# Waiting for Europa



## Mac1958 (May 15, 2018)

Europa's plumes make Jupiter moon a prime candidate for life

This article says a mission to Europa could happen as soon as June 2022.  The mission would fly through the plumes that shoot out from its (believed) under-ice oceans for specific analysis, looking for any signs of microbial life.

Badass.  If there is any kind of life there, it's over - life is everywhere in the universe.

I GOTTA WAIT FOUR-PLUS YEARS.  GAH.
.


----------



## Billy_Kinetta (May 15, 2018)

*ALL THESE WORLDS ARE YOURS – EXCEPT EUROPA.
ATTEMPT NO LANDINGS THERE.*


----------



## Pete7469 (May 15, 2018)

Mac1958 said:


> Europa's plumes make Jupiter moon a prime candidate for life
> 
> This article says a mission to Europa could happen as soon as June 2022.  The mission would fly through the plumes that shoot out from its (believed) under-ice oceans for specific analysis, looking for any signs of microbial life.
> 
> ...


 

What's over?


----------



## Mac1958 (May 15, 2018)

Pete7469 said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> > Europa's plumes make Jupiter moon a prime candidate for life
> ...


Doubt that life is everywhere in the universe.

No?
.


----------



## Care4all (May 15, 2018)

Microbial life, is probably anywhere that has water.....imo.

Human life, or intelligent alien....chances are slimmer....  not impossible, but less possible than microbial life.


----------



## Flash (May 15, 2018)

Mac1958 said:


> Pete7469 said:
> 
> 
> > Mac1958 said:
> ...




We don't know how rare life is.

If life was just merely a combination of chemistry, water and temperature then we would be able able to create life in a lab but we haven't been able to do it.

There is a possibility that life is unique to earth. The universe may be hostile to life including Europa.

Advance life may be very rare. 

Since we don't have any facts that life exist outside of earth then all we have are guesses at this time.

My guess.is that there is the possibility that low level cellar life may exist elsewhere.  However, advanced life may be unique to earth.

A very good book to read is "_*Rare Earth: Why Complex Life Is Uncommon in the Universe*" _by Ward and Brownlee.  It explores the fact that advanced live on earth was helped along by some very happenstance events that may or may not exist elsewhere.

Rare Earth (book) - Wikipedia

*Rare Earth (book)*

The book argues that the universe is fundamentally hostile to complex life and that while microbial life may be common in the universe, complex intelligent life (like the evolution of biological complexity from simple life on Earth) required an exceptionally unlikely set of circumstances, and therefore complex life is likely to be extremely rare. The book argues that among the essential criteria for life are a terrestrial planet with plate tectonics and oxygen, a large moon, magnetic field, a gas giant like Jupiter for protection and an orbit in the habitable zone of the right kind of star.


----------



## Mac1958 (May 15, 2018)

Flash said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> > Pete7469 said:
> ...


The neat thing is, we just don't know.

There are an estimated one billion trillion stars in the observable universe.  Plus, over the 13 billion years or so of its existence, it's possible that the universe has seen many advanced civilizations come and go.  And, of course, it's also possible that there are countless universes. 

With those facts in hand, I have no doubt there's a lot going on out there.  But that's just me.
.


----------



## miketx (May 15, 2018)

Mac1958 said:


> Europa's plumes make Jupiter moon a prime candidate for life
> 
> This article says a mission to Europa could happen as soon as June 2022.  The mission would fly through the plumes that shoot out from its (believed) under-ice oceans for specific analysis, looking for any signs of microbial life.
> 
> ...


Man, unless we have some new secret propulsion system that is not Dependant on coasting, that would be a dangerous as hell trip, far and above the usual dangers of space travel, and take a super long time. Anything could fail and make them lost.


----------



## Mac1958 (May 15, 2018)

miketx said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> > Europa's plumes make Jupiter moon a prime candidate for life
> ...


Well, we already have hopeful evidence from the old Galileo mission (This May Be the Best Evidence Yet of a Water Plume on Jupiter's Moon Europa) and more recently the Cassini probe flew through plumes from neighboring Enceladus.

Both of those were just fly-bys within larger missions.  If the 2022 mission is specific to studying Europa, we could end up with some pretty cool stuff.
.


----------



## Flash (May 15, 2018)

Mac1958 said:


> [Q
> 
> The neat thing is, we just don't know.
> 
> ...



Statistics doesn't produce life.

If the universe is finite then there are unique things in the universe.  Life or advanced life may be unique to earth.

Actually the universe is a very hostile place to life.  Earth is protected from that hostility by some happenstance circumstances that may or may not exist elsewhere.  It may be that there are untold trillions of other planets out there and they are all sterile like we see in our solar system outside of earth. 

We have been brainwashed by 100 years of science fiction to think that there is alien life but it has yet to be confirmed and may never will be.

So far we only know of life here and I suspect we will die out as a species before we find it elsewhere.


----------



## miketx (May 15, 2018)

Mac1958 said:


> miketx said:
> 
> 
> > Mac1958 said:
> ...


Ok, I thought it was talking about a manned mission.


----------



## Mac1958 (May 15, 2018)

Flash said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> > [Q
> ...


Well, I'm much more hopeful.  That's the beauty of science - we get to admit there's much to learn.
.


----------



## Mac1958 (May 15, 2018)

miketx said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> > miketx said:
> ...


No, that's a long way off.  But just getting some positive data would be great.
.


----------



## Flash (May 15, 2018)

Mac1958 said:


> [QUOT
> 
> Well, I'm much more hopeful.  That's the beauty of science - we get to admit there's much to learn.
> .



You are correct of course.

There may another earth like planet somewhere in this universe.  There may be more than one. 

I doubt we will ever we able to visit them.

If we could produce life in a lab from the primordial compounds that existed when the earth was developing then I would feel much more confident that life existed elsewhere.

If we found life on Europa that would certainly be game changer, wouldn't it?


----------



## Flash (May 15, 2018)

miketx said:


> [QU
> 
> Man, unless we have some new secret propulsion system that is not Dependant on coasting, that would be a dangerous as hell trip, far and above the usual dangers of space travel, and take a super long time. Anything could fail and make them lost.



Correct.  We are not going "star trekking around the universe" with chemical energy, which is what we are using now.

There are theoretical other propulsion possibilities but we haven't engineered them yet.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 15, 2018)

Pete7469 said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> > Europa's plumes make Jupiter moon a prime candidate for life
> ...


----------



## Pete7469 (May 15, 2018)

Mac1958 said:


> Doubt that life is everywhere in the universe.
> 
> No?
> .



As vast as the universe appears to be? I'd bet there's some sort of globs of protein slithering on the surface of some rocks all over the place.

Sentient life elsewhere? Even if there was some, the distance is so vast that even communication with the closest known planets that might possibly support life would take longer to be received than the sender would live. 

I don't see much point in trying to find intergalactic sludge. 

I think the collective human endeavor to explore space should be focused on colonizing planets further out in the solar system before the sun expands into a red giant and vaporizes Jupiter.

It seems to me God wants to keep us contained here though. You never know though, we might escape like monkeys out of the zoo.


.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (May 15, 2018)

Flash said:


> If we could produce life in a lab from the primordial compounds that existed when the earth was developing then I would feel much more confident that life existed elsewhere


That's kind of silly, though. Even if we were to do this, we would not know with any certainty that our method was identical or even similar to the chain of events leading to life on Earth.

Just the fact that life is a physical system in a deterministic universe is enough to know that life can form. And knowing it can form tells us that it is highly likely it has formed at least once elsewhere in the universe.


----------



## Flash (May 15, 2018)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> > If we could produce life in a lab from the primordial compounds that existed when the earth was developing then I would feel much more confident that life existed elsewhere
> ...




That is true but right now we have nothing.  Creating primordial life in a lab would at least give us something to work with.

