Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
jimmydasaint

Is Life Inevitable?

Recommended Posts

As for what else are we to do... Idk, we could look for environments where chemical bonds could potentially grow into complex molecules.

 

There are plenty of astronomers interested in what molecules can be found in space. Glycine has been found in comets for example. Other important molecules for life have been found in interstellar dust and nebula.

 

Such results show that the materials are out there, but none so far prove that life is out there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Glycine seems to be found quite ubiquitously. ajb, I am quite interested in why we exclude Jupiter-sized planets from being able to contain life. What are the constraints that would exclude a larger extra-galactic planet from containing life of any sort?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am quite interested in why we exclude Jupiter-sized planets from being able to contain life. What are the constraints that would exclude a larger extra-galactic planet from containing life of any sort?

 

Based on what we know right now, the conditions in large gas giants is probably not indicative of the stability of large organic molecules.

 

Lets look at Jupiter. The deeper atmosphere seems to be composted liquid hydrogen and the small rocky core must be something like 20255K and under huge pressure. Any life on the surface of the core would have to be very different to what we currently understand to be life.

 

I am less familiar with the atmosphere of Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune. I would need to do some reading before making statements. I believe that they are not as well studied as Jupiter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There some possibilities for life not as we know it. Not knowing of course means this is all conjecture but here are some possibilities.

 

http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/B/boron-based_life.html

 

Boron is chemically flexible enough to make Bucky ball like structures quite easily but it is also quite rare compared to carbon.

 

More possibilities here

 

http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/A/ammonialife.html

 

http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/S/siliconlife.html

 

http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/N/nitrogen-based_life.html

 

http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/P/phosphorus-based_life.html

 

http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/A/alternative_forms_of_life.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will agree on this, certain materials are probably neccessary for certain forms of life. So Silicon based life could very well differ than our own carbon based life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So Silicon based life could very well differ than our own carbon based life.

 

Compare the oxides of carbon and silicon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Earth is in a happy place - not too far from the Sun and not too close so that temperatures are intolerable. We have an electromagnetic field, and an ozone layer which protect us like an umbrella from harmful electromagnetic radiation from the Sun. The planet is mostly a watery domain. We have recycling systems for water, carbon and nitrogen.

 

To my mind, it seems inevitable that life would arise and spread on the Earth. Additionally, it seems inevitable that life will occur on other Earth-like planets with the same features as the Earth. There seems to be a cosmological program called LIFE v1.0 which is circulating around the Universe, and to my mind, life is inevitable.

 

Do others agree?

 

I do not agree.

 

We only have the earth to model that idea on ultimately.

 

Life is constantly faced with extinction and a majority of species have gone extinct.

 

We are faced with are own problems that can lead to our extinction.

 

You can as an organism acquire a variety of mutations some of which kill instantly in early development, and via selection pressures life does not make it or is not guaranteed in nature.

 

We do not currently have an understanding on how physio-chemical systems can develop into something with the complexity to be called life.

 

The universe was not fine tuned to produce Hitler.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I also do not agree with that quote. Like foodchain said, we adapted to make use of our surroundings. Also, the things we are protected from, we didn't adapt to those so they are harmful.

 

Why is this in the speculations section anyway?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I also do not agree with that quote. Like foodchain said, we adapted to make use of our surroundings. Also, the things we are protected from, we didn't adapt to those so they are harmful.

 

Why is this in the speculations section anyway?

 

From a chemistry perspective I could only think that organic chemistry, or all the variation that can be found with c-h bonds is something that might be a requirement to for life in our universe.

 

If that happens to be the case then certain ranges of other variables can be modeled on that assumption, or what is an adequate environment to support organic chemistry, and all the variation such chemistry can have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just curious, when we are talking about "life" exactly what is that? Is a virus alive? What about prions?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just curious, when we are talking about "life" exactly what is that? Is a virus alive? What about prions?

 

I think this is a real problem. There is no definitive definition.

 

Prions are not considered alive as they are proteins.

 

Viruses, I believe there is no great consensus. As viruses need a host cell, it is reasonable to state that they are not "alive".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think this is a real problem. There is no definitive definition.

 

Prions are not considered alive as they are proteins.

 

Viruses, I believe there is no great consensus. As viruses need a host cell, it is reasonable to state that they are not "alive".

 

Yet both are self-replicating and bound to muddle any definition of life I have ever seen. IMO if either were to be found off our planet, we would have found extraterrestrial life. I would agree, however, that the far more interesting question to contemplate has to do with more complex forms of "life".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some might say that certain catalysts are live as well. Not to mention Clay crystals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I consider any thing that's able to think for itself at any level and able to continue it existance on its own, would be considered alive. (In that definition, embryos are not 'alive' to me. And I would consider more advanced computer programs to be 'alive' at a low level.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I consider any thing that's able to think for itself at any level and able to continue it existance on its own, would be considered alive. (In that definition, embryos are not 'alive' to me. And I would consider more advanced computer programs to be 'alive' at a low level.)

 

 

How would you define think?

 

Do microbes "think"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And like has been said, such is the problem with us searching for life. How do we define life? Do we base it on the preordained axioms of what we classify as life on Earth? How can we do that responsibly?

 

But if we don't base it on SOME standards, then how are we ever going to be able to carry out tests and search for life?

 

"and able to continue it existance on its own"

 

Human babies are not able to continue their existence alone. They are unable to find food, water, shelter, and other things many organisms need to survive...does that mean they are not alive?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I consider any thing that's able to think for itself at any level and able to continue it existance on its own, would be considered alive. (In that definition, embryos are not 'alive' to me. And I would consider more advanced computer programs to be 'alive' at a low level.)

 

[emphasis added]

 

This is ambiguous to the point of uselessness. You don't consider embryos alive because they require the incubator of the womb, but in many ways the same thing can be said of all life on earth with respect to earth as their 'incubator'. Does "on its own" mean in the vacuum of space? Because very, very few things on earth which are considered alive can survive such harsh conditions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:doh::doh::doh::doh:

First off I knew that would catch some flak so :doh: for that. The rest are for losing the reply I would've posted if internet hadn't conviniently crashed. :P

 

OK.

 

How would you define think?

 

Do microbes "think"? Yesterday 5:14 PM

 

Short sweet simple. I consider it to be the ability to make decisions based on its surroundings. Voluntary or not.

 

That said, I withdraw my previous statements about embryos and existance on its own as any think I come up with condradicts itself via parasites.

Share this post


Link to post
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
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • 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.