Jump to content
Jens

Lonely Life? – Is Earth the only planet with life in our galaxy?

Recommended Posts

A rock isn't a living thin. We know that based on our definitions of life, if it is living, it must be able to in some way respond to stimuli, communicate at at least a cellular level, undergo the process of evolution and grow, as well as a couple other limitations. With our data, life cannot form to meet these circumstances if it is say...xenon based, or uranium based. Only certain elements and materials will have the chemical properties unnecessary to create self-organizing systems capable of sustaining and growing in certain environments. A large amount chromium and iron and copper isn't going to do it, those chemicals have very limited bonding capabilities, so if we find a heavily metallic planet with little non-metal resources and not much heat, chances are it will not be able to form any type of life that can fit our definitions of life.

 

Again, no one is suggesting anything but protein based life in water and lightning striking a rock is horse feathers...

 

The oldest living life form we know of is some type of algae, green algae related to it that resides in the oceans still today. We have analyzed all the chemicals in that algae, and many they need water and energy to form on their own. To form in large enough quantities at the right rations so that the quantities are not thrown off due to dynamics shifts in the equilibrium of reversible reactions, there needed to be an environment of some of the chemicals with an extreme amount of heat. It is possible that due to the lack of ozone at the time that intense UV light could have triggered some reaction, but we have not found any experiment in which life is created from intense UV light, as often UV light destroys the chemicals that comprise organic life.

 

Citation please, uv light can indeed build complex organic molecules... You are ignoring much of chemistry and physics here...

 

And if that change happened there would likely be no life on this planet. Not every chemical can successfully deliver energy required to sustain self-organization reactions. We know of definite limitations to the chemical reactions of elements and molecules in certain various environments. We know that some are always exothermic, or always endothermic, or reversible with how their equilibrium shifts, we know that some are molecular, we know that some are ionic, and we know the patterns for elements to form these various things, and we have determined after much observation that many combinations of these chemicals and elements cannot spontaneously form life.

 

I said a minor constituent, say for instance CO2, increase CO2 levels by several times and complex life as we know it would die...

 

You need to seriously look up the definition of a straw-man.

 

 

You need to stop building them...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, no one is suggesting anything but protein based life in water and lightning striking a rock is horse feathers...

 

 

This is at best out dated clap trap and at worst intentional obfuscation, which is it?

You sir, have just contradicted yourself.

 

 

 

Citation please, uv light can indeed build complex organic molecules... You are ignoring much of chemistry and physics here...

 

http://www.scientificpsychic.com/etc/timeline/timeline.html

 

At the late end of the Proterozoic eon, oxygen builds up and Earth's ozone increases, shortly after, algae diversifies. Not coincidentally,

http://www.gardenstew.com/about13527.html

 

intense UV light is used to purify ponds. Of course the correlation between UV light and the diversification of animals wasn't drawn by me, water protects against UV light to some extent, before ozone layers were at a high enough level, algae would die if exposed to the atmosphere due to the UV light.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_evolutionary_history_of_life

"The accumulation of atmospheric oxygen allows the formation of an ozone layer.[35] This blocks ultraviolet radiation, permitting the colonisation of the land.[35]".

I also happen to have a history book suggesting the same.

 

Now, can you please provide me with any source that says life is common in the universe? I don't think so.

 

I said a minor constituent, say for instance CO2, increase CO2 levels by several times and complex life as we know it would die...

Plants? Citation?

 

You need to stop building them...

Or you could just learn the definition so you learn when it makes sense to bring them up.

Edited by SamBridge

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You sir, have just contradicted yourself.

 

You said this, it is nothing but horse feathers, the very same horse feathers creationists use to support their own horse feathers, do some googling and see for your self

 

Which scientifically we expect was something lie lightning strikes a pool of water containing complex chemicals. Those possible circumstances still exist on Earth. There's still the same chemicals in the oldest life form now, there's still lighting, life had 3.8 billion more years to spontaneously form on Earth again, and out of all that time it didn't.

 

This statement is false, science does not predict such a thing...

 

http://www.scientificpsychic.com/etc/timeline/timeline.html

 

At the late end of the Proterozoic eon, oxygen builds up and Earth's ozone increases, shortly after, algae diversifies. Not coincidentally,

 

No, you misread it...

 

 

 

Paleoproterozoic Era (2500 to 1600 mya)
Siderian Period (2500 to 2300 mya)
- Stable continents first appeared.
- 2500 mya: First free oxygen is found
in the oceans and atmosphere.
- 2400 mya: Great Oxidation Event,
also called the Oxygen Catastrophe.
Oxidation precipitates dissolved iron
creating banded iron formations.[14]
Anaerobic organisms are poisoned by oxygen.
- 2400 mya: Start of Huronian ice age

 

 

http://www.gardenstew.com/about13527.html

 

intense UV light is used to purify ponds. Of course the correlation between UV light and the diversification of animals wasn't drawn by me, water protects against UV light to some extent, before ozone layers were at a high enough level, algae would die if exposed to the atmosphere due to the UV light.

 

I am well aware of the sterilization effects of UV light, I use UV sterilizers in my aquariums but the organism has to be exposed to be effected and various wave lengths of UV light effect organics in various ways and killing off modern organisms by directly exposing them to the most effective biocidal rays is not evidence of any thing other than the special conditions inside an UV sterilizer... I designed and helped build UV sterilizers for DuPont at one time...

