Jump to content

Exiobiology and Alien life:


Recommended Posts

15 hours ago, beecee said:

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

Since I've never claimed "an infinite universe" I can't be wrong about it; you really need to read more carefully.

Besides how can you know I'm wrong when NOBODY!!! knows the correct answer?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Since I've never claimed "an infinite universe" I can't be wrong about it; you really need to read more carefully.

Or you need to be less cryptic? Infinite creation was the reference, was it not? And I explained to you why that was not so, and the general reference of such a statement.

41 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Besides how can you know I'm wrong when NOBODY!!! knows the correct answer?

Because like now, you chose to be obtuse. Afterall It was I that informed you that we do not know with certainty whether the universe was infinite or finite, while you rattled on with fictional references to "infinite creation"(indicating ID) instead of science.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, beecee said:

Afterall It was I that informed you that we do not know with certainty whether the universe was infinite or finite

And it was I that pointed out the irony... 😉

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, dimreepr said:

And it was I that pointed out the irony... 😉

What irony was that? Remember I'm not the first to comment on your inconlcusive, weird style of answering direct questions....or avoiding them..

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/26/2022 at 3:15 PM, beecee said:

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

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.

Yes, that is for certain. Obviously you have none.

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.

??? 🥴 Would you like to explain that? or at least give a link to where you dug up that phrase? 😉

I know where he got it, the sun doesn't often shine there. 

On 3/27/2022 at 6:23 AM, dimreepr said:

NOBODY!!! Has any evidence...

I agree with you to a point, there is some evidence of odd chemistry of Titan that is consuming hydrogen reacting it with acetylene and producing methane. 

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_on_Titan

Quote

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_on_Titan

Although all living things on Earth (including methanogens) use liquid water as a solvent, it is conceivable that life on Titan might instead use a liquid hydrocarbon, such as methane or ethane.[28] Water is a stronger solvent than hydrocarbons;[29] however, water is more chemically reactive, and can break down large organic molecules through hydrolysis.[28] A life-form whose solvent was a hydrocarbon would not face the risk of its biomolecules being destroyed in this way.[28]

Titan appears to have lakes of liquid ethane or liquid methane on its surface, as well as rivers and seas, which some scientific models suggest could support hypothetical non-water-based life.[19][20][21] It has been speculated that life could exist in the liquid methane and ethane that form rivers and lakes on Titan's surface, just as organisms on Earth live in water.[30] Such hypothetical creatures would take in H2 in place of O2, react it with acetylene instead of glucose, and produce methane instead of carbon dioxide.[30] By comparison, some methanogens on Earth obtain energy by reacting hydrogen with carbon dioxide, producing methane and water.

In 2005, astrobiologists Chris McKay and Heather Smith predicted that if methanogenic life is consuming atmospheric hydrogen in sufficient volume, it will have a measurable effect on the mixing ratio in the troposphere of Titan. The effects predicted included a level of acetylene much lower than otherwise expected, as well as a reduction in the concentration of hydrogen itself.[30]

Evidence consistent with these predictions was reported in June 2010 by Darrell Strobel of Johns Hopkins University, who analysed measurements of hydrogen concentration in the upper and lower atmosphere. Strobel found that the hydrogen concentration in the upper atmosphere is so much larger than near the surface that the physics of diffusion leads to hydrogen flowing downwards at a rate of roughly 1025 molecules per second. Near the surface the downward-flowing hydrogen apparently disappears.[29][30][31] Another paper released the same month showed very low levels of acetylene on Titan's surface.[29]

Chris McKay agreed with Strobel that presence of life, as suggested in McKay's 2005 article, is a possible explanation for the findings about hydrogen and acetylene, but also cautioned that other explanations are currently more likely: namely the possibility that the results are due to human error, to a meteorological process, or to the presence of some mineral catalyst enabling hydrogen and acetylene to react chemically.[1][32] He noted that such a catalyst, one effective at −178 °C (95 K), is presently unknown and would in itself be a startling discovery, though less startling than discovery of an extraterrestrial life form.[1]

The June 2010 findings gave rise to considerable media interest, including a report in the British newspaper, the Telegraph, which spoke of clues to the existence of "primitive aliens".[33]

This is IMHO evidence, just not proof. 
Finding such life on Titan would revolutionize our thought on how life starts and indicate that life arises much more often than we currently think. 

