Evidence Of Liquid Water In Comets Reveals Possible Origin Of Life

mercurial

mercurial

MyBB Legend
Joined
Jun 12, 2007
Messages
40,900
Reaction score
2,693
Location
/\/¯¯¯¯¯\/\
ScienceDaily (July 31, 2009) — Comets have contained vast amounts of liquid water in their interiors during the first million years of their formation, a new study claims.

The watery environment of early comets, together with the vast quantity of organics already discovered in comets, would have provided ideal conditions for primitive bacteria to grow and multiply. So argue Professor Chandra Wickramasinghe and his colleagues at the Cardiff Centre for Astrobiology in a paper published in the International Journal of Astrobiology.

The Cardiff team has calculated the thermal history of comets after they formed from interstellar and interplanetary dust approximately 4.5 billion years ago. The formation of the solar system itself is thought to have been triggered by shock waves that emanated from the explosion of a nearby supernova. The supernova injected radioactive material such as Aluminium-26 into the primordial solar system and some became incorporated in the comets. Professor Chandra Wickramasinghe together with Drs Janaki Wickramasinghe and Max Wallis claim that the heat emitted from radioactivity warms initially frozen material of comets to produce subsurface oceans that persist in a liquid condition for a million years.

Professor Wickramasinghe said: "These calculations, which are more exhaustive than any done before, leaves little doubt that a large fraction of the 100 billion comets in our solar system did indeed have liquid interiors in the past.

Comets in recent times could also liquefy just below their surfaces as they approach the inner solar system in their orbits. Evidence of recent melting has been discovered in recent pictures of comet Tempel 1 taken by the "Deep Impact" probe in 2005."

The existence of liquid water in comets gives added support for a possible connection between life on Earth and comets. The theory, known as cometary panspermia, pioneered by Chandra Wickramasinghe and the late Sir Fred Hoyle argues the case that life was introduced to Earth by comets.
Click to expand...

Source
 
Seems that this would apply to very large ice comets. I would suggest that comets below a certain size, would not be ice only, but rather ice covering metal/rock, to give the comet like effects. Also by being very large comets, approaches towards the sun, would have minimal on core heating, otherwise the approach would cause the core waters to expand and rupture the surface, destroying the comet, possibly on it's first pass around the sun. Of course, if it stayed in the Oort Cloud, then this would not happen,
 
Last edited:
Water is good for life once it has emerged. Why is it good for abiogenesis? Water breaks up polypeptides, DNA and RNA (Le Chatelier's principle) where there are not mechanisms keeping these structures in tact.
 
Last edited:
this is good news... and it's hope for a new home once earth is destroyed.
 
Balstrome said:
would have minimal on core heating, otherwise the approach would cause the core waters to expand and rupture the surface, destroying the comet, possibly on it's first pass around the sun.
Click to expand...

Funny thing about water, it's a very contrary substance. Contrary to the laws of physics, it expands when it freezes and contracts again when it melts.

Got to rethink that hypothesis of yours boss.
 
Phronesis said:
Water is good for life once it has emerged.
Click to expand...

Uhm, you do realise that scientists all over the world pretty much agree that immediately when liquid water arrived/was produced on Earth, that all sorts of lifeforms immediately started, right? Water is good for life before and after life has already emerged. A general rule is, water = life, that's why astronomers and astrophysicists always look for water on other moons/planets/comets etc.
 
Yea i watched something on the history channel and they basically said our water came from comets crashing into earth.

They reckon earth was a hot dry planet with no water.
 
Does not actually answer the question:
Why is water good for abiogenesis? Water breaks up polypeptides, DNA and RNA (Le Chatelier's principle) where there are not mechanisms keeping these structures in tact.
 
Phronesis said:
Does not actually answer the question:
Why is water good for abiogenesis? Water breaks up polypeptides, DNA and RNA (Le Chatelier's principle) where there are not mechanisms keeping these structures in tact.
Click to expand...

I wasn't answering your question. I was addressing the statement you made regarding water only being good once life has begun.
 
You must have misread then, because I said water is good for life once it has emerged and asked why it is good for abiogenesis. I did not say water is only good after life emerged... Read again.
 
Phronesis said:
You must have misread then, because I said water is good for life once it has emerged and asked why it is good for abiogenesis. I did not say water is only good after life emerged... Read again.
Click to expand...

By saying water is good for life once it has emerged, you are indirectly saying that it's no good if there is no life. So, what is your take on that?
 
No it does not mean indirectly that it's no good if there is no life. What kind of warped logic is that?
 
Oh dear...
Saying water is good for life once it has emerged does not mean it's no good or good if there is no life.

Why is water good for abiogenesis? Nobody knows.
Water breaks up polypeptides, DNA and RNA (Le Chatelier's principle) where there are not mechanisms keeping these structures in tact.
 
Phronesis said:
Oh dear...
Saying water is good for life once it has emerged does not mean it's no good or good if there is no life.

Why is water good for abiogenesis? Nobody knows.
Water breaks up polypeptides, DNA and RNA (Le Chatelier's principle) where there are not mechanisms keeping these structures in tact.
Click to expand...

Yes -- like a startlingly large number of other things as well, water is both good for life and bad for it.
 
mercurial said:
You haven't answered my question :erm: Nevermind :)
Click to expand...
Do I agree that water is good whether life exists or not? Good for what if life does not exist?

grayston said:
Yes -- like a startlingly large number of other things as well, water is both good for life and bad for it.
Click to expand...
Just not good for polypeptides, DNA and RNA (Le Chatelier's principle) where there are not mechanisms keeping these structures in tact ;).
 
Phronesis said:
Do I agree that water is good whether life exists or not? Good for what if life does not exist?
Click to expand...

SIGH. Let me say it again.

A long, long time ago there was no life on Earth and no water. Then suddenly water came into existence and life immediately started. That's why scientists all conclude that water = life.

My point: If water "created" life before, it can happen again (that means if life does not exist, water can bring about life again).
 
mercurial said:
SIGH. Let me say it again.

A long, long time ago there was no life on Earth and no water. Then suddenly water came into existence and life immediately started.
Click to expand...
Peer-reviewed references please. I would like to see how accurate the assertion is and want to accurately see the timescales... You also know observations do not imply mechanisms. Water might have nothing to do with the emergence of life, it might have been oil based and got mixed with water later on.

mercurial said:
My point: If water "created" life before, it can happen again (that means if life does not exist, water can bring about life again).
Click to expand...
On the flip side, if water has these magical properties of "creating" life, why does life non constantly emerge from non-life in our oceans? Why does water not bring about life from non life on earth or any other experiment ever devised?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X