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_evolutionary_history_of_life

"The accumulation of atmospheric oxygen allows the formation of an ozone layer.[35] This blocks ultraviolet radiation, permitting the colonisation of the land.[35]".

I also happen to have a history book suggesting the same.

 

I am honestly not sure what you are asserting here, please elaborate...

 

Now, can you please provide me with any source that says life is common in the universe? I don't think so.

 

Can you provide evidence it is not?

 

Plants? Citation?

 

Plants are less sensitive to High CO2 levels but have a limit just like animals but animals are far more sensitive but both animals and plants are capable of evolving to live in higher levels but to say the earth is perfect is ignoring the fact that life on earth has evolved to fit the earth...

 

Or you could just learn the definition so you learn when it makes sense to bring them up.

 

 

yeah... I'll work on that... I'll use your examples to identify them... tongue.png

Edited by Moontanman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You said this, it is nothing but horse feathers, the very same horse feathers creationists use to support their own horse feathers, do some googling and see for your self

You contracted yourself plain in simple. You called it BS, then you said no one called it BS, it's plain and easy to see by anyone, you just don't want to admit it.

 

 

 

This statement is false, science does not predict such a thing...

I will admit that the scientific community has not agreed to that necessarily however we have no evidence that the same conditions have formed again, because we don't know what those circumstances were. Seeing has how we've tested literally hundreds of thousands of chemical reactions in various ways and have not created life, we can safely say that it is rare or highly unlikely for random chemicals we know of to spontaneously form life, and most planets contain chemicals we can identity. There's even some chemical responsible for raspberry flavoring found in gas clouds of Sagittarius A.

 

I am well aware of the sterilization effects of UV light, I use UV sterilizers in my aquariums but the organism has to be exposed to be effected and various wave lengths of UV light effect organics in various ways and killing off modern organisms by directly exposing them to the most effective biocidal rays is not evidence of any thing other than the special conditions inside an UV sterilizer... I designed and helped build UV sterilizers for DuPont at one time...

It is evidence that life can easily be killed off just from mere sunlight.

 

 

 

I am honestly not sure what you are asserting here, please elaborate...

Life was only able to form on land after the ozone was built up, since UV rays kill algae exposed to enough, and the ozone blocks UV rays, we can say the ozone blocked the UV rays that prohibited life from developing on land.

 

Can you provide evidence it is not?

Evidence other than not finding any other element based life or base pair life on our planet, any planet in our solar system, and the lack of results from multiple observatories tracking radio signals and telescopes seeking out planets and finding many of them too extreme in temperature or atmosphere or too lacking of resources?

 

Plants are less sensitive to High CO2 levels but have a limit just like animals but animals are far more sensitive but both animals and plants are capable of evolving to live in higher levels but to say the earth is perfect is ignoring the fact that life on earth has evolved to fit the earth...

But life developed because only certain chemicals can react in such a way to support complex or self-organizing life forms. Many chemicals cannot do this, many chemicals have very finite boundaries within terrestrial circumstances and even extra-terrestrial circumstances. You very likely cannot get life from some copper and iron and chromium, or even combined with fluorine and nitrogen and oxygen, we have scientific experiments involving these chemicals, it takes very many very complex chemicals working together, and in certain conditions very complex chemicals just cannot possibly form or be sustained long enough to create a self-organizing system, and many complex chemicals cannot be formed in conditions of extreme heat or extreme cold.

 

yeah... I'll work on that... I'll use your examples to identify them... tongue.png

And I'll use that as an example of "trolling".

Edited by SamBridge

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You contracted yourself plain in simple. You called it BS, then you said no one called it BS, it's plain and easy to see by anyone, you just don't want to admit it.

 

I called what was BS and then said no one called it BS?

 

I will admit that the scientific community has not agreed to that necessarily however we have no evidence that the same conditions have formed again, because we don't know what those circumstances were. Seeing has how we've tested literally hundreds of thousands of chemical reactions in various ways and have not created life, we can safely say that it is rare or highly unlikely for random chemicals we know of to spontaneously form life, and most planets contain chemicals we can identity. There's even some chemical responsible for raspberry flavoring found in gas clouds of Sagittarius A.

 

i think it's more plausible that laboratory conditions are far to confined to ever produce life from chemicals but possible chemical pathways have been identified and are being investigated

 

It is evidence that life can easily be killed off just from mere sunlight.

 

So how did life survive in the ocean before ozone?

 

Life was only able to form on land after the ozone was built up, since UV rays kill algae exposed to enough, and the ozone blocks UV rays, we can say the ozone blocked the UV rays that prohibited life from developing on land.

 

I would not contest that...

 

Evidence other than not finding any other based life or base pair life on our planet, any planet in our solar system, and the lack of results from multiple observatories tracking radio signals and telescopes seeking out planets?

 

The first is not evidence of anything as i have already pointed out. We have not really tested any other planet in our solar system other than mars and many scientists think those tests were flawed and can't be used to support either contention... The third part of this can be said to be misleading at best since radio signals from the earth are now thought to be absorbed by the interstellar medium before even the nearest star could receive them...

 

But life developed because only certain chemicals can react in such a way to support complex or self-organizing life forms. Many chemicals cannot do this, many chemicals have very finite boundaries within terrestrial circumstances and even extra-terrestrial circumstances. You very likely cannot get life from some copper and iron and chromium, or even combined with fluorine and nitrogen and oxygen, we have scientific experiments involving these chemicals, it takes very many very complex chemicals working together, and in certain conditions very complex chemicals just cannot possibly form or be sustained long enough to create a self-organizing system.