Finding life, water life, anywhere would beg the question of where is originated. Planets sneeze on each other often and such events like the Chicxulub impact could splash relatively large rocks into the solar system for them to be picked up by other planets and moons in the solar system. 

A unique second genesis of life in our solar system would be a scientific boon of major proportions.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/29/2022 at 8:52 PM, 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.
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.

Yes, and based on our current technological development, especially AI,  I can easily see a logical evolution towards an electro-mechanical dominant intelligence. This currently seems to be a route that might take a natural course, since this type of "life" (assuming we define it that way) face much less challenges than our feeble biological bodies can endure and can go on to evolve at a far greater rate than we ever could. It will far easier for this intelligence to spread out across the galaxy and maybe further still into galaxies throughout the universe.   

26 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

I know where he got it, the sun doesn't often shine there. 

I agree with you to a point, there is some evidence of odd chemistry of Titan that is consuming hydrogen reacting it with acetylene and producing methane. 

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_on_Titan

This is IMHO evidence, just not proof. 
Finding such life on Titan would revolutionize our thought on how life starts and indicate that life arises much more often than we currently think. 

Finding life, water life, anywhere would beg the question of where is originated. Planets sneeze on each other often and such events like the Chicxulub impact could splash relatively large rocks into the solar system for them to be picked up by other planets and moons in the solar system. 

A unique second genesis of life in our solar system would be a scientific boon of major proportions.   

It would be a major breakthrough in our understanding of how life comes to being, or at least our definition of what we consider life. 

Edited by Intoscience
spelling
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Moontanman said:

I know where he got it, the sun doesn't often shine there. 

It's a well worn path with this one! 😉

3 hours ago, Moontanman said:

I agree with you to a point, there is some evidence of odd chemistry of Titan that is consuming hydrogen reacting it with acetylene and producing methane.   

I think that bit of nonsense, was in relation to the universe being infinite, or at least "Infinite creation". Nonsense either way, as we still lack conclusive evidence one way or the other, whether it is finite or infinite as yet.

3 hours ago, Moontanman said:

This is IMHO evidence, just not proof. 
Finding such life on Titan would revolutionize our thought on how life starts and indicate that life arises much more often than we currently think. 

Finding life, water life, anywhere would beg the question of where is originated. Planets sneeze on each other often and such events like the Chicxulub impact could splash relatively large rocks into the solar system for them to be picked up by other planets and moons in the solar system. 

A unique second genesis of life in our solar system would be a scientific boon of major proportions.   

Agreed. The fact that the "stuff of life" is everywhere we look is evidence for ETL, just not the extraordinary evidence required to confirm it.

ps: I like the Panspermia version of universal abiogenesis myself.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/23/2022 at 9:14 PM, beecee said:
Such findings, when they occur, may either give us a better idea of the process of Abiogenesis, (the only scientific theory for the emergence of life) or possibly indicate a support for another varient of Abiogenesis, namely Panspermia.
I just hope that such evidence is forthcoming before I kick the bucket.

I'm always confused with panspermia. I've always seen it as taking the problem somewhere else. The formulation of plausible molecular mechanisms for life in a variety of plausible scenarios is what's key for me. Whether it happened in a young Earth or in a young Mars or Venus, is kinda lateral to me, as all young Solar-System planets that are candidates are similarly extreme and alien to us from the limited confines of eukaryot, multicellular life.

I just love your last thought, and brings me memories of Carl Sagan. I have that feeling very often.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Moontanman said:

I know where he got it, the sun doesn't often shine there. 

Very constructive...  🙄

4 hours ago, Moontanman said:

I agree with you to a point, there is some evidence of odd chemistry of Titan that is consuming hydrogen reacting it with acetylene and producing methane. 

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_on_Titan

That's not evidence of life, it's evidence of the possibility of life; how can we gather actual evidence of life on Titan?

50 minutes ago, beecee said:

I think that bit of nonsense, was in relation to the universe being infinite, or at least "Infinite creation". Nonsense either way, as we still lack conclusive evidence one way or the other, whether it is finite or infinite as yet.

