Jump to content

Exiobiology and Alien life:


Recommended Posts

16 hours ago, beecee said:

Have you any reference for them starting at the same time? What do you mean by "roughly"?

If you want me to continue to answer your off topic question's, start a new topic!

16 hours ago, beecee said:

What is it referring to then if not the universe or anything that followed that necessary first step? And generally speaking, when the word "creation" is mentioned and used, it inevitably is inferring a god. The universe evolved more then was created.

22 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Even if the universe is finite, creation created it...

???¬†ūü•ī¬†Would you like to explain that? or at least give a link to where you dug up that phrase? ūüėČ

Well, the big bang started some where and as far as I know, I'm the author..

16 hours ago, beecee said:

So why did you misinterpret what we generally mean by Alien in context with this thread? How do you know we will ever meet any alien for that matter?  "we are them" is another rather iffy statment, so we will ignore that bizarre bit.

How do we know that we're not the alien's (panspermia) or that the next lifeform we discovered is not from this planet?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, dimreepr said:

NOBODY!!! Has any evidence...

So why bring up this nonsensical  re "the infinity of creation"

We do have evidence by the way, but nothing absolute or conclusive. 

8 hours ago, dimreepr said:

If you want me to continue to answer your off topic question's, start a new topic!

?? Don't be too concerned. I didn't expect an answer anyway. 

(1) A work in progress with limited forms of success.  https://whyy.org/segments/fusion-energy/ https://www.livescience.com/nuclear-fusion-reactor-sparc-2025.html 

(2) We are still in the baby step class as far as space exploration and the search for life goes.

8 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Well, the big bang started some where and as far as I know, I'm the author..

 Nup wrong again. The BB didn't start "somewhere" It was the evolution of space and time (as we know them) from t+10-35th seconds. In other words the BB happened everywhere. It was all there ever was. You make a poor author.

8 hours ago, dimreepr said:

How do we know that we're not the alien's (panspermia) or that the next lifeform we discovered is not from this planet?

Even if Panspermia was the means, that original microbrial cell or amino acids, still needed to evolve on Earth, and of course is not what we generally know as Alien. Any new lifeform discovered, will be easily determined to be terrestrial or non terretstrial I suggest.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/panspermia

The panspermia theory argues that life is originated in space, in spatial ices, and continuously distributed to the planets by comets and meteorites. The soft panspermia theory stays one step behind. According to this, instead of living forms, amino acids, sugars, and the molecules required to form RNA are produced in space. Experiments consisting in the irradiation of interstellar ice analogs with stellar-like UV radiation have shown that indeed, the building blocks of the RNA can be produced in space. Moreover, these laboratory results agree well with the measurements obtained from meteorites and the data gathered by the Rosetta mission from comet C67/Churyumov-Gerasimenko. The implications of this soft theory are enormous since, as a result, life forms in the Cosmos would be compatible at the molecular level.

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Edited by beecee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/25/2022 at 4:17 AM, Intoscience said:

There are some interesting ideas around this and when we consider the odds (though not factually determined as yet) of life ever appearing in the way it is believed and then evolving into us today. You can easily come up with odds so low that they far outweigh the number of stars in the universe. IIRCC I watched a documentary on this and there where some figures hovering around odds of 1: 1030 + chances. 

It might be interesting to see how these odds were calculated. Or perhaps not, because there are a number of sources for these odds (from creationists) that use "analyses" that are mind-numbingly naive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, swansont said:

It might be interesting to see how these odds were calculated. Or perhaps not, because there are a number of sources for these odds (from creationists) that use "analyses" that are mind-numbingly naive.

Yeah, I believe that's the crux of it. The resulting low odds are are calculated from a vast number of assumptions rather than facts which could be convincing should the assumptions become facts. It all starts with the odds of a planet similar to earth being born, along with the formation of the moon and the protection from the gas giants and the size and age and sustainability of the sun... all the way through up to the chances of a species developing tools etc... 

When you look at the sequence of events that happened for us to be here its quite mind numbing and based on this premise you can easily see how the odds of us ever existing is quite remarkable. As I said the vast majority is based on assumptions rather than facts, but it gets you thinking! 

Edited by Intoscience
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Intoscience said:

Yeah, I believe that's the crux of it. The resulting low odds are are calculated from a vast number of assumptions rather than facts which could be convincing should the assumptions become facts. It all starts with the odds of a planet similar to earth being born, along with the formation of the moon and the protection from the gas giants and the size and age and sustainability of the sun... all the way through up to the chances of a species developing tools etc... 