 

Strawman yet again, no one has suggested that we are talking about anything but protein based life in water...

 

And I'll use that as an example of "trolling".

 

Feel free to use that any way you want, i would suggest printing it out and rolling it into a spindle... tongue.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I called what was BS and then said no one called it BS?

Yep, go back and read it if you like.

 

 

 

 

i think it's more plausible that laboratory conditions are far to confined to ever produce life from chemicals but possible chemical pathways have been identified and are being investigated

It's somewhat of a fair point, but we and Earth itself have been playing around with chemicals for a very long time, and so far, no evidence of other types of life have been found. We have a data base of thousands of chemicals and testing of millions of people all over the world, I bet there are even people who try to re-create life and so far have failed.

 

The first is not evidence of anything as i have already pointed out.

It is definitely evidence that life spontaneously forming is rare.

 

The first is not evidence of anything as i have already pointed out. We have not really tested any other planet in our solar system other than mars and many scientists think those tests were flawed and can't be used to support either contention... The third part of this can be said to be misleading at best since radio signals from the earth are now thought to be absorbed by the interstellar medium before even the nearest star could receive them...

But we can know a bit about the composition of the atmosphere, as well as how hot or cold it is. If it's too hot, many complex chemicals can't form and their bounds would break from the heat. If it's too cold, complex chemicals can't form because they need energy to create stable bonds. If it's just right, it needs diverse resources to even have a chance.

 

Strawman yet again, no one has suggested that we are talking about anything but protein based life in water...

So your telling me that after you stated we don't know what forms life could take or what it's created from, that we are only talking about a single circumstance? That would mean you support the notion that you think life can only be "protein based" in water, which even so is not what I said, because I stated the base element and base pairs. You can hypothetically have some of the same proteins in a different element based organism, or an organism with a different number of base pairs, or possibly an organism without proteins, so long as the cells are self organizing. The problem is, there's many chemicals that we know of which do not support self organizing and mess up chemical processes by interacting and forming a compound that needs way too much energy to break the bonds of, or releases to much energy and would sure ionize surrounding stable chemicals.

Edited by SamBridge

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep, go back and read it if you like.

 

Give me the post number...

 

It's somewhat of a fair point, but we and Earth itself have been playing around with chemicals for a very long time, and so far, no evidence of other types of life have been found. We have a data base of thousands of chemicals and testing of millions of people all over the world, I bet there are even people who try to re-create life and so far have failed.

 

No, we cannot possibly do any where near the number of natural experiments that occurred in just a year on the primitive earth, literally billions of chemical combinations a second at that rate even something extremely unlikely becomes certain...

 

It is definitely evidence that life spontaneously forming is rare.

 

No it isn't, please show some evidence of this from someplace besides creation scientists...

 

But we can know a bit about the composition of the atmosphere, as well as how hot or cold it is. If it's too hot, many complex chemicals can't form and their bounds would break from the heat. If it's too cold, complex chemicals can't form because they need energy to create stable bonds. If it's just right, it needs diverse resources to even have a chance.

 

several planets in our solar system are possible abodes of life, Mars, Europa, Titan, in fact Saturn has a moon that spouts geysers, that contain complex organics, very similar to bacteria but the instruments sent weren't designed to confirm the exact composition because it was an unknown thing when the space craft was sent. I would include Neptune and Uranus in that estimate but that's another conversation...

 

So your telling me that after you stated we don't know what forms life could take or what it's created from, that we are only talking about a single circumstance? That would mean you support the notion that you think life can only be "protein based" in water, which even so is not what I said, because I stated the base element and base pairs. You can hypothetically have some of the same proteins in a different element based organism, or an organism with a different number of base pairs, or possibly an organism without proteins, so long as the cells are self organizing. The problem is, there's many chemicals that we know of which do not support self organizing and mess up chemical processes by interacting and forming a compound that needs way too much energy to break the bonds of, or releases to much energy and would sure ionize surrounding stable chemicals.

 

 

I was evidently unaware that such long odds possibilities was being considered... ohmy.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Give me the post number...

Read the top of post #27

 

 

 

No, we cannot possibly do any where near the number of natural experiments that occurred in just a year on the primitive earth

But we can still confirm that many of the compounds that we know of, which are found on other planets do not support self-organizing systems or complex chemicals. Even if there's 100,000 unknown chemicals, not only can we predict properties, but if we know about chemical x, and that once it combines with chemical y to form the solid compound chemical z, which does not dissolve in water, we know it takes "d" joules to break the bonds, something that cannot be done on a cellular level without destroying other tissue and chemicals. There's things like that which define some of the limitations. You can't make life by throwing any random elements together.

 

 

 

No it isn't, please show some evidence of this from someplace besides creation scientists...

I'm pretty sure most creationists believe god created life, not life spontaneously created itself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

This goes over multiple views of the subject. The later part might sound confusing, so I will clear it up. The spontaneous generation refers to the old philosophical assumptions that "rats are created from hey stacks" and "maggos are created in meat". Louis Pasteure's work obviously proved this wrong, however in relation to the original of life on Earth,

" Most currently accepted models draw at least some elements from the framework laid out by the Oparin-Haldane hypothesis." which is the primordial soup theory, which is different than the spontaneous generation of animals from inanimate matter.