I didn't say that, Douglas Adams did (a man well respected in the scientific community) take it up with him.

17 hours ago, beecee said:

What irony was that?

On 4/1/2022 at 12:33 PM, dimreepr said:
  On 4/1/2022 at 12:11 PM, beecee said:

Afterall It was I that informed you that we do not know with certainty whether the universe was infinite or finite

Do I really have to explain the joke?

1 hour ago, beecee said:

I think that bit of nonsense, was in relation to the universe being infinite, or at least "Infinite creation". Nonsense either way, as we still lack conclusive evidence one way or the other, whether it is finite or infinite as yet.

 

I don't know, but I know you're wrong... 

Socrates wouldn't let that lie and he wasn't a pretend philosopher/scientist...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, joigus said:

 Whether it happened in a young Earth or in a young Mars or Venus, is kinda lateral to me, as all young Solar-System planets that are candidates are similarly extreme and alien to us from the limited confines of eukaryot, multicellular life.

Perhaps it was going to inevitably happen on Earth, and a rogue meteor helped speed it up? It did happen rather early did it not?

8 hours ago, joigus said:

I just love your last thought, and brings me memories of Carl Sagan. I have that feeling very often.

🤤 I remember as a youngish bloke, watching Carl's original series of "Cosmos"....It was shown on a Sunday arvo in 30 minute episodes. He was a great educator.

7 hours ago, dimreepr said:

That's not evidence of life, it's evidence of the possibility of life; how can we gather actual evidence of life on Titan?

I believe most here no that, and that is what Moontanman is saying.I mean unlike your cryptic style, it's pretty easily understood from where I am.

 

7 hours ago, dimreepr said:

I didn't say that, Douglas Adams did (a man well respected in the scientific community) take it up with him.

Why should I take it up with him? You're the one that reproduced some fictional phrase about the universe being infinite ( when we are not sure of that fact) from an  author/screenwriter/ essayist/satirist/humourist, instead of a scientist. Again, despite your quibbling, we are as yet not sure whether the universe is finite or infinite.

7 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Do I really have to explain the joke?

I don't believe it was a joke, more a statement from ignorance. At least, hopefully that has now been nullified.

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.  That's certainly not being scientific, nor is it any indication of a decent philsophical thought. 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.

7 hours ago, dimreepr said:

I don't know, but I know you're wrong... 

No, I am not wrong...we are unsure whether the universe is finite or infinite.  I think Moontanman summed it up beautifully, with regard to your utterences. 

7 hours ago, dimreepr said:

 Socrates wouldn't let that lie and he wasn't a pretend philosopher/scientist...

I don't know a great deal about Socrates other then the notable titbits, and of course your own obfuscation, in attempting to drag this off topic.

Just saw the deserved warning from Phi for All re the silly bickering between myself and dimreeper. Noted and will adhere.

Edited by beecee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/29/2022 at 3:52 PM, 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.
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.

Actually silicon life would require low temps and has been suggested as a possibility for titan using liquid hydrocarbons for a working fluid, for high temps it would require silicones and possibly sulfuric acid as a working fluid. 

The mechanical life possibility is one I feel is most likely for long term survival of a civilization but AI is not necessarily needed. Perhaps we could down load our own minds into machines at some point.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, beecee said:

No, I am not wrong...we are unsure whether the universe is finite or infinite.

Exactly, neither of us is wrong because NOBODY!!! knows the correct answer. Ironic, isn't it?

17 hours ago, beecee said:

Just saw the deserved warning from Phi for All re the silly bickering between myself and dimreeper. Noted and will adhere.

I hope so; I look forward to a reasonable discussion...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
9 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Exactly, neither of us is wrong because NOBODY!!! knows the correct answer. Ironic, isn't it?

The following two statements are incorrect and/or inapropriate......

9 hours ago, dimreepr said:

I think this was what Douglas Adams had in mind with his "total perspective vortex"

The Total Perspective Vortex was a machine built with the intention of showing beings the infinity of creation, which became used as a method of torture

Firstly as already explained to you, "creation" is generally a term inferring some type of ID. Secondly we cannot be sure that the universe is finite or infinite.