What do you base the assumption that life formed elsewhere on?  What proof do you have?  We only know of life on earth.  We only have one data point.  We don't know if it is common, rare or unique.  

Until we get another data point all we can do is speculate.  It is presumptuous to speculate on statistical probabilities when you only have one data point, isn't it?

By the way, our eagerness to speculate on life in the universe is distorted by 100 years of science fiction brainwashing.   I mean how can there not be gorgeous green women from Orion when we saw Captain Kirk screw one in  a movie?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 15, 2018)

Mac1958 said:


> Europa's plumes make Jupiter moon a prime candidate for life
> 
> This article says a mission to Europa could happen as soon as June 2022.  The mission would fly through the plumes that shoot out from its (believed) under-ice oceans for specific analysis, looking for any signs of microbial life.
> 
> ...



Thanks, Obama

He was too busy orienting all our satellites to point to Mecca 5 times a day


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 15, 2018)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> > If we could produce life in a lab from the primordial compounds that existed when the earth was developing then I would feel much more confident that life existed elsewhere
> ...



Well then you'd know our Theory of evolution was BS


----------



## Flash (May 16, 2018)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> > Europa's plumes make Jupiter moon a prime candidate for life
> ...




Instead of spending billions on science Obama was too busy putting the money in barrels and shipping it off to the Iranians.

Instead of using NASA for real space research Obama was too busy having them produce fake data to support the silly AGW scam.


----------



## G.T. (May 16, 2018)

Mac1958 said:


> Europa's plumes make Jupiter moon a prime candidate for life
> 
> This article says a mission to Europa could happen as soon as June 2022.  The mission would fly through the plumes that shoot out from its (believed) under-ice oceans for specific analysis, looking for any signs of microbial life.
> 
> ...


Did you apply logic to your assertion?

If 1 planet of trillions has life, it's not "over, and life is everywhere in the Universe...."

But if 2 planets of trillions have life, then it IS "over, and life is everywhere in the Universe?"

Why do folks with the reasoning skills of a doorknob come onto debate sites, anyhow?


----------



## Mac1958 (May 16, 2018)

G.T. said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> > Europa's plumes make Jupiter moon a prime candidate for life
> ...


Not all of us are as smart as you, GT.

I'm so sorry.  Please take mercy.  Thank you.
.


----------



## G.T. (May 16, 2018)

Mac1958 said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > Mac1958 said:
> ...


It's my pet peeve, inefficiency. You waste so much discussion time asserting meaningless minutia based on...poor reasoning skills. They should require critical thinking in grade school, imo

It doesn't even take smarts, it's basic shit.


----------



## Mac1958 (May 16, 2018)

G.T. said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...


Well, I'll certainly endeavor to be more efficient in the future to live up to your high standards.

Thank you so much for the guidance, and for the ongoing example of efficiency you set for all of us, nary a wasted word or post.
.


----------



## G.T. (May 16, 2018)

Mac1958 said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > Mac1958 said:
> ...


It's much appreciated. You're at least not as egregious in your terrible cognition as folks like politicalchic, who post 6, 465 links from propaganda sites per post.


----------



## G.T. (May 16, 2018)

In terms of what I think about life in the Universe, the odds could be construed in 2 different ways...

1 planet of 9 in our solar system has life, so a 1 per 9 chance, with the caveat that we're not 100% certain the other 9 don't have any.

& the odds that we're the ONLY life in the Universe, in terms of overall planets of possibility, is 1 in trillions.

Nobody making a career of gambling would bet that Earth is the only harbor-er of life in this Universe, it's statistically unsound.


----------



## OldLady (May 16, 2018)

G.T. said:


> In terms of what I think about life in the Universe, the odds could be construed in 2 different ways...
> 
> 1 planet of 9 in our solar system has life, so a 1 per 9 chance, with the caveat that we're not 100% certain the other 9 don't have any.
> 
> ...


Life evolved here based on what was available--water and oxygen/carbon dioxide, whatever else.  In other solar systems "life" may be entirely different, like all the great Star Trek aliens.   Probably a lot of them, being somewhat humanoid, are even too much like us.  We humans are so egocentric.  It cracks me up.


----------



## G.T. (May 16, 2018)

OldLady said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > In terms of what I think about life in the Universe, the odds could be construed in 2 different ways...
> ...


I'll bet you speak Clingon in your underwear


----------



## OldLady (May 16, 2018)

G.T. said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...


----------



## DOTR (May 16, 2018)

Mac1958 said:


> Europa's plumes make Jupiter moon a prime candidate for life
> 
> This article says a mission to Europa could happen as soon as June 2022.  The mission would fly through the plumes that shoot out from its (believed) under-ice oceans for specific analysis, looking for any signs of microbial life.
> 
> ...



   There is no life anywhere but here. And that, by all scientific evidence, created only one time.
   Love the flyby though. We should eliminate social security, Medicaid, food stamps, welfare and housing assistance and use the money to concentrate on missions like this to better the human race.


----------



## Mac1958 (May 16, 2018)

DOTR said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> > Europa's plumes make Jupiter moon a prime candidate for life
> ...


What makes you think that there is no life anywhere but here?
.


----------



## DOTR (May 16, 2018)

Flash said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> > [Q
> ...



   And brainwashed by the Marxist philosophy of the Mediocrity Principle. 
Mediocrity principle - Wikipedia


----------



## DOTR (May 16, 2018)

Mac1958 said:


> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> > Mac1958 said:
> ...



  I’ve got my reasons. Not the least being the Fermi Paradox. Science, as well, is on my side on this. Try this recent thread. 
The Origin of Life


----------



## DOTR (May 16, 2018)

Mac1958 said:


> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> > Mac1958 said:
> ...



   Doesn’t mean I disagree with searching for life though. If science fiction fantasies drive us outward into the universe I’m all for it.


----------



## Votto (May 16, 2018)

Science is desperate to find life elsewhere, because the questions are just too troubling for them if there is none.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (May 16, 2018)

Flash said:


> That is true but right now we have nothing. Creating primordial life in a lab would at least give us something to work with.


But in no way would that inform us on the prevalence of life in the universe.

The proof I have is all circumstantial:

We know abiogenesis occurred at least once in the universe. The odds that it would occur exactly once would be much lower than the odds that it occurred twice or more.

It's a strong argument. Can you think of a better one?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (May 16, 2018)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > Flash said:
> ...


Don't post to me about any science topic ever,dummy


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (May 16, 2018)

Votto said:


> Science is desperate to find life elsewhere,


What a bizarre thing to say. "Science" is desperate, eh? And what is....chivalry? Content?

What is astrology? Happy go lucky?

You're weird.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (May 16, 2018)

DOTR said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> > DOTR said:
> ...


Science is not on your side on this, sorry. You should probably stop saying that.

And the "Fermi paradox" is not a paradox at all. Life being prevalent in the universe does not necessitate that advanced civilizations capable of visiting EVERY planet in the universe have already existed. The Fermi paradox is a joke, not to be taken seriously.


----------



## Flash (May 16, 2018)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> > That is true but right now we have nothing. Creating primordial life in a lab would at least give us something to work with.
> ...




Like I said above, statistics doesn't produce life.

You are assuming that unique things don't happen but you have no proof of that.

We only have one data point.  Until we get another data point then all we can do is guess.


----------



## Votto (May 16, 2018)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Votto said:
> 
> 
> > Science is desperate to find life elsewhere,
> ...



How would you explain life only being on earth?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (May 16, 2018)

Flash said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > Flash said:
> ...


I didn't say it was 100%, definitive proof. So you are arguing against points that have not been made by people who do not exist.

And your posture belies a preconception. I can smell it from here. You imply a false equivalence: all guesses are equal.

No, not all guesses are equal. Some are more informed and educated than are others.

Like I said: I made a strong argument for the occurrence of abiogenesis elsewhere. Feel free to counter the actual argument i made, whenever you are ready.


----------



## Votto (May 16, 2018)

Flash said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > Flash said:
> ...