 

"Life appearing" does not require those things, though. That's more "life as we know it" and of course, the vast majority of species do not use tools, so that's a non-starter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, beecee said:

Nup wrong again. The BB didn't start "somewhere" It was the evolution of space and time (as we know them) from t+10-35th seconds. In other words the BB happened everywhere. It was all there ever was. You make a poor author.

Isn't everywhere, somewhere?

Maybe I should have said, sometime...

Edited by dimreepr
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Isn't everywhere, somewhere?

Maybe I should have said, sometime...

No somewhere is somewhere...a particular spot. The BB happened everywhere at the same time, as everywhere was packed to withing that quantum/Planck scale and space and time, (as we know them) evolved. No outside and no centre to speak of.

The sometime was 13.83 billion years ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, swansont said:

"Life appearing" does not require those things, though. That's more "life as we know it" and of course, the vast majority of species do not use tools, so that's a non-starter.

True, though I was talking specifically about humans since we are the only known example of technological capable life. Humans became technological starting with using basic tools and then developing from there.

Of course this is life as we know it and based on the only sample which we currently have. But what else can we do? until we / if we discover life elsewhere in any other form or similar we only have one example to compare to. So if we want to speculate using at least some evidence then we currently have no choice but to try and understand how life may have begun here and then develop into us.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, beecee said:

No somewhere is somewhere...a particular spot. The BB happened everywhere at the same time, as everywhere was packed to withing that quantum/Planck scale and space and time, (as we know them) evolved. No outside and no centre to speak of.

The sometime was 13.83 billion years ago.

On a tuesday morning about 10 past 10...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, dimreepr said:

On a tuesday morning about 10 past 10...

While I recognise your attempt at trying to be funny for obvious reasons, that also is wrong. Time as well as space came into existence and evolved at the BB.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/26/2022 at 10:00 PM, Area54 said:

Until we have established, with a high degree of confidence, one or more plausible paths from pre-biotic to primitive cell, then any alleged estimate of probability for abiogenesis remains a wild-assed guess. I am not saying we shouldn't make wild assed guesses. They are entertaining and can inform future research, but we should remember they are just wild-assed guesses.

My thoughts exactly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Intoscience said:

True, though I was talking specifically about humans since we are the only known example of technological capable life. Humans became technological starting with using basic tools and then developing from there.

But the discussion in general is not so narrowly limited.

4 hours ago, Intoscience said:

Of course this is life as we know it and based on the only sample which we currently have. But what else can we do? until we / if we discover life elsewhere in any other form or similar we only have one example to compare to. So if we want to speculate using at least some evidence then we currently have no choice but to try and understand how life may have begun here and then develop into us.  

Which points to the calculation of odds and what went in it, because if we don't know about other possible forms of life, there is no way we can accurately calculate the probability.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Intoscience said:

True, though I was talking specifically about humans since we are the only known example of technological capable life. Humans became technological starting with using basic tools and then developing from there.

Of course this is life as we know it and based on the only sample which we currently have. But what else can we do? until we / if we discover life elsewhere in any other form or similar we only have one example to compare to. So if we want to speculate using at least some evidence then we currently have no choice but to try and understand how life may have begun here and then develop into us.  

Could you show that calculation here? Perhaps then we can discuss its merits.

Maybe there are 1029 different ways of a technological civilization to arise. Probability of each specific one is 10-30, but probability of one of them arising is then 1/10.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, beecee said:

While I recognise your attempt at trying to be funny for obvious reasons, that also is wrong. Time as well as space came into existence and evolved at the BB.

Remember? You're making a fool of yourself, and this is off topic; I'm just pointing it out...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, swansont said:

But the discussion in general is not so narrowly limited.

Which points to the calculation of odds and what went in it, because if we don't know about other possible forms of life, there is no way we can accurately calculate the probability.

Yep, it was just an observation from me not an argument. 

2 hours ago, Genady said:

Could you show that calculation here? Perhaps then we can discuss its merits.

Maybe there are 1029 different ways of a technological civilization to arise. Probability of each specific one is 10-30, but probability of one of them arising is then 1/10.

Exactly and this is why calculating the odds can be very ambiguous especially since they are strongly based on assumptions and the one and only example we have. 

I didn't do the calculation myself, the figure I mentioned was just from memory and was from a documentary I watched. The reason it stuck with me is because of the comparison to the number of observable stars. Oh and this figure was for the likelihood of humans or similar developing not just simple life as we know it. 