Then you said......

9 hours ago, dimreepr said:

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

I then asked.....

On 4/3/2022 at 5:33 AM, beecee said:

??? 🥴 Would you like to explain that? or at least give a link to where you dug up that phrase? 😉

Which by the way was never answered. 

9 hours ago, dimreepr said:

On a tuesday morning about 10 past 10...

Again as explained, and with the proviso ( I'm not sure whether you are trying to be funny or not) but time, as well as space, (as we know them) literally had there beginnings at  t+10-43 seconds. And of course some people will always try and instill humour to avoid admitting they were wrong.

Another rather "wrong" statement made by you was.......

9 hours ago, dimreepr said:

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

The BB of course happened everywhere at the same instant, because everywhere, all of space time, all that we know or can know at this time,  was packed to within the volume of an atomic nucleus. There was no outside, nor any centre to speak of, other then the centre of our observable universe, which any and every life form can claim, wherever they are. 

Again, perhaps you were trying to be funny? At this time, along with others who have commented on your style, I do not know what you are trying to achieve.

9 hours ago, dimreepr said:

I hope so; I look forward to a reasonable discussion...

This thread is about "exobiology and Alien life" and the possibility and likelyhood of it existing. It isn't about trying to catch someone out with pedantic questions, cryptic  attempts at humour,  or confusing philosophical ideologies. Genuine, reasonable discussions is welcome.

Edited by beecee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/3/2022 at 7:14 AM, Moontanman said:

Actually silicon life would require low temps and has been suggested as a possibility for titan using liquid hydrocarbons for a working fluid, for high temps it would require silicones and possibly sulfuric acid as a working fluid. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothetical_types_of_biochemistry

Some other interesting alterantive life forms there.

 

On 4/3/2022 at 7:14 AM, Moontanman said:

The mechanical life possibility is one I feel is most likely for long term survival of a civilization but AI is not necessarily needed. Perhaps we could down load our own minds into machines at some point.   

I feel a bit iffy about A1 and/or mechanical life. Robotic life, nanobots etc, can do and achieve much today that fit the necessary provisos of life as we normally define it. 

As it happened, I also watched a movie last night after the footy, "MoonFall"  Based on the unlikely "hollow Moon hypothetical" .... and A1. meh! sort of movie.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, beecee said:

The following two statements are incorrect and/or inapropriate......

Firstly as already explained to you, "creation" is generally a term inferring some type of ID. Secondly we cannot be sure that the universe is finite or infinite.

Then you said......

I then asked.....

Which by the way was never answered. 

Again as explained, and with the proviso ( I'm not sure whether you are trying to be funny or not) but time, as well as space, (as we know them) literally had there beginnings at  t+10-43 seconds. And of course some people will always try and instill humour to avoid admitting they were wrong.

Another rather "wrong" statement made by you was.......

The BB of course happened everywhere at the same instant, because everywhere, all of space time, all that we know or can know at this time,  was packed to within the volume of an atomic nucleus. There was no outside, nor any centre to speak of, other then the centre of our observable universe, which any and every life form can claim, wherever they are. 

Again, perhaps you were trying to be funny? At this time, along with others who have commented on your style, I do not know what you are trying to achieve.

This thread is about "exobiology and Alien life" and the possibility and likelyhood of it existing. It isn't about trying to catch someone out with pedantic questions, cryptic  attempts at humour,  or confusing philosophical ideologies. Genuine, reasonable discussions is welcome.

Well that adherence didn't stick.

I didn't start that tongue in cheek 'observation' with "the following is an absolute fact".

Sorry, in future I will highlight an attempted joke with a smiley emoji.

8 hours ago, beecee said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothetical_types_of_biochemistry

Some other interesting alterantive life forms there.

Indeed, this from your link

Quote

In 2007, Vadim N. Tsytovich and colleagues proposed that lifelike behaviors could be exhibited by dust particles suspended in a plasma, under conditions that might exist in space.

Could give a false positive, in the search. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

I didn't start that tongue in cheek 'observation' with "the following is an absolute fact".

I have stated nothing as absolute fact, outside the probability of scientific theory, and the fact that we do not know positively if the universe is finite or infinite.