Statistics do matter, or is that no longer part of science?

In fact, the statistics for the material universe being the way it is, is also astoundingly improbable.

The Universe: Evidence for Its Fine Tuning


----------



## Votto (May 16, 2018)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...



Abiogenesis?

Well then, follow the scientific method.

Experiment, observe, come to a conclusion.

Oh wait, that never works for abiogenesis.

Looks like you need a new field of study that does not include science.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (May 16, 2018)

Votto said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...


Wrong. Your entire implied argument is specious, and it is constructed on a fallcy commonly referred to as Hoyle's fallacy. These creationist propaganda sites know that the typical person is not equipped or trained to avoid being fooled by such fallacies.

By this fallacy, you can reduce the probability of any event to zero. So, using this fallacy, you can also argue that the formation of life is no more  likely than the formation of any crystal, or rock. Both zero.

It's mathematically useless garbage.


----------



## Mac1958 (May 16, 2018)

Science admits it doesn't know stuff, but it's curious.  There's so much to learn.

Being convinced that you have The Answer to The Question seems pretty egotistical to me.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (May 16, 2018)

Votto said:


> Abiogenesis?
> 
> Well then, follow the scientific method.
> 
> Experiment, observe, come to a conclusion.


Which we have done and are still doing. Did you not know this?

Did you also not know that scientific determinism is assumed from the start, when performing science?

And did you not know that scientific determinism dictates that abiogenesis did, in fact, occur, without any help from your goofy magical spirits you imagine?


----------



## Votto (May 16, 2018)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Votto said:
> 
> 
> > Abiogenesis?
> ...



So scientists have produced life in a lab?

Do tell.


----------



## Votto (May 16, 2018)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Votto said:
> 
> 
> > Flash said:
> ...



Statistics are useless, eh?

Vegas runs on statistics.  Without it, they don't eat.


----------



## Flash (May 16, 2018)

Votto said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...




For any statistic to be valid then you have to have more than one data point, wouldn't you agree?

What scientist would make an assumption based upon just one data point?

If we find life on Europa then that would be another data point.  If we created life in the lab using primordial chemicals then that could be another data point.  If we get visited by ET that would be another data point. 

Right now we have nothing.  We don't know if life is unique, rare or common, do we?


----------



## Flash (May 16, 2018)

Votto said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > Votto said:
> ...




The statistics they use in Vegas is based upon all kinds of data points. History, probability, sample size etc. 

We only have one data point on life.


----------



## DOTR (May 16, 2018)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> > That is true but right now we have nothing. Creating primordial life in a lab would at least give us something to work with.
> ...



  Yes I can and I have given it to you. By all evidence it has only ever occurred once. And it occurred very early in Earths history. Much earlier than has been thought until these last few years.
  And that is all science can say. It cant give odds because it doesn't know how it happened. We see one unique event. Go with that until you have reason to believe otherwise.
   Europa doesn't have life. But I wish it did.


----------



## Votto (May 16, 2018)

Flash said:


> Votto said:
> 
> 
> > Flash said:
> ...



I would think trying to find life on a world and finding none would be a data point.

It is data.  It is a point.  I would think that the more worlds we find without life, especially ones with presumably favorable environments, the more statistically improbable that life just came about by a natural process.


----------



## Votto (May 16, 2018)

Science has two main obstacles to explain.

The existence of matter and the existence of life.

It has yet to do so.


----------



## Flash (May 16, 2018)

Votto said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> > Votto said:
> ...




Agree.

The fact is that until we do find another world with life or that we can indisputably create it in the lab then we are forced to assume that life is unique.

If our sample size is our solar system then I suspect there will be very low odds.

If our sample size would include more solar systems and we find no life then even more low odds.

I don't know any more than the anybody else but my best guess is that there is microbial life somewhere else.  Advance life may be non existent. 

Another thing to consider.  In about 500 million years the sun will start expanding and it is going to get much hotter here.  Maybe to the point where no life can exist. It will be that way for the next three to four billion of years before the earth is consumed by the expanding sun.

When you look at the 10 billion year life cycle of the earth life will have been here only about 15-20% of the time.  That means even if we do find another earth there is a 80-85% chance we wouldn't find life.


----------



## DOTR (May 16, 2018)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> It's a strong argument. Can you think of a better one?



   If you know a deck of card has 4 suits then you can guess a random pull from the deck will give you a heart 25% of the time. For 10 pulls it might be 20% or 30% but in a million tries it will approach 25%.
  If you *dont* know what is in the deck and find a heart 25% of the time then you can guess that hearts make up 25% of the deck.
  The origin of life was an early pull. Extremely early...like the deck was stacked with origins. Then it never showed up again in billions of years _so far as we know_. I think that tells us the odds are it was the only one in the deck. You are engaging in wish fulfillment if you demand any other conclusion.


----------



## Mac1958 (May 16, 2018)

Votto said:


> How would you explain life only being on earth?


How do we know life is only on Earth?

We can't even say that about our own solar system, let alone the other 70 to 100 billion trillion other solar systems.
.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (May 16, 2018)

Votto said:


> So scientists have produced life in a lab?


Since when do we ahere to this absurd standard you just invented?

Have scientists produced the core of a star in a lab? No. Nor do they need to do so,toninderstand that fusion most definitely happened in the core of a star.

My comments...and I think you know this, but decided to be cute... reffered to the fact that we have tested the conditions and mechanisms suspected to have occurred along the way of abiogenesis.

And, to the surprise of nobody, they all check out and are even easier than we thought.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (May 16, 2018)

DOTR said:


> Yes I can and I have given it to you. By all evidence it has only ever occurred once


No , you haven't. That is not an argument. That is a statement. You must now argue why this factoid (and it is a factoid, not a fact, as we would and should nothe so silly as to think we have gathered enough evidence to make a determination on the evidence) would compel one to believe that life has only ever formed exactly once o .the universe.

So, go ahead. Make your argument. I not seeing it.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (May 16, 2018)

Votto said:


> Statistics are useless, eh?


That is obviously not what I meant. You are not a very honest person, are you?

The mathematics in your fallacy are worthless, as the reasoning is specious (though, you never presented any statistics; 'probability' is the word you are looking for, and you never presented any probabilities, either).

It's a fallacy that is merely a reiteration of Zeno's paradox of movement. It's simply not valid reasoning. The person wielding it either doesn't  know better or is trying to fool people who dont know better.

You are of the former variety.


----------



## DOTR (May 16, 2018)

Mac1958 said:


> Votto said:
> 
> 
> > How would you explain life only being on earth?
> ...




    Earth is the only planet that we can see produced life. And by all evidence it was a one time unique event even here in a place we KNOW can produce life. 
   As far as can be determined scientifically we are all there is. 
   You can wish and you can hope. You can even go look for life on Europa (no harm in that and we will advance science either way). But you have no scientific reason to believe there is. 
   People married to certain liberal and humanist philosophies can’t admit that for fear of where it may lead. 
   In other words even in this age superstition and magical thinking still pollute science efforts.


----------



## DOTR (May 16, 2018)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> > Yes I can and I have given it to you. By all evidence it has only ever occurred once
> ...



  No I’m not going to argue. As you say...I made a statement of fact. Until you find a way to accept that what is there to argue?


----------



## DOTR (May 16, 2018)

Flash said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> > Pete7469 said:
> ...



Looks good. Will order it today.


----------



## Votto (May 16, 2018)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Votto said:
> 
> 
> > Statistics are useless, eh?
> ...



Statistics?  You want statistics?

In 1968, Professor Harold Morowitz, a physicist at Yale University, published the book "Energy Flow in Biology".  Along with other physicists and mathematicians, he had become concerned about the casualness with which some scientists studying the origins of life were assuming that unlikely events must have occurred.  These scientists were making assumptions without any attempt to rigorously investigate the probability of such events.  Morowitz presented computations of the time required for random chemical reactions to form a bacterium -- not an organism as complex as a human being, not even a flower, just a simple, single celled bacterium.  Basing his calculations on optimistically rapid rates of reactions, the calculated time for the bacterium to form exceeds not only the 4.5 billion year age of the Earth, but also the entire 15 billion year age of the universe.