 

 

 

several planets in our solar system are possible abodes of life, Mars, Europa, Titan, in fact Saturn has a moon that spouts geysers, that contain complex organics, very similar to bacteria but the instruments sent weren't designed to confirm the exact composition because it was an unknown thing when the space craft was sent. I would include Neptune and Uranus in that estimate but that's another conversation...

Perhaps titan could contain life, we will have to investigate it more though, it has heat and complex chemicals created through ocean vents that mimic terrestrial conditions, we will have to wait and see about it.

 

 

 

I was evidently unaware that such long odds possibilities was being considered... ohmy.png

Life doesn't have to exist as we know it, but that doesn't mean there aren't limitations to the interactions of chemicals. Carbon and Silicon are the only elements capable efficiently of bonding with themselves many tims in a row to form complex chemicals that store energy which can later be broken down by interactions with simple chemicals, other elements are not capable of doing this except for silicon and possibly an element or two like Molybdenum and titanium which can form bonds greater than 4 in very rare circumstances, and silicon does not even store as much energy as carbon, and it weighs more, it takes more energy to reproduce, if you double the mass of carbon in you're body you'd definitely weigh more, that limits how much movement can be done for a single unit of energy.

So if we know a planet has a surface of mostly copper, and has hardly any atmosphere even, we can say that it likely does not contain any organism that would fit under out definition of life.

Edited by SamBridge

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

SamBridge, on 24 Feb 2013 - 15:52, said:snapback.png

Which scientifically we expect was something lie lightning strikes a pool of water containing complex chemicals. Those possible circumstances still exist on Earth. There's still the same chemicals in the oldest life form now, there's still lighting, life had 3.8 billion more years to spontaneously form on Earth again, and out of all that time it didn't.

This is at best out dated clap trap and at worst intentional obfuscation, which is it?

Posted Yesterday, 04:28 PM

 

SamBridge, on 24 Feb 2013 - 16:26, said:snapback.png

A rock isn't a living thin. We know that based on our definitions of life, if it is living, it must be able to in some way respond to stimuli, communicate at at least a cellular level, undergo the process of evolution and grow, as well as a couple other limitations. With our data, life cannot form to meet these circumstances if it is say...xenon based, or uranium based. Only certain elements and materials will have the chemical properties unnecessary to create self-organizing systems capable of sustaining and growing in certain environments. A large amount chromium and iron and copper isn't going to do it, those chemicals have very limited bonding capabilities, so if we find a heavily metallic planet with little non-metal resources and not much heat, chances are it will not be able to form any type of life that can fit our definitions of life.

 

Again, no one is suggesting anything but protein based life in water and lightning striking a rock is horse feathers...

 

 

How did i contradict myself here?

 

Read the top of post #27

 

I did, i don't see it...

 

But we can still confirm that many of the compounds that we know of, which are found on other planets do not support self-organizing systems or complex chemicals. Even if there's 100,000 unknown chemicals, not only can we predict properties, but if we know about chemical x, and that once it combines with chemical y to form the solid compound chemical z, which does not dissolve in water, we know it takes "d" joules to break the bonds, something that cannot be done on a cellular level without destroying other tissue and chemicals. There's things like that which define some of the limitations. You can't make life by throwing any random elements together.

 

Straw man, I never said you could create life by throwing random elements together...

 

I'm pretty sure most creationists believe god created life, not life spontaneously created itself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

This goes over multiple views of the subject. The later part might sound confusing, so I will clear it up. The spontaneous generation refers to the old philosophical assumptions that "rats are created from hey stacks" and "maggos are created in meat". Louis Pasteure's work obviously proved this wrong, however in relation to the original of life on Earth,

" Most currently accepted models draw at least some elements from the framework laid out by the Oparin-Haldane hypothesis." which is the primordial soup theory, which is different than the spontaneous generation of animals from inanimate matter.

 

I said your arguments sounded like a creationist, they deride abiogenesis by saying lightning struck a rock and created life...

 

Perhaps titan could contain life, we will have to investigate it more though, it has heat and complex chemicals created through ocean vents that mimic terrestrial conditions, we will have to wait and see about it.

 

Obviously so...

 

Life doesn't have to exist as we know it, but that doesn't mean there aren't limitations to the interactions of chemicals. Carbon and Silicon are the only elements capable efficiently of bonding with themselves many tims in a row to form complex chemicals that store energy which can later be broken down by interactions with simple chemicals, other elements are not capable of doing this except for silicon and possibly an element or two like Molybdenum and titanium which can form bonds greater than 4 in very rare circumstances, and silicon does not even store as much energy as carbon, and it weighs more, it takes more energy to reproduce, if you double the mass of carbon in you're body you'd definitely weigh more, that limits how much movement can be done for a single unit of energy.

So if we know a planet has a surface of mostly copper, and has hardly any atmosphere even, we can say that it likely does not contain any organism that would fit under out definition of life.

 

 

Actually there are other possibilities, some that are not generally considered arr the organometallic molecules, on very hot worlds with molten silicate surfaces aluminium becomes a possible base for life but there are other possibilities

 

boron

 

born nitrogen polymers

Phosphorous nitrogen polymers

 

http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/savvy-scientist/invisible-aliens-theyre-not-life-as-we-know-it-8212-yet/425

 

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

 

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How did i contradict myself here?

What I was referring to was obviously primordial soup theory. You said it was outdated crap, then not only did you contradict yourself by saying that no one said anything against it, there was a wikipedia article stating it's one of the most accepted models of the original of life.