I'll try and find a link to the documentary should anyone be interested.    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Remember? You're making a fool of yourself, and this is off topic; I'm just pointing it out...

The hard Science's  unlike philsophy, are  exact disciplines. And again, you seem to be scraping the bottom of the barrel, instead of being man enough to admit you were wrong. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We have a very limited definition of what 'life' is.
Our carbon based life that needs liquid water, is not the only way to build complexity.
Sulphur and Silicon provide large numbers of compounds also, but would require other liquid solvents than water, at much higher temperatures, for interesting chemical reactions. 
And, who is to say, that once our civilization ends ( for whatever reason ), we don't leave behind an electro-mechanical civilization that evolves from AI that we developed.

The possibilities are endless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, MigL said:

We have a very limited definition of what 'life' is.
Our carbon based life that needs liquid water, is not the only way to build complexity.

That certainly is an understatement!¬†ūüėČ

Carl Sagan, who I saw as the greatest educator of our time, often referred to that possibility, that because all life on Earth is carbon based, that we could extrapolate that to life in the whole universe. He termed it "carbon chauvinism" As the scientist he was though, he also admitted that carbon is far more chemically active and abundant in the universe. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothetical_types_of_biochemistry#:~:text=On Earth%2C all known living,form all the necessary structures.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, beecee said:

The hard Science's  unlike philsophy, are  exact disciplines. And again, you seem to be scraping the bottom of the barrel, instead of being man enough to admit you were wrong. 

It's never morally wrong to question a question, even the hard one's... 

16 hours ago, beecee said:

Carl Sagan, who I saw as the greatest educator of our time

Don't you see??? Your great leader was possibly wrong...

The greatest educator, is your critical thinking...

Something, I think, Feynman would say...

Edited by dimreepr
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, dimreepr said:

It's never morally wrong to question a question, even the hard one's... 

That's not admitting you were wrong. That is deliberate obfuscation on your part.

6 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Don't you see??? Your great leader was possibly wrong...

Unlike you, he was a scientist, and understood what a scientific theory was/is. Plus more obfuscation in not being able to recognise he was simply speculating. 

6 hours ago, dimreepr said:

.Something, I think, Feynman would say...

Plenty of respect for him also...Hope you take the time to watch the 7.5 minute long video that follows and equally, that you are able to gain some knowledge from it.

6 hours ago, dimreepr said:

The greatest educator, is your critical thinking...

Critical thinking is part and parcel of the scientific methodology, and it helps if one is also proficient in the relative field, if he choses to be critical of a particular field. Your problem seems to be confusing "critical thinking" with obfuscation and being contrary for contrariness sake. And of course if you chose to be critical of any aspect of science, be sure to have some evidence on hand.

"Shall I refuse my dinner because I do not fully understand the process of digestion?"

Oliver Heaviside (1850-1925) English physicist.

 

Edited by beecee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, beecee said:

Unlike you, he was a scientist, and understood what a scientific theory was/is. Plus more obfuscation in not being able to recognise he was simply speculating.

Yet you keep accusing me of being a philosopher, you may need to study etymology, a bit harder!!!

Before you judge, the real meaning of an 'ology... 

17 hours ago, beecee said:

Critical thinking is part and parcel of the scientific methodology,

Philosophically speaking...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Wrong about what?

Most of what you have claimed and/or suggested in this thread, starting with an infinite universe.

6 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Yet you keep accusing me of being a philosopher, you may need to study etymology, a bit harder!!!

No, I have accused you and one or two others, of being "pretend philosophers" But perhaps I should have used the word, "poor".

7 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Philosophically speaking...

Philoosphy is the foundation stone of science, as I have said before, but it is also limited. (Science is what we know; Philsophy is what we don't know. some bloke named Russell)  Critical thinking is part and parcel of what science is. If we didn't apply it, we still would be ignorant of the advancement of the perhelion of Mercury....or gravitational lensing, and Newton would still reign supreme.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/29/2022 at 8:52 PM, MigL said:

Sulphur and Silicon provide large numbers of compounds also, but would require other liquid solvents than water, at much higher temperatures, for interesting chemical reactions. 

If my understanding of the chemistry is correct, then the number, range and complexity of these compounds is substantially less than available with carbon, and the possibilities of manipulating energy more limited. This does not rule them out as potential bases of life, but does make them less likely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.