What is even more astonishing, is that life appeared almost immediately on Earth.  The oldest sedimentary rock dated is 3.3 billion years old which shows rod shaped single celled organisms with them, discovered by Elso Barghoorn and JW Schopf of Harvard.

And this is just what is found as evidence in the sedimentary rock.  There is no reason life may not have developed earlier.


----------



## Mac1958 (May 17, 2018)

DOTR said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> > Votto said:
> ...


Well of course we have no other evidence.  Yet.  But we do have a pretty good grasp of how chemistry and biology work as they pertain to the creation of life.  We're learning more every day.

But now I see where you're going with this.  Science has nothing to do with it.  You have an old book that tells you what's what.

Humans have always had gods.  This god, that god.  They provide us with simple answers, and guidance and comfort.  We want desperately to think we have The Answer To Everything, and pointing to an all-powerful, all-knowing being wraps everything up into a neat little package.

We figure we can lay our sins and everything else off on some celestial dictator, like a divine North Korea.

Well, that's a nice and simple way to go through life, but that doesn't make it true.  There are other possibilities. 
.


----------



## Mac1958 (May 17, 2018)

A caveman hadn't seen fire, or a beating heart, or microbial bacteria YET.  That doesn't mean they didn't exist.  We evolved intellectually.

To pretend you *know* there is no life out there assumes that we know all there is to know.   That there's nothing new to learn.

Holy crap.  That's disturbing in its intellectual laziness and its narcissism.
.


----------



## Dogmaphobe (May 17, 2018)

Mac1958 said:


> A caveman hadn't seen fire, or a beating heart, or microbial bacteria YET.  That doesn't mean they didn't exist.  We evolved intellectually.
> 
> To pretend you *know* there is no life out there assumes that we know all there is to know.   That there's nothing new to learn.
> 
> ...




 It always seems odd to me that people would limit themselves quite voluntarily to an understanding of the world based upon the superstitions of ancient societies.  It's almost as if curiosity, itself, is the enemy.  Without curiosity, there would be no science, and without science, it is easier to cling to the  superstitions.

 There really doesn't need to be a conflict between religion and science. Why not view science as the tool for unlocking the wonderful mysteries of God's creation? Just because people of 2000 years ago did not know enough to be able to appreciate the wonderful complexity of it all and so simplified it, that does not mean we have to follow suit.


----------



## DOTR (May 17, 2018)

Mac1958 said:


> Well of course we have no other evidence.  Yet.  But we do have a pretty good grasp of how chemistry and biology work as they pertain to the creation of life.  We're learning more every day.
> 
> But now I see where you're going with this.  Science has nothing to do with it.  You have an old book that tells you what's what.
> 
> ...


 
   No you dont see where I am going. Your own religion prevents that. You have been inculcated by a book yourself into a faith in the unprovable Mediocrity Principle and Drake Equation (with lots of help from science fiction writers). You see any questioning of these bedrock beliefs of yours as presenting an opposing religion/philosophy. Or at the very least you misunderstand my motives.

   I can make it plainer. Either we discuss the science or we discuss the philosophical questions the science leads us to. But here and now I am only discussing science with no hidden "gotchas" waiting. There are philosophical implications to this but wanting to avoid these implications is no reason to deny plain facts is it?

  But...sticking to science...there is no reason to believe in extraterrestrial life. Such a belief has no empirical basis. In fact quite the opposite. As you say we learn more every day and one of the most astounding discoveries recently is how quick life began on earth. It did not take billions of years. It didn't even take a billion years. It apparently didnt even take a half billion years. It may not have taken even 100 million years. And it only happened once (by evidence).

  If you deny this you attack all settled science of biology and evolution because we base it all on common descent. That life originated once is so settled that there isn't even a competing theory to consider. 

  And Earth is in a place we *know* to be conducive to life. So why would you expect anything different on Europa?


----------



## Mac1958 (May 17, 2018)

DOTR said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> > Well of course we have no other evidence.  Yet.  But we do have a pretty good grasp of how chemistry and biology work as they pertain to the creation of life.  We're learning more every day.
> ...


I'm not denying or attacking anything.

I admit, I don't know.  But I'm definitely curious.

You, on the other hand, think you have it all figured out.
.


----------



## DOTR (May 17, 2018)

Mac1958 said:


> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> > Mac1958 said:
> ...



 And by the way..speaking of "old books"...finding extraterrestrial life would have no effect whatsoever on my religious beliefs.


----------



## james bond (May 17, 2018)

Care4all said:


> Microbial life, is probably anywhere that has water.....imo.
> 
> Human life, or intelligent alien....chances are slimmer....  not impossible, but less possible than microbial life.



My understanding is there is the probability is high that there is no other life anywhere because of the fine tuning facts.


----------



## Mac1958 (May 17, 2018)

DOTR said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> > DOTR said:
> ...


I have no doubt about that.
.


----------



## DOTR (May 17, 2018)

Mac1958 said:


> I'm not denying or attacking anything.
> 
> I admit, I don't know.  But I'm definitely curious.
> 
> ...



  I can only go by what we know. And that doesn't kill curiosity. On the contrary it is what we have not figured out is what I am insanely curious about.
 Why only once?


----------



## Mac1958 (May 17, 2018)

DOTR said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not denying or attacking anything.
> ...


I don't know what you mean by "why only once".
.


----------



## fncceo (May 17, 2018)

Life on other planets.


----------



## DOTR (May 17, 2018)

And, as much as "why only once" are the many miraculous (for lack of a better word) events that got us here. The "why only once" doesnt just apply to the origin of life. Why did eukaryotes only develop once and what are the odds? Why chirality? Why ATP Synthase and why only once there? Why "wobble pairs" in the third codon?
   It always seems as if life is driving towards something and though improbable filters. I would say "impossible" filters but obviously they happened....once.


----------



## DOTR (May 17, 2018)

fncceo said:


> Life on other planets.



  We have always known that evolution produces skimpy dresses and nice legs.


----------



## DOTR (May 17, 2018)

Votto said:


> Science is desperate to find life elsewhere, because the questions are just too troubling for them if there is none.



  This is true. But giving up cherished belief systems is a difficult process. Scientists are no different.


----------



## fncceo (May 17, 2018)

DOTR said:


> And, as much as "why only once" are the many miraculous (for lack of a better word) events that got us here. The "why only once" doesnt just apply to the origin of life. Why did eukaryotes only develop once and what are the odds? Why chirality? Why ATP Synthase and why only once there? Why "wobble pairs" in the third codon?
> It always seems as if life is driving towards something and though improbable filters. I would say "impossible" filters but obviously they happened....once.



There no reason to believe that alternative forms of organic molecules evolved in parallel with those what make up life today and being less suited to their evnironment and became evolutionary dead ends.


----------



## james bond (May 17, 2018)

Mac1958 said:


> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> > Mac1958 said:
> ...



I think you're being open minded about it, but for life elsewhere would be difficult.  Maybe if life from Earth went elsewhere (panspermia).  There is the possibility of colonization of humans, too.

The fine tuning facts would have to be overcome for life elsewhere.  Those I've highlighted in *green* probably would apply for life on other planets.  Re:  #4.  Earth's moon and Mars have no magnetic field.  Thus, solar wind has come in and disrupted their atmosphere.