 

 

 

I said your arguments sounded like a creationist, they deride abiogenesis by saying lightning struck a rock and created life...

Why does it matter if they "sound" creationist if you can so clearly tell the difference?

 

 

 

 

Actually there are other possibilities, some that are not generally considered arr the organometallic molecules, on very hot worlds with molten silicate surfaces aluminium becomes a possible base for life but there are other possibilities

 

Yes I am familiar with silicon based life forms. However, many "organic" bonds are unstable at high temperatures, they simply break down, it needs some more testing in the first place. We've seen a few microbes that have replaced phosphorous with arsenic in their environment, perhaps it is possible to replace carbon with silicon and conduct experiments on those microbes, but even then, tungsten carbide has it's limits when it comes to the complexity of how it can bond.

 

Boron and nitrogen are possible, however as it says it is more limited in it's capabilities which would make it even more rare than possible organic life.

With regards to Mars, scientists still used evidence that microbes were organic, though if you look at titan, it is made of many organic molecules, mainly methane, but the devices that landed on it did not find life, it's also very cold there as well.

 

We simply don't have enough evidence that life is common. If we find life on mars and titan or w/e other planet in out solar system I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

Edited by SamBridge

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I was referring to was obviously primordial soup theory. You said it was outdated crap, then not only did you contradict yourself by saying that no one said anything against it, there was a wikipedia article stating it's one of the most accepted models of the original of life.

 

Lightning striking something and creating life is not part of real science... You said this

 

Which scientifically we expect was something lie lightning strikes a pool of water containing complex chemicals. Those possible circumstances still exist on Earth. There's still the same chemicals in the oldest life form now, there's still lighting, life had 3.8 billion more years to spontaneously form on Earth again, and out of all that time it didn't.

 

 

Why does it matter if they "sound" creationist if you can so clearly tell the difference?

 

The difference is not clear...

 

Yes I am familiar with silicon based life forms. However, many "organic" bonds are unstable at high temperatures, they simply break down, it needs some more testing in the first place. We've seen a few microbes that have replaced phosphorous with arsenic in their environment, perhaps it is possible to replace carbon with silicon and conduct experiments on those microbes, but even then, tungsten carbide has it's limits when it comes to the complexity of how it can bond.

 

Ummm while i do not think silicon or silicone life is probable, the reactions are energy deficient but any pseudo organic bonds made from silicone are very stable at high temps...

 

Boron and nitrogen are possible, however as it says it is more limited in it's capabilities which would make it even more rare than possible organic life.

 

I agree, they are very distant also ran's in this discussion I think...

 

With regards to Mars, scientists still used evidence that microbes were organic, though if you look at titan, it is made of many organic molecules, mainly methane, but the devices that landed on it did not find life, it's also very cold there as well.

 

Considering no device has landed on Titan that had the capability to look for any sort of life I can't see why you would say that...

 

We simply don't have enough evidence that life is common. If we find life on mars and titan or w/e other planet in out solar system I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

 

 

I have to agree, at this point we have a data set of 1, no curve can be drawn from one data point...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lightning striking something and creating life is not part of real science... You said this

But lightning strikes are still an instance using primordial soup theory, which as it's stated is "one of the most accepted models of the origin of life.".You can't say it's outdated crap without calling primordial soup theory outdated crap, unless you had specified that specifically lightning made it out dated, which I doubt you have evidence for.

 

 

The difference is not clear...

So even though the text didn't change, one hour it's clear, and the next it isn't? Or maybe you were not justified to relate it to religious creationism.

 

 

 

Considering no device has landed on Titan that had the capability to look for any sort of life I can't see why you would say that...

Cassini successfully landed on Titan and returned with sampling data of the atmosphere and surface. The spectrometers used to analyze the atmosphere and "soil" would surely show impurities of complex chemicals that would seem odd to have naturally occurred, if life had formed long enough ago and adapted to it for it to spread.

 

 

 

I have to agree, at this point we have a data set of 1, no curve can be drawn from one data point...

Then it's settled. At this point, we cannot 100% confirm life is either rare or common.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But lightning strikes are still an instance using primordial soup theory, which as it's stated is "one of the most accepted models of the origin of life.".You can't say it's outdated crap without calling primordial soup theory outdated crap, unless you had specified that specifically lightning made it out dated, which I doubt you have evidence for.

 

Again, no, that is quite outdated, yes energy discharges of various types could have been involved but that isn't even close to the scientific consensus at this time...

 

So even though the text didn't change, one hour it's clear, and the next it isn't? Or maybe you were not justified to relate it to religious creationism.

 

Please see above...

 

Cassini successfully landed on Titan and returned with sampling data of the atmosphere and surface. The spectrometers used to analyze the atmosphere and "soil" would surely show impurities of complex chemicals that would seem odd to have naturally occurred, if life had formed long enough ago and adapted to it for it to spread.

 

You so far off the mark on this you don't even get credit for being wrong...

 

Then it's settled. At this point, we cannot 100% confirm life is either rare or common.

 

 

At this point it would be impossible to say for sure... And in the spirit of honest disclosure even if we did find life all over the solar system if it was the same as earth life we would be back at square one due to the possibility that rocks thrown off the earth during impacts could have spread earth life all over the solar system...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, no, that is quite outdated, yes energy discharges of various types could have been involved but that isn't even close to the scientific consensus at this time...