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

Sorry, in future I will highlight an attempted joke with a smiley emoji.

Just answering questions put to you would be nice, and asking genuine ones in return (if you have them)  would be even nicer.

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

Could give a false positive, in the search. 

That's why they say "could be" as opposed to would be, or must be. And "might be" as opposed to will be and must be. And all under the heading of "Hypothetical types of Biochemistry"

In fact any talk of Alien life (as defined in this thread!) is all speculative at this time, but speculation also supported by the facts that the stuff of life and possibility of Abiogenesis, is everywhere we look.

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

Well that adherence didn't stick.

Just stating it as it is. Perhaps less tic, less pedant, and more genuine questions are in order. I'll certainly adhere to what I say. 

 
18 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Exactly, neither of us is wrong because NOBODY!!! knows the correct answer. Ironic, isn't it?

 

Edited by beecee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, beecee said:

That's why they say "could be" as opposed to would be, or must be. And "might be" as opposed to will be and must be. And all under the heading of "Hypothetical types of Biochemistry"

In fact any talk of Alien life (as defined in this thread!) is all speculative at this time, but speculation also supported by the facts that the stuff of life and possibility of Abiogenesis, is everywhere we look.

I simply meant that evidence of that could be mistaken for evidence of life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/2/2022 at 1:12 PM, joigus said:

I'm always confused with panspermia. I've always seen it as taking the problem somewhere else. The formulation of plausible molecular mechanisms for life in a variety of plausible scenarios is what's key for me. Whether it happened in a young Earth or in a young Mars or Venus, is kinda lateral to me, as all young Solar-System planets that are candidates are similarly extreme and alien to us from the limited confines of eukaryot, multicellular life.

I just love your last thought, and brings me memories of Carl Sagan. I have that feeling very often.

I share your sentiment,

Either way life started somewhere, and that somewhere had to have specific conditions and chemistry and probably a whole other factors for that life to begin (life as we know it).

Earth seems to be ideal, so why invoke panspermia? Even if life originated elsewhere, and was miraculously transported to Earth, the conditions on Earth still had to be so that the life could thrive and evolve.

Unless of course we discover that there has to be something specially adapt for abiogenesis that Earth did not originally long ago have, but it did have the capability to support life, rather than create life. But to me this seems rather unlikely.    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting NASA page........................

https://astrobiology.nasa.gov/research/astrobiology-at-nasa/exobiology/

The goal of NASA’s Exobiology program (formerly Exobiology and Evolutionary Biology) is to understand the origin, evolution, distribution, and future of life in the Universe. Research is centered on the origin and early evolution of life, the potential of life to adapt to different environments, and the implications for life elsewhere. This research is conducted in the context of NASA’s ongoing exploration of our stellar neighborhood and the identification of biosignatures for in situ and remote sensing applications.

more..................

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK217840/

1. Cosmic Evolution of Biogenic Elements and Compounds. The first epoch encompasses galactic time and distance scales and involves the death and birth of stars. It begins with the synthesis in stars of the biogenic elements—the elements that make up all life—and their ejection into the interstellar medium; it ends with the distribution of these elements and their compounds throughout our solar system within the planetoids, which became building blocks of planets. Discoveries in carbonaceous meteorites strengthen this perspective, as organic and mineral matter made up of carbon, nitrogen, hydrogen, and oxygen has been found that retains properties traceable to its origins in interstellar clouds and stars.

How commonly the aggregation of interstellar dust and gas into small primitive bodies occurs during star formation is not known. What transformations were undergone by the biogenic elements and their compounds during this process remain poorly understood, as are the ways in which the physical and chemical properties of these elements and their compounds may have influenced the course of events during the formation of the solar system.

Answers to these questions will develop, however, as astrophysicists and astrochemists take advantage of the capabilities for large-scale modeling, and make use of sensitive space-borne astronomical telescopes with high spatial and spectral resolution to make observations of condensed matter in protostellar regions. In ground-based laboratories and by remote spacecraft, studies of interstellar dust and samples of other relict material—meteorites, comets, asteroids, and interplanetary dust—will continue to help reconstruct the nature and chronology of the processes that took place at the time of the solar system's formation.

more.........................