"*Fine Tuning Parameters for the Universe*

strong nuclear force constant
_if larger_: no hydrogen would form; atomic nuclei for most life-essential elements would be unstable; thus, no life chemistry
_if smaller_: no elements heavier than hydrogen would form: again, no life chemistry
weak nuclear force constant
_if larger_: too much hydrogen would convert to helium in big bang; hence, stars would convert too much matter into heavy elements making life chemistry impossible
_if smaller_: too little helium would be produced from big bang; hence, stars would convert too little matter into heavy elements making life chemistry impossible
gravitational force constant
_if larger_: stars would be too hot and would burn too rapidly and too unevenly for life chemistry_
if smaller_: stars would be too cool to ignite nuclear fusion; thus, many of the elements needed for life chemistry would never form
*electromagnetic force constant
if greater: chemical bonding would be disrupted; elements more massive than boron would be unstable to fission
if lesser: chemical bonding would be insufficient for life chemistry*
*ratio of electromagnetic force constant to gravitational force constant*
*if larger: all stars would be at least 40% more massive than the sun; hence, stellar burning would be too brief and too uneven for life support
if smaller: all stars would be at least 20% less massive than the sun, thus incapable of producing heavy elements*
ratio of electron to proton mass
_if larger_: chemical bonding would be insufficient for life chemistry
_if smaller_: same as above
ratio of number of protons to number of electrons
_if larger_: electromagnetism would dominate gravity, preventing galaxy, star, and planet formation
_if smaller_: same as above
expansion rate of the universe
_if larger_: no galaxies would form_
if smaller_: universe would collapse, even before stars formed
entropy level of the universe
_if larger_: stars would not form within proto-galaxies
_if smaller_: no proto-galaxies would form
mass density of the universe
_if larger_: overabundance of deuterium from big bang would cause stars to burn rapidly, too rapidly for life to form
_if smaller_: insufficient helium from big bang would result in a shortage of heavy elements
*velocity of light*
*if faster: stars would be too luminous for life support  if slower:   stars would be insufficiently luminous for life support*
age of the universe
_if older_: no solar-type stars in a stable burning phase would exist in the right (for life) part of the galaxy
_if younger_: solar-type stars in a stable burning phase would not yet have formed
initial uniformity of radiation
_if more uniform_: stars, star clusters, and galaxies would not have formed
_if less uniform_: universe by now would be mostly black holes and empty space
average distance between galaxies
_if larger_: star formation late enough in the history of the universe would be hampered by lack of material
_if smaller_: gravitational tug-of-wars would destabilize the sun's orbit
density of galaxy cluster
_if denser_: galaxy collisions and mergers would disrupt the sun's orbit
_if less dense_: star formation late enough in the history of the universe would be hampered by lack of material
*average distance between stars*
*if larger: heavy element density would be too sparse for rocky planets to form
if smaller: planetary orbits would be too unstable for life*
*fine structure constant (describing the fine-structure splitting of spectral lines) if larger: all stars would be at least 30% less massive than the sun*
*if larger than 0.06: matter would be unstable in large magnetic fields*
*if smaller: all stars would be at least 80% more massive than the sun*
decay rate of protons
_if greater_: life would be exterminated by the release of radiation
_if smaller_: universe would contain insufficient matter for life
12C to 16O nuclear energy level ratio
_if larger_: universe would contain insufficient oxygen for life
_if smaller_: universe would contain insufficient carbon for life
ground state energy level for 4He
_if larger_: universe would contain insufficient carbon and oxygen for life_
if smaller_: same as above
decay rate of 8Be
_if slower_: heavy element fusion would generate catastrophic explosions in all the stars
_if faster_: no element heavier than beryllium would form; thus, no life chemistry
ratio of neutron mass to proton mass
_if higher_: neutron decay would yield too few neutrons for the formation of many life-essential elements
_if lower_: neutron decay would produce so many neutrons as to collapse all stars into neutron stars or black holes
initial excess of nucleons over anti-nucleons
_if greater_: radiation would prohibit planet formation
_if lesser_: matter would be insufficient for galaxy or star formation
polarity of the water molecule
_if greater_: heat of fusion and vaporization would be too high for life
_if smaller_: heat of fusion and vaporization would be too low for life; liquid water would not work as a solvent for life chemistry; ice would not float, and a runaway freeze-up would result
*supernovae eruptions*
*if too close, too frequent, or too late: radiation would exterminate life on the planet*
*if too distant, too infrequent, or too soon: heavy elements would be too sparse for rocky planets to form*
*white dwarf binaries
if too few: insufficient fluorine would exist for life chemistry
if too many: planetary orbits would be too unstable for life
if formed too soon: insufficient fluorine production
if formed too late: fluorine would arrive too late for life chemistry*
ratio of exotic matter mass to ordinary matter mass
_if larger_: universe would collapse before solar-type stars could form
_if smaller_: no galaxies would form
number of effective dimensions in the early universe
_if larger_: quantum mechanics, gravity, and relativity could not coexist; thus, life would be impossible
_if smaller_: same result
number of effective dimensions in the present universe
_if smaller_: electron, planet, and star orbits would become unstable_
if larger_: same result
mass of the neutrino
_if smaller_: galaxy clusters, galaxies, and stars would not form
_if larger_: galaxy clusters and galaxies would be too dense
big bang ripples
_if smaller_: galaxies would not form; universe would expand too rapidly
_if larger_: galaxies/galaxy clusters would be too dense for life; black holes would dominate; universe would collapse before life-site could form
size of the relativistic dilation factor
_if smaller_: certain life-essential chemical reactions will not function properly_
if larger_: same result
uncertainty magnitude in the Heisenberg uncertainty principle
_if smaller_: oxygen transport to body cells would be too small and certain life-essential elements would be unstable
_if larger_: oxygen transport to body cells would be too great and certain life-essential elements would be unstable
cosmological constant
_if larger_: universe would expand too quickly to form solar-type stars"
I would think if we had to survive, then it's better to build space stations and live there for the time being until new technology could develop.


----------



## DOTR (May 17, 2018)

Mac1958 said:


> I don't know what you mean by "why only once".
> .



  There was one origin of life. A single unique event. I wonder why? And if only once in an environment we know is conducive to life then what does that say for the chances extraterrestially?


----------



## Mac1958 (May 17, 2018)

DOTR said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> > I don't know what you mean by "why only once".
> ...


I don't think that's a mystery.  In our solar system there is a sweet spot in which water can remain liquid without boiling away or freezing, and as far as we know, water is one of the necessary ingredients of life.  It looks like Mars had it.  And it's possible that it could exist on Europa and/or Enceladus.  It would exist under hundreds of miles of ice but kept warm by the cores of those moons.  So, in our solar system, there could be life on two or three globes, and Mars may have had it a billion or two years ago.

Of course, that's just our solar system, and there are estimated 100 billion trillion other solar systems in the universe in which there could be sweet spots, in which there could be life.

We don't know.  Nor can we.
.


----------



## fncceo (May 17, 2018)

DOTR said:


> There was one origin of life.



There is only one type of life that has survived to current day. 

We don’t know about alternative forms of life that were cut short before they developed further.  

The Miller -Urey experiment from the ‘50s has demonstrated unequivocally that organic molecules are relatively easy to create under a wide range of conditions.


----------



## james bond (May 17, 2018)

"Slightly smaller than Earth's Moon, Europa is primarily made of silicate rock and has a water-ice crust[11] and probably an iron–nickel core. It has a tenuous atmosphere composed primarily of oxygen. Its surface is striated by cracks and streaks, whereas craters are relatively rare. In addition to Earth-bound telescope observations, Europa has been examined by a succession of space probe flybys, the first occurring in the early 1970s.