If primordial soup theory is so outdated, why are so many accepted models based off of it? It obviously has relevance in the present. How else would you think life could develop on so many planets?

 

 

 

Please see above...

 

Well the article says primordial soup theory was not created for religious purposes, it was created to explain how original life originated.

 

 

 

You so far off the mark on this you don't even get credit for being wrong...

That's weird because

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cassini%E2%80%93Huygens

"It reached Saturn's moon Titan on January 14, 2005, when it entered Titan's atmosphere and descended to the surface. It successfully returned data to Earth, using the orbiter as a relay." It or it's components didn't exit titan as I had previously suspected, but it was able to successfully give astronomers an idea of what it's like on Titan.

 

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/cassini/whycassini/cassini20100511.html

"Other instruments will also be collecting data,"

"The composite infrared spectrometer, for instance,"

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cassini%E2%80%93Huygens

 

"The VIMS is a remote sensing instrument that captures images using visible and infrared light to learn more about the composition of moon surfaces"

 

It had many instruments to analyze it's environment.

 

 

 

At this point it would be impossible to say for sure... And in the spirit of honest disclosure even if we did find life all over the solar system if it was the same as earth life we would be back at square one due to the possibility that rocks thrown off the earth during impacts could have spread earth life all over the solar system...

Hopefully NASA will get to working on the warp drive soon.

Edited by SamBridge

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Life as we know it is likely rare for any given field of view, this planet is really good for life, yet in the 3.8 billion years life started, we have not seen any new type of base-pair life, that's how unlikely it is. Even on a perfect planet we have not seen any new life spontaneously develop after 3.8 billion years, but given that the universe is so large there must be life in at least one other planet. Given that it is indefinitely large, there could be an indefinite amount of life, but looking at probability it would still have to be spread out pretty far.

 

Any new life will not yet of undergone any more than a few generations of natural selection before encounter much more adapted life which will likely out compete it for any available niche. So I dont consider it unexpected that all life on earth is descended from a common ancestor.

 

Its funny how much is written about astrobiology when with a statistical sample of 1 we simply don't know.

 

I cant wait till we insert a submarine into Europa in which case if we find no life we know it does not always happen but it could still be quite common, if we find life its probably quite common unless it comes from pansthermia the we are back to square one. But on the plus side a common ancestor would make Europan calamari more edible.

 

 

 

Hopefully NASA will get to working on the warp drive soon.

 

A working, practical warp drive would be dam handy. But it would also highlight Fermi's paradox in a BIG way. On the plus side sterile worlds waiting to be seeded with algae would be much easier to terraform than worlds already filled with life made indigestible left handed proteins and odd base pairs. There would also be lots of Avatar fans preventing human expansion, such ethical considerations would be null when seeding a sterile world to make homes for space Amish.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If primordial soup theory is so outdated, why are so many accepted models based off of it? It obviously has relevance in the present. How else would you think life could develop on so many planets?

 

Your version of the primordial soup is out dated and the idea never suggested that lightning struck a pol of water and created anything...

 

Well the article says primordial soup theory was not created for religious purposes, it was created to explain how original life originated.

 

No but the ridiculous claim of lightning striking something and creating life is not part of that theory... but the idea of lightning striking something and creating life is a nonsensical version used by creationists to make abiogenesis look silly to the sheep they preach to...

 

That's weird because

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cassini%E2%80%93Huygens

"It reached Saturn's moon Titan on January 14, 2005, when it entered Titan's atmosphere and descended to the surface. It successfully returned data to Earth, using the orbiter as a relay." It or it's components didn't exit titan as I had previously suspected, but it was able to successfully give astronomers an idea of what it's like on Titan.

 

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/cassini/whycassini/cassini20100511.html

"Other instruments will also be collecting data,"

"The composite infrared spectrometer, for instance,"

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cassini%E2%80%93Huygens

 

"The VIMS is a remote sensing instrument that captures images using visible and infrared light to learn more about the composition of moon surfaces"

 

It had many instruments to analyze it's environment.

 

 

 

Hopefully NASA will get to working on the warp drive soon.

 

 

You said:

 

Cassini successfully landed on Titan and returned with sampling data of the atmosphere and surface.

 

The probe was named Huygens, if did not return with anything... Huygens is still on the surface of Titan...

 

The spectrometers used to analyze the atmosphere and "soil" would surely show impurities of complex chemicals that would seem odd to have naturally occurred, if life had formed long enough ago and adapted to it for it to spread.

 

 

Again... No, Huygens was not equipped to find life or evidence of life but it did find ethane and butane...

 

Not even close enough to be wrong...

Edited by Moontanman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Earth isn't unique, it's darned unusual.

Before life could be possible, a solar system would have to form in one of those rare regions of a galaxy that is not bathed in radiation.

Before life could be possible, a planet would have to form with just enough carbon and carbonates to give life a chance to evolve and generate enough CO2 early in the planet's evolution to protect it from icing over.

Before life could be possible, a very large moon would have to form. Our moon stabilizes our axis so that we do not have extreme climatic occillations. Our moon has been gradually drifting away from the Earth and in a few hundred million years, it will be too far away to stabilze our axis.

Our disproportionately large moon also gives us tides that would facilitate the evolution of land based life.