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

In essence what Carl said...."We were all born in the belly of stars" or "we are all star stuff"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, beecee said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothetical_types_of_biochemistry

Some other interesting alternative life forms there.

Lots of possibilities but how many are really likely? Ammonia in place of water suffers from the fact that water and ammonia dissolve in each other forming a hybrid liquid, hard to separate them in any planetary biosphere. On earth bacteria consume any ammonia dissolved in water and oxygen reacts with it. 

Isaac Asimov suggested that life might be based on silicon oxygen chains with methane radicals attached to the silicon atoms. Possibly sulfuric acid as a working fluid and metabolizing gaseous sulfur as a breathing gas. Of course the temps would be quite high, lower than Venus but quite a bit higher than Earth.      

21 hours ago, beecee said:

 

I feel a bit iffy about A1 and/or mechanical life. Robotic life, nanobots etc, can do and achieve much today that fit the necessary provisos of life as we normally define it. 

As it happened, I also watched a movie last night after the footy, "MoonFall"  Based on the unlikely "hollow Moon hypothetical" .... and A1. meh! sort of movie.   

I agree, "life" suggests it is self replicating but completely artificial life forms, like "Data" from Star Trek might be a compromise assuming that such a thing is possible.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, beecee said:

That is the $64,000,000 question!

Exactly, I'd like to point out that the life Isaac Asimov suggested would require a narrow "goldilocks" zone much like Earth and no planet in our Solar System meets this requirement, although Jupiter's Moon Io might have these conditions underground below it's frozen sulfur rich surface. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Speaking of Star Trek ....

Back when it was a little more realistic, and all aliens weren't a variation of bipedal humans with differing 'bumps' applied to their foreheads, they had the Horta, a silicon cycle based life form from the planet Janus VI, that could tunnel through solid rock ( ST:OS, Devil in the Dark, season 1 episode 25 ).
They had immaterial beings that could control energy, and lizard aliens, like the Metron and the Gorn ( ST:OS, Arena, season 1 episode 18 )
And even Data was self aware, intelligent and could reproduce ( ST:TNG, the Offspring, season 3 episode 16 )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/4/2022 at 11:41 AM, Intoscience said:

Either way life started somewhere, and that somewhere had to have specific conditions and chemistry and probably a whole other factors for that life to begin (life as we know it).

Earth seems to be ideal, so why invoke panspermia? Even if life originated elsewhere, and was miraculously transported to Earth, the conditions on Earth still had to be so that the life could thrive and evolve.

Unless of course we discover that there has to be something specially adapt for abiogenesis that Earth did not originally long ago have, but it did have the capability to support life, rather than create life. But to me this seems rather unlikely.    

Just a couple of qualifications: I didn't mean to say panspermia isn't to play a role some day in long-term (mean-planet-life-wise \( \sim 10^{9} \) years) sense. It probably is, and a lot, IMO. For starters, it is an empirical fact that organic matter does make its way to neighbouring planets and moons, at least within the confines of Solar-System parameters. If you lower your standards for how "primitive" an "organism"* must be in order to be considered life --example: chemolithotrophs--, then it may well be that our concept of Goldilocks zone has to be recalculated to include much wider ranges within a solar system, as well as the different varieties of solar system that can harbour life this kind of "less-honourable" life.

Panspermic events, in this view, would serve as bridges between communicating vessels of proto-life (planets and moons) to find their way to a more promising platform for multicellular/organelle-centred life.

Trying to paint a vivid picture of what I think might be going on:

Imagine that already gazillions of these proto-living forms are out there saying: We don't think of our arrangement as non-life; in fact, we're doing quite alright by our standards. We've lived here for 2 billion years within our Goldilocks zone, with our mind-bogglingly sluggish metabolism and reproductive cycle. If a higher-order Goldilocks zone opens up in any of the neighbours, higher-order, more sophisticatedly organised life will be seeded in those moons, don't worry. Enough of our spores are flowing around to guarantee that in, say, a couple billion years more, this higher form of life takes seed.

I'm sure part of what I'm saying here, or similar, is being considered by people working on these subjects.

