[MinisuipGaicai]

This is about Earth’s early history and the origin of life, and the Moon’s part in that.


I knew this, you may not: according to Science, early in the Earth’s history, when it was still an inferno of molten agglomeratery, it was struck by a Mars-sized planet (which They have named “Thea”), which smashed the Earth into almost, but not-quite, oblivion.

It did however, shred and peel-off much of the Earth’s surface layer, which formed a disk of rocky debris around the newly re-melted Earth. (I know you can’t imagine two planets colliding. But, imagine it!)

This disk of accumulated Earth (and Thea) rubble quickly accreted (was sucked-together-by-gravity) into The Moon.

So - a random cosmic traffic accident left us with the Earth and Moon we know today.

Except that at that time, the newly formed Moon was only 15 000 miles away from Earth. (It’s 240 000 miles away now). So what?

So the tidal forces of a Moon that large, that close, meant that Earth’s new oceans were sucked up and down at hundreds of miles an hour, over thousands of kilometres of terrain. Every day, on every coast, it was the world’s biggest Tsunami. Every day.

Freaky to imagine, eh? That our world was ever like that. Science says it was.

So what?

So here’s what I didn’t know: according to some, it was the hellish tides that washed ‘nutrients’, minerals, into the sea - that allowed life to begin on Earth.

Quote, ”…without this level of minerals and nutrients, it would not have been possible for life to develop in the ocean.”

So, They are saying, no Moon, to super-tides, no super-tides, no life.


This’d be a bit of a new factor in the Drake Equation? If this it true, it makes life-as-we-know-if a couple of orders of magnitude less likely to be found Elsewhere.

What do you think?

[Kinds Of Pain Meds]

What do you think?

The last three variables of the Drake Equation are riddled with controversy. Until we are capable of creating life from inorganic molecules or actually can positively identify alien life (which did not seed life on earth) then I reckon its safer assuming we are a freak event as opposed to a likely occurrence in this universe......"Here am I floating round my tin can, Far above the Moon, Planet Earth is blue, And there's nothing I can do." :-))

[RedImmik]

[QUOTE]which did not seed life on earth[/QUOTE

of course it did

The ORIGINAL seeds of LIFE ate rock.. and fed on radioactivity and these microbes can travel through space....

[GlictStiply]

[QUOTE=Zarkov;63235] The ORIGINAL seeds of LIFE ate rock.. and fed on radioactivity and these microbes can travel through space.... Tough little blighters. :-))

[rootoronpunty]

[QUOTE=Zarkov;63235] which did not seed life on earth[/QUOTE

of course it did

The ORIGINAL seeds of LIFE ate rock.. and fed on radioactivity and these microbes can travel through space.... I'll assume you meant 'survive in space'. Piggybacking a comet or asteroid is a little short of intentional space travel.

[xesvideo]

yes, indeed

But I expect they could be sent ballistic via a volcanic eruption
what a way to travel

Or as already happened on this planet
sent via atomic explosions....

Biologists call this process seeding

[avitalporatova]

Planetary collisions may be more common than you may think. Although, getting just the right outcome to produce super tide? Just another unlikely variable in a whole raft of them, that add up to a minuscule chance of life spawning independently. That's why I like the idea of panspermia as a means for a living universe. Much easier for life to survive/spread from extremely rare abiogenisis events, than to have each infestation come about by itself.

[espenijij]

the problem with panspermia is getting out of the nursery. the sperm has to reach the escape velocity of the cradle. and to make it even harder it then has to come within coo-ee of the next cradle to be captured. to my mind i think that is more unlikely.

[soajerwaradaY]

the problem with panspermia is getting out of the nursery. the sperm has to reach the escape velocity of the cradle. and to make it even harder it then has to come within coo-ee of the next cradle to be captured. to my mind i think that is more unlikely.

Planetary collisions (again)?
Intelligent colonisation and "weed" transportation?

Just two possibilities I can come up with in a few seconds

[Appeselve]

With Curiosity at work and the various asteroid investigations under way, we should have some indication of the Panspermia question relatively soon. My head is way to clogged with flu to make any argument one way or the other. The tenaciousness of the flu's these days does have me leaning in favor of Panspermia however.