Before life could be possible, a solar system with distant gas giant planets would be necessary to stabilize the asteroid belt so that the inner, life nurturing planets, are not getting pounded with giant asteroids so frequently that complex life would not have time to evolve.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your assertion is falsified by the simple fact that liquid water does not mean we could live there and not being able to eat the local wild life is the least of our worries. A few percentage points differences in the minor gas constituents from Earth normal would be a deal breaker. In fact humans couldn't have lived on the earth 800 million years ago due to the differences in atmospheric gas, liquid water may indeed be a prerequisite for life but it doesn't guarantee we could live there. Ever see the movie Avatar?

 

Actually, humans do very well support a much lower concentration of O2, lower pressure and higher pressure, absence of N2 and arbitrary concentrations of H2O. Yes, I have seen avatar and I like the film very much (especially the plant life). However, it is not a scientific source of information smile.png. At the temperature range of liquid water, the possible molecules in the atmosphere is not endless, since molecules need to be small. Just assuming a planet with big oceans of liquid water, means that many other possible gases are washed out by rain to a large extend and will be used by microbial life as energy source. Microbes on earth have used and are still using basically any molecule as source of energy which is present in the environment (see for example "Brock - Biology of Microorganisms"). Like on Earth they will all be consumed (CO, SO2, ...). Or those molecules are inert (like N2), but this also means they are not toxic. So actually the molecule that will pose the biggest issue is CO2. This is because of human blood pressure regulation. Even though it does not kill humans immediately you loose consciousness immediately. So for humans (unless genetically "improved" smile.png ) a planet is only suitable once it has reached the steady state we have on Earth today: A very low concentration of CO2, because every surplus CO2 has already been consumed by autotrophic life (like plants and cyanobacteria). So from my point of view a planet with liquid water and life will have an atmosphere like Earth over time.

 

Or which toxic molecule in the atmosphere you are thinking about?

 

If Earth isn't unique, it's darned unusual.

Before life could be possible, a solar system would have to form in one of those rare regions of a galaxy that is not bathed in radiation.

Before life could be possible, a planet would have to form with just enough carbon and carbonates to give life a chance to evolve and generate enough CO2 early in the planet's evolution to protect it from icing over.

Before life could be possible, a very large moon would have to form. Our moon stabilizes our axis so that we do not have extreme climatic occillations. Our moon has been gradually drifting away from the Earth and in a few hundred million years, it will be too far away to stabilze our axis.

Our disproportionately large moon also gives us tides that would facilitate the evolution of land based life.

Before life could be possible, a solar system with distant gas giant planets would be necessary to stabilize the asteroid belt so that the inner, life nurturing planets, are not getting pounded with giant asteroids so frequently that complex life would not have time to evolve.

 

What you state is very well explained in read "Rare Earth" (Ward D, Brownlee D (2000) Rare Earth. Why Complex Life is Uncommon in the Universe. ISBN 0-387-98701-0, Copernikus, Springer Press, New York.). I have read it. But I am not convinced.

 

As a biochemist looking at the exact details of life, I challenge the assumption of this book that abiogenesis is easy and the evolution from a first cell to a human (or any intelligent life form) is difficult (and I find this a bit human centric). Especially if we can explain the latter (evolution) but not yet the first (abiogenesis). From the biochemistry of life it is only a small step from a microorganism to a human but a big from chemical substances to the first microorganism. The space here is too short to list all the details that we (humans) share with all the existing life forms. However, of course I might be wrong.

 

But more to the facts: The book is completely underestimating the flexibility of life:

 

Temperature range: The only reason why there is no complex life above a certain temperature on Earth is simply because those habitats which are hot and wet do not exist or are simply too small, and not because complex life cannot survive above 50°C or so.

 

Stability: Let’s keep with the definition of the book that complex life is something like plants and animals. All animals suddenly appeared 800 million years ago, after a much longer time period, where only microorganisms were present. This time of 800 million years is the same time in which probably (still in discussion) Earth had a dramatic climatic shift and was completely frozen (snowball Earth). After 10 million years of a snowball so much CO2 accumulated in the atmosphere (because there was no rain any more) that the green-house effect over the equator was just enough to melt the ice there. This then resulted in a dramatic positive feedback (since free water absorbs the light and the heat) that Earth jumped from completely frozen to completely hot within 100 years. This means after those hundred years you suddenly had nice temperatures for life, and an enormous amount of cyanobacteria (still high CO2) which serve as food for those Eukaryotes eating them. This means in such a paradise every cell was surviving, even if it contained a mutation that was not optimal. Surviving the accumulation of mutations that are each a disadvantage and only finally (with the last mutation) form an advantage, is critical to make big steps in evolution. Summary, if the environment is too stable, evolution quickly gets trapped in local optimums. So killing big amounts of life and so that life afterwards can colonize empty habitats with absence of stiff competition is what speeds up big evolutionary progress. And: Rapid climatic changes in east Africa is supposed to have triggered the emergence of homo sapiens. So more climate changes than we had on Earth actually means also quicker evolution. So there are good reasons to doubt that a giant moon is really needed. Changing rotation axis will not stop evolution, quite the opposite is true.

 

Do you have more details on the frequency or magnitude of those changes if there would be no moon?

Edited by Jens

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's a link about the stabilizing influence of the moon. Note that Mars' axial tilt occilates from 10 - 60 degrees because its moons are so small. I doubt that life as we now see it here would be possible if Earth's axis occilated so wildely. http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2011/05/who-needs-a-moon.html

 

Thank you for the interesting link! Directly on this page Jack Lissauer is quoted:

That’s because really big changes in a planet’s tilt would occur only after a very long time, so there would be more than enough time for the evolution of life, Lissauer reported yesterday here at the summer meeting of the American Astronomical Society.

