4 ms·

I believe some of the outer planets or their moons are made of methane of have loads of methane on them. So if without life there they have so much hydrocarbon

I believe some of the outer planets or their moons are made of methane of have loads of methane on them. So if without life there they have so much hydrocarbons, why then do we need to believe that our hydrocarbons come from the remains of some dead creatures, whether plankton or dinosaurs?

aww_dang 5y ago
Cui bono? Perhaps there are political motives?
dredmorbius 5y ago
In the case of coal, we find the fossils of ancient ferns and trees in the coal itself. In the case of oil, the sediments in which deposits are found, the fossils within those deposits, and the chemistry of the oil, all point to biotic rather than abiotic origin. The paper I've linked in my earlier comment has far more detail and further references: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28105383 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28105383 Yes, it's possible for hydrocarbons to form by other means. However there's vanishingly little physical evidence to suggest that that is what's actually happened. Retrosplaining terrestrial hydrocarbon deposits based on remote observation, and one short-lived lander on an outer-solar-system moon (the Huygens probe on Titan, with very limited chemical sensig capabilities) in a hand-wavy attempt to invalidate several centuries of direct terrestrial experience with coal, oil, and gas geology is not exceptionally convincing.
JackFr 5y ago
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenic_petroleum_origin https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenic_petroleum_origin Thomas Gold in the “Deep Hot Biosphere: The Myth of Fossil Fuels” explores the idea in depth. It’s not quite a crank theory (I think Gold has a legit academic publication history) but it kind of teeters on the edge. It’s one of those ones I’d like to believe, because it turns much of what we think we know on it’s ear. But a sober look at the evidence makes it seem pretty unlikely.
AngryData 5y ago
I mean those other places also don't have oxygen rich environments though either that consume and destroy hydrocarbons or life forms (that we know of) to catalyze and consume it. If they both existed in the same environment with any abundance they would quickly (geologically) destroy each other until one was nearly depleted. If hydrocarbons on earth weren't buried under tons of rock to keep oxygen and life away it wouldn't exist in meaningful amounts, and much of it got buried in oxygenless enviroments because of life itself. Keep in mind the Earth has had atleast a billion years of time just oxidizing all the elements and chemicals anywhere near or on the surface of the earth or oceans.

aww_dang 5y ago

Cui bono? Perhaps there are political motives?

dredmorbius 5y ago

In the case of coal, we find the fossils of ancient ferns and trees in the coal itself. In the case of oil, the sediments in which deposits are found, the fossils within those deposits, and the chemistry of the oil, all point to biotic rather than abiotic origin. The paper I've linked in my earlier comment has far more detail and further references: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28105383 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28105383 Yes, it's possible for hydrocarbons to form by other means. However there's vanishingly little physical evidence to suggest that that is what's actually happened. Retrosplaining terrestrial hydrocarbon deposits based on remote observation, and one short-lived lander on an outer-solar-system moon (the Huygens probe on Titan, with very limited chemical sensig capabilities) in a hand-wavy attempt to invalidate several centuries of direct terrestrial experience with coal, oil, and gas geology is not exceptionally convincing.

JackFr 5y ago

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenic_petroleum_origin https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenic_petroleum_origin Thomas Gold in the “Deep Hot Biosphere: The Myth of Fossil Fuels” explores the idea in depth. It’s not quite a crank theory (I think Gold has a legit academic publication history) but it kind of teeters on the edge. It’s one of those ones I’d like to believe, because it turns much of what we think we know on it’s ear. But a sober look at the evidence makes it seem pretty unlikely.

AngryData 5y ago

I mean those other places also don't have oxygen rich environments though either that consume and destroy hydrocarbons or life forms (that we know of) to catalyze and consume it. If they both existed in the same environment with any abundance they would quickly (geologically) destroy each other until one was nearly depleted. If hydrocarbons on earth weren't buried under tons of rock to keep oxygen and life away it wouldn't exist in meaningful amounts, and much of it got buried in oxygenless enviroments because of life itself. Keep in mind the Earth has had atleast a billion years of time just oxidizing all the elements and chemicals anywhere near or on the surface of the earth or oceans.