Europa has the smoothest surface of any known solid object in the Solar System.[12] The apparent youth and smoothness of the surface have led to the hypothesis that a water ocean exists beneath it, which could conceivably harbor extraterrestrial life.[13] The predominant model suggests that heat from tidal flexing causes the ocean to remain liquid and drives ice movement similar to plate tectonics, absorbing chemicals from the surface into the ocean below.[14][15] Sea salt from a subsurface ocean may be coating some geological features on Europa, suggesting that the ocean is interacting with the seafloor. This may be important in determining if Europa could be habitable.[16] In addition, the Hubble Space Telescope detected water vapor plumes similar to those observed on Saturn's moon Enceladus, which are thought to be caused by erupting cryogeysers.[17] In May 2018, astronomers provided supporting evidence of water plume activity on Europa, based on an updated critical analysis of data obtained from the _Galileo_ space probe, which orbited Jupiter between 1995 to 2003. Such plume activity could help researchers in a search for life from the subsurface European ocean without having to land on the moon.[18][19][20][21]"

Europa (moon) - Wikipedia


----------



## bripat9643 (May 17, 2018)

OldLady said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > In terms of what I think about life in the Universe, the odds could be construed in 2 different ways...
> ...


Virtually all the Startrek aliens are based on water and oxygen/carbon dioxide


----------



## Old Rocks (May 18, 2018)

DOTR said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> > I don't know what you mean by "why only once".
> ...


We don't know that. We only know that the life that exists today all seems to come from one source. Perhaps other life did start, but was less successful, and became pushed out by the present life that exists. After all, there were some pretty serious extinction events in the early history of the earth.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 18, 2018)

bripat9643 said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...


LOL  But Startrek is not reality.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 18, 2018)

james bond said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> > DOTR said:
> ...


LOL  About 34 things that we really don't know about.


----------



## james bond (May 18, 2018)

Old Rocks said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > Mac1958 said:
> ...



Those 34 are from the atheist scientists which they found when studying the BBT.  And I suppose it's why they think there is more chance for multiverses because then the fine tuning facts won't get in the way.  To me, that doesn't make much sense because God only created this universe and didn't create aliens.


----------



## Mac1958 (May 19, 2018)

james bond said:


> To me, that doesn't make much sense because God only created this universe and didn't create aliens.


How do you know that?
.


----------



## Mac1958 (May 19, 2018)

Trying to bend science to match religious belief isn't going to work, because science happily admits there is much we don't know.

I'm sure it's nice to think you have The Answer to The Question this early on in our intellectual development.  But that's just delusion.

There's a lot we just don't know.  We just haven't advanced enough at this point. It's not a sign of weakness to admit that, it's just a fact.
.


----------



## james bond (May 19, 2018)

Mac1958 said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > To me, that doesn't make much sense because God only created this universe and didn't create aliens.
> ...



The Bible, but let's look at it scientifically.  There has been enough time for intelligent aliens to contact us, but they haven't according to SETI.  And we have explored other planets with probes and haven't found any life.  The intelligent aliens may not have contacted us because they are still probing us.  According to Fermi paradox, there has been enough time elapsed, around 200,000 years for some kind of contact.  As for other universes besides ours, there are physicists who believe there are and those who don't.  The latter state that it is not a legitimate topic of scientific inquiry.  The ones who believe, i.e. faith, have come up with various hypothetical types of universes and ways to detect, but nothing so far.

ETA:  Here's one prominent physicists view, "In 2007, Nobel laureate Steven Weinberg suggested that if the multiverse existed, "the hope of finding a rational explanation for the precise values of quark masses and other constants of the standard model that we observe in our Big Bang is doomed, for their values would be an accident of the particular part of the multiverse in which we live."

In other words, the  fine tuning parameters they discovered would be by coincidence and not as the standard model*.

Standard model explained here:
Physics: What We Do and Don’t Know


----------



## Old Rocks (May 22, 2018)

james bond said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...


God did not create aliens? And if there be a deity, you know this how?


----------



## Wuwei (May 23, 2018)

Votto said:


> Statistics? You want statistics?
> 
> In 1968, Professor Harold Morowitz, a physicist at Yale University, published the book "Energy Flow in Biology". Along with other physicists and mathematicians, he had become concerned about the casualness with which some scientists studying the origins of life were assuming that unlikely events must have occurred. These scientists were making assumptions without any attempt to rigorously investigate the probability of such events. Morowitz presented computations of the time required for random chemical reactions to form a bacterium -- not an organism as complex as a human being, not even a flower, just a simple, single celled bacterium. Basing his calculations on optimistically rapid rates of reactions, the calculated time for the bacterium to form exceeds not only the 4.5 billion year age of the Earth, but also the entire 15 billion year age of the universe.
> 
> ...



Proffessor Morowitz made an assumption that is unnecessary and too stringent. The first life does not have to be something with the complexity of a bacterium. It was found that RNA can replicate itself. It is simpler than DNA and more of a candidate for abiogenesis. Secondly primordial cell walls do not have to be the more complex cellulose, but can be formed from fatty acid bubbles which have been found to have the capability of splitting. Fatty acids are more easily formed in the primordial earth. 

It is still statistically small, but think of the improbability as a poker game where everyone is dealt a royal flush. If there are billions of card games going on for millions of years, the improbability becomes an almost certainty. 

Synthetic primordial cell copies RNA for the first time


----------



## james bond (May 30, 2018)

Old Rocks said:


> God did not create aliens? And if there be a deity, you know this how?



From the Book of Genesis.  Here's an infograph:


----------



## james bond (May 30, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> Votto said:
> 
> 
> > Statistics? You want statistics?
> ...



This is not creation.  One needs a cell in order to create the RNA.  One needs a cell to create an amino acid or protein.  Humans can only create up to the molecular level.  Not the atomic level.  Only God can do that.


----------



## fncceo (May 30, 2018)

james bond said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > God did not create aliens? And if there be a deity, you know this how?
> ...



Day One






Day 5,000,000,000,000


----------



## james bond (May 30, 2018)

fncceo said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



Day 6,000+.  We should've evolved more by day 5 B.


----------



## fncceo (May 30, 2018)

james bond said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...



That's five TRILLION


----------



## Wuwei (May 30, 2018)

james bond said:


> This is not creation. One needs a cell in order to create the RNA. One needs a cell to create an amino acid or protein. Humans can only create up to the molecular level. Not the atomic level. Only God can do that.


Miller and Urey put a primordial atmosphere in a chamber and sent sparks through it. amino acids were generated. Proteins are made from RNA, but you don't need much protein for the most primitive creatures. 

Miller–Urey experiment - Wikipedia
_... scientists examining sealed vials preserved from the original experiments were able to show that there were actually well over 20 different amino acids produced in Miller's original experiments._​


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (May 30, 2018)

DOTR said:


> No I’m not going to argue.


I didn;'t ask you to debate.  I asked you to present your argument to support your claims.  repeating your claims is not support of those claims.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (May 30, 2018)

DOTR said:


> And, as much as "why only once" are the many miraculous (for lack of a better word) events that got us here.


This is not evidence of life "only here"... it is only evidence of "life EXACTLY like what is here, only here".


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (May 30, 2018)

DOTR said:


> There was one origin of life. A single unique event.


You could not possibly know the truth of this.  In what universe can you just make shit up, DEMAND that it is true, and then it is everyone else's duty to discuss a topic under your authoritative declaration?


----------



## DOTR (Jun 1, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> It is still statistically small, but think of the improbability as a poker game where everyone is dealt a royal flush. If there are billions of card games going on for millions of years, the improbability becomes an almost certainty.
> 
> Synthetic primordial cell copies RNA for the first time



then why isnt it still going on?


----------



## DOTR (Jun 1, 2018)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> > There was one origin of life. A single unique event.
> ...



  Here is the truth...we only have evidence of a singular event....and we have looked very hard.  Anything else is fantasy. I dont attack your fantasies...I enjoy science fiction too. But you shouldn't confuse them with reality.


----------



## DOTR (Jun 1, 2018)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> This is not evidence of life "only here"... it is only evidence of "life EXACTLY like what is here, only here".



Ok show some life that isn't exactly like life here. I would accept that.


----------



## DOTR (Jun 1, 2018)

Mac1958 said:


> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> > Mac1958 said:
> ...



  You fall prey to the Anthropic Principle. Nevertheless...if it just takes a sweet spot why didnt new life form this morning in my backyard which is full of liquid water, oxygen, hydrogen and carbon?