This is exactly what I mean.

And I push it even more: Those climate changes actually speed up evolution. If you do not change the environment evolution is not very quick because it gets trapped in local optima quite quickly.

 

Another obervation: On the page they state:

Indeed, Laskar and Robutel also showed that the axial tilt of Mars, which has only two tiny moons, has varied between 10° and 60° in the past, which caused huge climate variations that in turn could have contributed to the loss of most of the planet’s atmosphere, leaving Mars the bone-dry desert world that it is now.

I always thought that Mars has lost its water because it is smaller --> got solid internally --> no magnetic field --> no protection from sun wind --> ionisation of gas (e.g. water) --> loss of the atoms or H2 formed, since gravity of Mars is not enough.

May it be that even the Science web page is trying to make interesting news smile.png ? (this is a business after all)

 

 

 

 

 

 

The oceans of Europa could have more oxygen than earths oceans...

 

http://phys.org/news174918239.html

Interesting. Do you have any idea how I can obtain more details since it is only stated "Using estimates for the production of oxidizers at the surface".

I wonder what he actually means, since O2 does not form easily (since it is highly reactive).

 

At a first glance this looks like inventing an interesting story (Since many non-biologist considers only animals and plants as life and are not interested in life you cannot see smile.png -- and some even think only of animals if the use the word life smile.png ). However, with more details I might change my mind completely. I am not convinced at all, because

  • I cannot imagine that a several hundred meters thick ice layer even if moved continously can move more oxygen (O2) into the water than on Earth with liquid water moved by the wind and an atmosphere with 20% of O2. (so not explaining the details is highly suspicous)
  • Of course -- if there is life -- all the O2 in the water will be consumed (like on Earth) mainly by microorganisms. Microorganisms are doing the same thing as animals: They take energy rich molecules for mother life forms and let them react with O2 to gain energy. They will not let the slightest chance for bigger fauna to consume O2. On Earth this is only working, because there are giant amounts of cyanobacteria (directly or as part of algae) in the oceans that produce O2 all the time (and the vast majority -- in quantative sense -- of other life forms are just using directly or indirectly the molecules produced by the cyanobacteria). This is not possible on Europa, because the oceans are completely dark.

In addition the wording

support roughly 3 billion kilograms of macrofauna, assuming similar oxygen demands to terrestrial fish

looks like the authors have not included (intentionally?) the invisible and small animals (microfauna) that the macrofauna actually eats and that consume of course in total much more O2 than the macrofauna. So this also looks like story-inventing.

 

Just in case: Do you know any free articles behind?

(probably I have to buy the book mentioned. So story telling worked smile.png )

 

Edited by Jens

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jens, UV radiation causes the production of H2O2 in the ice, as it is subducted into the ocean beneath the ice the H2O2 degrades into O2 and H2O and is released into the ocean underneath...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a question i ask myself every day.

 

It's good you said "in our galaxy" and not "in the universe" because, well, it's mathematically impossible for there not to be life elsewhere in the universe,

and as for our own galaxy goes, i like to believe yes, life can live in places that we have earlier deemed inhabitable, i'd love to delve deeper into this subject at some other time, but im a little busy at the moment and i just saw this thread and thought i wanted to make a quick reply.

 

Isn't it a mind blowing thing, to actually look up at the night sky, and think something out there in the universe, might also be looking up at the stars asking the exact same questions as we do, what is our purpose, are we alone? It amazes me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jens, UV radiation causes the production of H2O2 in the ice, as it is subducted into the ocean beneath the ice the H2O2 degrades into O2 and H2O and is released into the ocean underneath...

Thanks, I will buy the book ("Unmasking Europa: The Search for Life on Jupiter's Ocean Moon") and read it and post the comments here. (Will take about 2-3 weeks).

 

 

This is a question i ask myself every day.

 

Isn't it a mind blowing thing, to actually look up at the night sky, and think something out there in the universe, might also be looking up at the stars asking the exact same questions as we do, what is our purpose, are we alone? It amazes me.

I feel the same.

(Off topic: Unfortunately in Western Europe you nearly never see the Galaxy and only a few stars. Hope that people think about it nevertheless...)

 

It's good you said "in our galaxy" and not "in the universe" because, well, it's mathematically impossible for there not to be life elsewhere in the universe,

It is impossible to apply any mathematical model, if we do not know how abiogenesis happened (or are even able to reproduce something like it in a laboratory). So I do not follow this statement, but actually that does not really matter (it is anyhow too far off).

I intentionally have taken "Galaxy" and not "Universe" to exactly not have a discussion how big our universe actually is (which is a separate topic). So you are right in pointing this out.

and as for our own galaxy goes, i like to believe yes, life can live in places that we have earlier deemed inhabitable, i'd love to delve deeper into this subject at some other time, but im a little busy at the moment and i just saw this thread and thought i wanted to make a quick reply.

looking forward to read your opinion smile.png Edited by Jens

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks, I will buy the book ("Unmasking Europa: The Search for Life on Jupiter's Ocean Moon") and read it and post the comments here. (Will take about 2-3 weeks).

 

 

I might see if I can get a copy for myself. I was quite surprised to learn of the possibility that the "great oxygenation event" on the Earth could be shown to be due to this effect instead of biological production of over whelming amounts of oxygen through photosynthesis

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

×
×
  • 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.