be very interesting regardless of whether her theory holds any weight.

Jurassic Park: One Step Closer To A Reality

I'm sure most of you know about the movie, and or book, Jurassic Park where dinosaurs are brought back from extinction by using their preserved DNA and cloning them.

Well, for the first time in known history, scientists have successful brought back an extinct animal via cloning: The Pyrenean ibex. The animal did not survive long as it had some complications with its lungs, but it is a major milestone.

Nobody can say how long, but since we do have preserved DNA for extinct mammoths and some dinosaurs, Jurassic Park is becoming more and more a reality.

Open Sourcing Biology? Good idea or dangerous?

I saw a very interesting piece on the Newshour by PBS. I will let you look into the finer details but here is what is going on in a nutshell from what I can gather:

1. We understand several biological structures and have catalogued their properties.
2. Experts take these catalogued structures and through biological engineering form new structures with specialized properties to do things like cure diseases or create biofuels.
3. Various people want to "open source" this: They want to make the catalogues publicly available and provide education to help any layman become a genetic/biological engineer.
4. In theory, like any open source movement, hopefully this will expand research that couldn't have been accomplished in any other way.
5. Critics fear people in their basements will do some really controversial, unethical and dangerous stuff because now all the tools are provided.

What do I think? First, Linux is evidence that if you "provide the code" 100 times more people will work to make the world better then will try to do mischief. (And the world is better because of open source.) Second, truly evil people who want to create some new deadly biotoxin will figure out how to do it without this "open sourcing". But ultimatley, nothing is certain.

I personally would love to try it. I would love to learn how to take some known bacteria or something and figure out some new way to alter it to accomplish some goal. It would be intelligently designed. :)

Most Planets May Be Seeded With Life?

Astronomers have found a building block of RNA in a star forming region of the Milky Way. This may imply that when planets and solar systems form they may already be seeded with the building blocks of life.

From Science:

Astronomers have detected a building block of RNA floating within the hot, compact core of a massive star-forming region in the Milky Way. The molecule appears to have formed with all of the other stuff that makes up planets, suggesting that many other worlds are seeded with some of life's ingredients right from birth.

Using the IRAM radio dish array in France, a team of European astronomers has detected glycolaldehyde--a simple sugar that makes up ribose, one of the constituents of RNA--within the core of what appears to be a coalescing disk of dust and gas in a star-forming region called G31.41+0.31, about 26,000 light-years away.

The discovery is significant for two reasons. First, G31.41+0.31 lies far away from the radiation-filled center of the Milky Way, so if any biological processes start up there, they will have a chance to establish themselves. Second, the abundance of glycolaldehyde in the G31.41+0.31 cloud suggests that the molecule is "common throughout star-forming regions," says astrophysicist and co-author Serena Viti of University College London. The implication is that wherever there is starmaking and planet formation going on, organic building blocks could be assembling as well.

Maybe so, but radio astronomer Karl Menten of the Max Planck Institute for Radio Astronomy in Bonn, Germany, says we're still a long way from observing life taking hold. In our own planet's case, for example, he says, "It is not clear to what extent complex interstellar molecules survived the violent forces accompanying Earth's initial formation."

Inner Life of a Cell

At Irvine we have pizza talks on Friday's where professors acquaint graduate students with their research.

The talk today was given on how nanotechnology is alive and well inside cells. We would like to learn from the smallest constituents of biology how to make technology work at the nanoscale level.

To better understand how efficient the "nanotechnology" is of a cell we watched a short movie called "Inner Life of a Cell." This is one of the coolest biological movies I have ever scene. The first clip is a short version with just music. (Like a trailer.) The second is an 8 minute narated sketch of how a leukocyte works. Again, if you haven't scene them they are cool.

Though I won't go into the field, learning how to use "cellular technology" to motivate nanotechnology is really awesome stuff!!!