----------



## Mac1958 (Jun 1, 2018)

DOTR said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> > DOTR said:
> ...


Maybe it did.

So tell me:  Where did we come from?
.


----------



## DOTR (Jun 1, 2018)

fncceo said:


> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> > There was one origin of life.
> ...




  Interesting. But organic molecules are not life.  Did Millers organic molecules ever grow up and reproduce?


----------



## fncceo (Jun 1, 2018)

DOTR said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> > DOTR said:
> ...



Some of the results of Miller-Urey are proteinogenic molecules that spontaneously assemble in protein chains similar to those in the oldest sections or our RNA.


----------



## DOTR (Jun 1, 2018)

Mac1958 said:


> Maybe it did.
> 
> So tell me:  Where did we come from?
> .



  I never pretended to know that. As you said earlier..this is an admission we shouldn't be afraid to make. 
   What I do know, staying within evidence based reasoning, is that life originated once (ill change my mind when i see the second example). And (2) life is, like consciousness, not reductive. NOT the sum of parts. Not the result of statistics such that we can say it must happen again (3) life went through a series of wildly unlikely filters...each one as improbable as origin itself.
   For my opinion on origin, for what its worth, I find Nick Lane compelling. Not being a scientist myself I can only read and try to understand what bigger minds than mine have discerned. And his is one of the biggest.


----------



## james bond (Jun 1, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > This is not creation. One needs a cell in order to create the RNA. One needs a cell to create an amino acid or protein. Humans can only create up to the molecular level. Not the atomic level. Only God can do that.
> ...



Much of what they produced was contamination.  It's not true that well over 20 different amino acids were produced.  Miller-Urey eventually produced trace amounts of amino acids by adjusting for what they perceived to be the early atmosphere.  However, they were well short of the essential amino acids needed to produce a protein molecule.  Besides, it was impossible to do this because of chilarity.  This is the start of chemical evolution, so ToE leads to the study of origins of life.


----------



## Wuwei (Jun 1, 2018)

DOTR said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > It is still statistically small, but think of the improbability as a poker game where everyone is dealt a royal flush. If there are billions of card games going on for millions of years, the improbability becomes an almost certainty.
> ...


Maybe it is going on still. It would be very hard to find among the huge biomass of current life. The current life is going to eat it up right away anyway.


----------



## fncceo (Jun 1, 2018)

james bond said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...



When Miller-Urey performed their original experiments in the early 1950's, they lacked the equipment to accurately sequence the molecules their experiment produced.  Subsequent analysis on sealed samples from their experiments and others replicating their expermiment have identified 30 unique amino acids, 25% of which are proteinogenic.


----------



## Wuwei (Jun 1, 2018)

james bond said:


> Much of what they produced was contamination. It's not true that well over 20 different amino acids were produced. Miller-Urey eventually produced trace amounts of amino acids by adjusting for what they perceived to be the early atmosphere. However, they were well short of the essential amino acids needed to produce a protein molecule. Besides, it was impossible to do this because of chilarity. This is the start of chemical evolution, so ToE leads to the study of origins of life


Contamination? What is your source for contamination? Later scientists investigated the goop and found 20 different amino acids. There are only two possibilities of chilarity. One would win out over the other.


----------



## DOTR (Jun 1, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...



   “Maybe” doesn’t sound very scientific to me. You have some reason to think this is “maybe” happening?


----------



## DOTR (Jun 1, 2018)

fncceo said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...



   Yeah I read that. But not onecreproduced. He made some inert molecules but didn’t come close to even hint at life. 
   I’m not taking potshots at his experiment. I’m just saying it didn’t get close to life. 
   Follow it out...if it were possible then somewhere sparks would still be creating new life. But it isn’t happening.


----------



## fncceo (Jun 1, 2018)

DOTR said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...



The standard creationism argument on the origin of life is that organic molecules cannot spontaneously originate from inorganic compounds.  That argument is demonstrably false.  

Remember that Miller-Urey is a very tiny recreation of what was happening all over the early earth for more than a billion years.  It would be next to impossible for a trilobite to crawl out of a M-U flask.


----------



## Wuwei (Jun 1, 2018)

DOTR said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > DOTR said:
> ...


Do you have any reason to think it is not happening?

A "maybe" definitely is not scientific and was not meant to be. It's just something that is in the realm of possibility.


----------



## DOTR (Jun 1, 2018)

fncceo said:


> The standard creationism argument on the origin of life is that organic molecules cannot spontaneously originate from inorganic compounds.  That argument is demonstrably false.



   I would think so ...especially since organic molecules have benn found which originated extraterrestrially. Murchison meteorite - Wikipedia

  But saying life originated only once and only on Earth is not an argument from the pseudo-science of creationism. Rather it is the only fact in evidence scientifically. 
    The religious or philosophical implications of that fact seem to scare some but that’s too bad. Maybe creation scientists do argue the same thing. If they do they are correct at least in that one fact. But that is no reason to throw out the fact is it?


----------



## fncceo (Jun 1, 2018)

DOTR said:


> Rather it is the only fact in evidence scientifically.



The known existence of a single form of life is not confirmation of no other forms of life.  It's only a confirmation of the limitations of our ability to detect life.


----------



## DOTR (Jun 2, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> Do you have any reason to think it is not happening?
> .



    Look. It isn’t even a debatable point that all life that we have ever seen or seen evidence of is descended from a common ancestor. From amoeba to yeast to whales to tribolites. This common descent is the basis of evolutionary theory itself. 
   So yes I have a reason to think it is not happening. 
   Now maybe you have a theory as to why only descendants of that one original creature exist. That’s fine.  But no reputable scientist has been able to explain it so you should perhaps publish.


----------



## DOTR (Jun 2, 2018)

fncceo said:


> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> > Rather it is the only fact in evidence scientifically.
> ...



  Be that as it may that is the limit we work under. Anything else is rank speculation.  And if we are speculating I don’t see why people who postulate an act of creation should be penalized for doing the same thing.
     There is as much evidence for a creation event as there is for other forms of life right?
    This started with Europa. I’m confident there is no life there. But if we do find it I am sure we will also find it shares an ancestor with our own tree one way or another. It won’t be “over” as was stated but will be just beginning.


----------



## DOTR (Jun 2, 2018)

Elon Musk's Bacteria-Covered Space Car May Be a 'Biothreat'


----------



## Wuwei (Jun 2, 2018)

DOTR said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > Do you have any reason to think it is not happening?
> ...


I agree that all life we see is from a common ancestor. Abiogenesis is a different area of science than evolution and as time goes on scientists are seeing that it is not as improbable as originally thought.


----------



## DOTR (Jun 2, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> I agree that all life we see is from a common ancestor. Abiogenesis is a different area of science than evolution and as time goes on scientists are seeing that it is not as improbable as originally thought.



  Exactly my point. It isnt a matter of probability apparently. Life arose while the earth was just cooled off. it didnt take long geologically speaking...a blink of the eye. The earth has existed through multiples and magnitudes of the time it took for life to form.
 If it is a matter of probabilities, and the probabilities are now being seen as greater even, then why isnt it happening over and over and over?
   And it obviously isnt a matter of putting chemicals in a jar, running electricity through it and hoping a few amino acids form. The earth is lousy with organic molecules now and has been for billions of years. Lightning has been striking and volcanoes erupting all that time. An embarrassment of riches.
   But it doesnt happen. To all appearances, and by all evidence, it was a unique event.


----------



## Wuwei (Jun 2, 2018)

DOTR said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > I agree that all life we see is from a common ancestor. Abiogenesis is a different area of science than evolution and as time goes on scientists are seeing that it is not as improbable as originally thought.
> ...



Suppose abiogenesis actually was occurring right now. How would you find it? It would start as a very rare fragile single cell creature in an ocean or cesspool, etc. Anywhere that is an optimal environment for new life to form would also be crawling with modern bacteria, etc. It could immediately be eaten before it could evolve. It is a veritable needle in a haystack.