* "Primitive" meaning things like:

Doesn't have internal membranes/compartimentalisation equivalent to eukaryots

Doesn't have to exploit any particularly profitable redox reaction => doesn't need to have a particularly fast metabolism/reproduction cycle

Doesn't have more than order 103-104 pair bases in any of its nucleic acids (or the equivalent of DNA)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
On 4/6/2022 at 9:41 PM, joigus said:

Just a couple of qualifications: I didn't mean to say panspermia isn't to play a role some day in long-term (mean-planet-life-wise 109 years) sense. It probably is, and a lot, IMO. For starters, it is an empirical fact that organic matter does make its way to neighbouring planets and moons, at least within the confines of Solar-System parameters. If you lower your standards for how "primitive" an "organism"* must be in order to be considered life --example: chemolithotrophs--, then it may well be that our concept of Goldilocks zone has to be recalculated to include much wider ranges within a solar system, as well as the different varieties of solar system that can harbour life this kind of "less-honourable" life.

Panspermic events, in this view, would serve as bridges between communicating vessels of proto-life (planets and moons) to find their way to a more promising platform for multicellular/organelle-centred life.

Trying to paint a vivid picture of what I think might be going on:

Imagine that already gazillions of these proto-living forms are out there saying: We don't think of our arrangement as non-life; in fact, we're doing quite alright by our standards. We've lived here for 2 billion years within our Goldilocks zone, with our mind-bogglingly sluggish metabolism and reproductive cycle. If a higher-order Goldilocks zone opens up in any of the neighbours, higher-order, more sophisticatedly organised life will be seeded in those moons, don't worry. Enough of our spores are flowing around to guarantee that in, say, a couple billion years more, this higher form of life takes seed.

I'm sure part of what I'm saying here, or similar, is being considered by people working on these subjects.

* "Primitive" meaning things like:

Doesn't have internal membranes/compartimentalisation equivalent to eukaryots

Doesn't have to exploit any particularly profitable redox reaction => doesn't need to have a particularly fast metabolism/reproduction cycle

Doesn't have more than order 103-104 pair bases in any of its nucleic acids (or the equivalent of DNA)

Missed this...Nice post by the way.

Came across an interesting article.......

https://www.quantamagazine.org/arik-kershenbaum-on-why-alien-life-may-be-like-life-on-earth-20210318/

Why Extraterrestrial Life May Not Seem Entirely Alien

The zoologist Arik Kershenbaum argues that because some evolutionary challenges are truly universal, life throughout the cosmos may share certain features.

Arik Kershenbaum, a zoologist and animal communications researcher at the University of Cambridge, thinks that the evolutionary forces that shape life on Earth will produce many similar features in extraterrestrial life.

On the website for the department of zoology of the University of Cambridge, the page for Arik Kershenbaum lists his three main areas of research, one of which stands out from the others. Kershenbaum studies “Wolves & other canids,” “Dolphins & cetaceans” — and “Aliens.” Granted, science hasn’t yet found any aliens to study, but Kershenbaum says that there are certain things we can still say about them with reasonable certainty. Topping the list: They evolved.

“The bottom line — why animals do the things that they do, why they are the things that they are — is because of evolution,” said Kershenbaum, a lecturer and director of studies in the natural sciences at the university’s Girton College. He argues that evolution is a universal law of nature, like gravity — and that studies of plants and animals here can therefore tell us something useful about potential inhabitants of worlds far beyond Earth. He finds evidence for this in the process of evolutionary convergence, in which unrelated lineages of organisms evolve similar features as adaptations to similar environmental challenges. It’s an argument he presents in detail in his new book, The Zoologist’s Guide to the Galaxy: What Animals on Earth Reveal About Aliens — and Ourselves, which draws on comparisons of animals’ physical adaptations as well as his own research (and that of others) into animal communications.

more at link................................

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

 

I sort of anyway see plenty of logic in that article. Particularly if we are inferring comparable intelligent advanced life forms that may reach space-faring capabilites. I made a comment supporting that stance a while back here, somewhere. Isn't basically the human form, two arms, fingers, opposing thumb, etc necessary for constructing cities, engineering projects etc, along of course with the necessary intelligence? 

Edited by beecee
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.