[SmuffNuSMaxqh]

The tenaciousness of the flu's these days does have me leaning in favor of Panspermia however.

Sounds nasty....The weather will hopefully clear things up soon Postpoc. It was a great spring day in Brissie today. I hope you took advantage of it.

[Goalseexere]

No on-topic replies so far. I'll come back in a week.

[amimabremiBit]

Apart from the reference to my flu, all the replies are on topic(Zarkov always wobbles a bit, but that's Zarkov). None delve deeply into a question that is not only contentious, but lacking in strong data one way or the other. It is also the weekend and expecting answers to be firing on all cylinders is a bit Asperger. There isn't another subject that will keep you satisfied in the meantime Paul H?

[shkarpet$]

it was the hellish tides that washed ‘nutrients’, minerals, into the sea - that allowed life to begin on Earth.

Quote, ”…without this level of minerals and nutrients, it would not have been possible for life to develop in the ocean.”

So, They are saying, no Moon, to super-tides, no super-tides, no life. I understand that some people also speculate about the importance of tides washing the other way as well: creating many large warm wet pools on land but near the sea, to be washed in again later.

Of course, as I'm sure you know there are many ideas about the precise mechanism of biogenesis on Earth.

This’d be a bit of a new factor in the Drake Equation? Heh, I mentioned that the other day.
(Not that it was original with me.)

[Lapsiks]

I had actually thought the Thea incident occurred before the accumulation of a substantial ocean. I also would have thought that an impact of this magnitude would have caused any accumulated ocean to disperse into space. Earths magnetic field surely would not have remained at strength through this event, leaving atmospheric compounds at the mercy of the Sun's forces???

[illiderob]

both the theia collision and the oceans' formation (believed) occurred in the hadean period.

[immoceefe]

”…without this level of minerals and nutrients, it would not have been possible for life to develop in the ocean.”

There is much speculation regarding the conditions surrounding the origin of life. A quote such as that above IMO is very bold and discounts a number of valid current theories.

For example a contemporary view held by many is that life evolved in a restricted time period between 3800 and 3770 Ma following the ending of the bolide impact event on earth around 3800Ma. Life was hypothesized to emerge from anoxygenic phototrophic bacteria that evolved over 10^5 to 10^6 years at submarine hydrothermal vents which issued enriched concentrations of CO^2 into the ocean. These conditions support rapid colonisation as observed in the current day dispersal of bacteria along mid-oceanic ridges. Current vent colonisation rates supports the notion that if life did originate at submarine hydrothermal vents in the Archean dispersal across the globe would have been rapid due to the prevalence of hydrothermal vents during this period.

...... so I think that given that there is an abundance of competing theories, and that we haven't yet been able create life yet from inorganic compounds, I would treat definitive statements about abiogenesis with suspicion. :-))

[ONLINEPHARMACYCHEAPILLS]

both the theia collision and the oceans' formation (believed) occurred in the hadean period.

So on the one hand collisions in the early solar system were enough to turn mineral to glass, but this collision left an ocean behind?

[TineSeign]

There is though the simple fact that tides do influence and impact upon life. It isn't total supposition that they have always done so.

[ireleda]

Someone mention Panspermia?...Yep, I quite like the idea also.
With regards to the Moon and super tides etc, I'm not so sure about.
When did Earth obtain its Oceans?
And since it obtained its Oceans after it solidified presumably, wouldn't the nutirients and minerals Paul spoke of have already been there?
I mean I imagine the makeup of the Earth's surface to be relatively evenly spread.

With regards to the Moon and it's formation when the Earth was still partly molten I don't have too much argument with.
The question is what came first...the Earth's collision with a planetary size body when it was still partly molten, [and consequently the Moon] or its Oceans.
But then would not have the Oceans boiled away from the partly molten Earth?

Science also at one stage theorised that for life to arise on Earth it needed a largish Moon to help stabilise its tilt. Without the Moon, the Earth's tilt would have been far larger and consequently conditions different.
This has since been largely discarded.