[ExI] Panbiogenesis news
avant at sollegro.com
Fri Mar 6 22:41:56 UTC 2015
----- Original Message -----
> From: BillK <pharos at gmail.com>
> To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
> Sent: Friday, March 6, 2015 7:21 AM
> Subject: Re: [ExI] Panbiogenesis news
> On 6 March 2015 at 14:29, Stuart LaForge wrote:
>> About ten years ago, I discussed on this list the possibility that life
>> started *everywhere* in the universe in the epoch following the big bang.
>> Well now it looks like a professional astrobiologist at Harvard has caught
>> onto the idea:
> This paper was much discussed when originally published and the
> reaction was that it was speculative, but very unlikely.
Well yes. Any discussion of the origins of life are necessarily
speculative. Unlikely? Life itself is seems rather unlikely. The sheer
negentropy required is mind boggling. This is why despite knowing the
chemical constituents of life and having access to them, nobody has
yet been able to put them all together in a test tube and create de
novo life. I came up with panbiogenesis to explain this empirical
recalcitrance of biogenesis without having to resort to some
metaphysical "vital spark". If the current physical milieu does not
allow biogenesis to occur, then biogenesis must have occurred when the
physics itself was "different". And it so happens that the early
universe being warmer, denser, lower entropy, and full of free energy
fits the bill.
> The warm period was only c. 2 million years. Not long enough to evolve life.
> Lots of radiation from the early universe.
> If any early solar systems existed, there would be a heavy bombardment
> Lack of heavy elements generated from stellar evolution.
Loeb might have made the mistake of trying to pin down the time too
precisely. I don't think it happened quite that early since life could
not have formed before carbon and oxygen atoms did. But there was
still plenty of negentropy left after the first stars formed and went
supernova in the first few hundred million years after the big bang.
The first stars were 100-1000 solar mass monsters that would have
raced through their life cycle in a few million years spewing the
stuff of life across the cosmos.
As far as how long life took form once the ingredients were present,
it might have been pretty darn quick like a catalyzed chemical
reaction. Incidentally the criticism by the blog you referenced is
inconsistent. You can't have heavy bombardment in the absence of heavy
More information about the extropy-chat