----------



## DOTR (Jun 4, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> Suppose abiogenesis actually was occurring right now.



    Why would I suppose that?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 5, 2018)

Wuwei said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > This is not creation. One needs a cell in order to create the RNA. One needs a cell to create an amino acid or protein. Humans can only create up to the molecular level. Not the atomic level. Only God can do that.
> ...


Do you believe that awareness comes from sparked molecules?


----------



## Wuwei (Jun 5, 2018)

DOTR said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > Suppose abiogenesis actually was occurring right now.
> ...



I'm not asking you to believe it! I know you don't. It is a rhetorical supposition for the sake of argument to illustrate how difficult it would be to actually find recurring abiogenesis in case it did occur. That is your argument; that we don't see it now, and I'm explaining why.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jun 7, 2018)

DOTR said:


> It isn’t even a debatable point that all life that we have ever seen or seen evidence of is descended from a common ancestor.


But in no way, by any stretch of the imagination, would that be evidence that (or should it lead someone to believe that) life evolved exactly once in the entire universe. 

This is, basically, what you are saying, no?


----------



## DOTR (Jun 8, 2018)

Mac1958 said:


> Europa's plumes make Jupiter moon a prime candidate for life
> 
> This article says a mission to Europa could happen as soon as June 2022.  The mission would fly through the plumes that shoot out from its (believed) under-ice oceans for specific analysis, looking for any signs of microbial life.
> 
> ...



   Maybe we don’t have to go all the way to Europa. 

NASA Curiosity rover unearths building blocks in 3-billion-year-old organic matter on Mars


----------



## DOTR (Jun 8, 2018)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> > It isn’t even a debatable point that all life that we have ever seen or seen evidence of is descended from a common ancestor.
> ...



   Yes.  You got it.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jun 8, 2018)

DOTR said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > DOTR said:
> ...


Well,what you are saying is absurd. You seem too smart to say such an absurd thing and actually believe it.


----------



## DOTR (Jun 10, 2018)

You should look at your fears and superstitions and try to overcome them. It is a fascinating inquiry. Why are you so terrified of this idea that, even with zero evidence of an altrrnative, you are totally invested in these speculative theories?
   .

    I’ll try a more conciliatory tack....I think I am well versed in the subject but maybe I have missed something. Is there a paper out there, peer reviewed, that advances a theory as to why life only appears by evidence to be unique in origin but actually isn’t? I would absolutely read it.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jun 10, 2018)

DOTR said:


> You should look at your fears and superstitions and try to overcome them. It is a fascinating inquiry. Why are you so terrified of this idea that, even with zero evidence of an altrrnative, you are totally invested in these speculative theories?
> .
> 
> I’ll try a more conciliatory tack....I think I am well versed in the subject but maybe I have missed something. Is there a paper out there, peer reviewed, that advances a theory as to why life only appears by evidence to be unique in origin but actually isn’t? I would absolutely read it.


Nice attempt at distraction, but let's get back to what you said.

You are claiming that our having observed only one instance of life in the universe is evidence that there is exactly one instance of life in the universe.

This is absurd, as many have pointed out. Your entire argument rests on this absurd and false premise, and you are holding an empty bag.


----------



## DOTR (Jun 10, 2018)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> > You should look at your fears and superstitions and try to overcome them. It is a fascinating inquiry. Why are you so terrified of this idea that, even with zero evidence of an altrrnative, you are totally invested in these speculative theories?
> ...



  The less absurd argument being since we have observed no other life then they must exist ?
   You are medieval.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jun 10, 2018)

DOTR said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > DOTR said:
> ...


Not one single person has made that argument. You made it up yourself in order to have low hanging fruit to poach, since you are either incapable of or unwilling to fashion any counter to the actual arguments presented. A more rational person would simply concede, but you are beholden to magical nonsense.


----------



## DOTR (Jun 10, 2018)

I stand by the science. We have evidence of one event and one life form. Sorry if that scares you.


----------



## DOTR (Jun 10, 2018)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> > You should look at your fears and superstitions and try to overcome them. It is a fascinating inquiry. Why are you so terrified of this idea that, even with zero evidence of an altrrnative, you are totally invested in these speculative theories?
> ...



   Yeah I knew asking for peer reviewed evidence would send you over the edge 
   Science a distraction?


----------



## Death Angel (Jun 10, 2018)

Mac1958 said:


> The neat thing is, we just don't know.
> 
> There are an estimated one billion trillion stars in the observable universe. Plus, over the 13 billion years or so of its existence, it's possible that the universe has seen many advanced civilizations come and go. And, of course, it's also possible that there are countless universes.
> 
> With those facts in hand, I have no doubt there's a lot going on out there. But that's just me


What if we are nothing more than God's video game, and those infinite stars were only created for our observation and nothing more.

None of this speculation matters since it is and will always be impossible for Man to go there.


----------



## Mac1958 (Jun 11, 2018)

DOTR said:


> I stand by the science. We have evidence of one event and one life form. Sorry if that scares you.


So far.

That excites me.
.


----------



## DOTR (Jun 11, 2018)

Mac1958 said:


> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> > I stand by the science. We have evidence of one event and one life form. Sorry if that scares you.
> ...



  You know, if you think about it, finding the genesis of life would be as exciting and awe inspiring as finding an alien life. And we know we are not searching for something that doesn't exist.


----------



## Mac1958 (Jun 11, 2018)

DOTR said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> > DOTR said:
> ...


Hey, I'll take any new discoveries.  
.


----------



## DOTR (Jun 11, 2018)

Mac1958 said:


> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> > Mac1958 said:
> ...




   Any new discovery will keep me awake for weeks reading it. But it wont be alien life....sorry.


----------



## Mac1958 (Jun 11, 2018)

DOTR said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> > DOTR said:
> ...


Okie doke.  I don't know how someone can possibly claim to know, but that's fine.
.


----------



## DOTR (Jun 11, 2018)

Mac1958 said:


> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> > Mac1958 said:
> ...



   When I see it I will say I was wrong. Dont expect to have to though.


----------



## Mac1958 (Jun 11, 2018)

DOTR said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> > DOTR said:
> ...


Agreed, most likely not in our lifetime, sadly.

I'll remain hopeful, though.
.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jun 11, 2018)

DOTR said:


> We have evidence of one event and one life form


Which is in no way evidence for ONLY one event, by any stretch of logic. To say so is absurd. I think you know this, but I think that you are having fun acting like a fool.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jun 11, 2018)

DOTR said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > DOTR said:
> ...


Evidence...of what?

Stop declaring victory, you embarrass yourself to do so.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 11, 2018)

DOTR said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > DOTR said:
> ...



I have peer reviewed the above post and am in complete agreement

We have Consensus!


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 11, 2018)

fncceo said:


> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> > fncceo said:
> ...


And there has been some very interesting work done with proto-cells.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 11, 2018)

DOTR said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > Suppose abiogenesis actually was occurring right now.
> ...


Why wouldn't you?


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 11, 2018)

DOTR said:


> I stand by the science. We have evidence of one event and one life form. Sorry if that scares you.


No, you do not. You stand by religious nonsense. The very rapid evolution of life on this planet argues for life elsewhere in the universe.


----------



## DOTR (Jun 14, 2018)

Mac1958 said:


> DOTR said:
> 
> 
> > Mac1958 said:
> ...



    It is possible we could be directly exploring the planets of the Alpha Centauri system in a scant 20 years. If we had the will. 


Breakthrough Starshot - Wikipedia

Starchip enterprise

Breakthrough Initiatives

   Looks like they even have the problem of erosion well in hand. 

Interstellar probes will be eroded on the way to Alpha Centauri


----------



## fncceo (Jun 14, 2018)

DOTR said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> > DOTR said:
> ...



Do we really want to advertise our presence to potentially hostile space aliens?


----------

