The big question about life on other planets: 1000000000000000000000 planets in the universe

[FA_Q2]

High five! I'll give you that one! I'm good that it's related! Arsenic and phosphorus are very similar chemically.

But arsenic impersonating phosphorous in DNA, is unknown to us in life. As "life as we know it".

But DNA that started replicating, had to go two ways. Phosphorus, or Arsenic. Almost all life went for phosphorus. So this bacteria, if not shown to be alive elsewhere, could be an indigenous species. Life 2.0...

That does not make it life 2.0. It makes it an extremely old branching of DNA.

Life 2.0 is referring to a second genesis which would teach us a ton about how life formed. Anything that shares an ancestor does very little to help with how life formed.

 

[Frannie]

High five! I'll give you that one! I'm good that it's related! Arsenic and phosphorus are very similar chemically.

But arsenic impersonating phosphorous in DNA, is unknown to us in life. As "life as we know it".

But DNA that started replicating, had to go two ways. Phosphorus, or Arsenic. Almost all life went for phosphorus. So this bacteria, if not shown to be alive elsewhere, could be an indigenous species. Life 2.0...

That does not make it life 2.0. It makes it an extremely old branching of DNA.

Life 2.0 is referring to a second genesis which would teach us a ton about how life formed. Anything that shares an ancestor does very little to help with how life formed.

How do you know that you are not life 1,000,000 or more

 

[Frannie]

High five! I'll give you that one! I'm good that it's related! Arsenic and phosphorus are very similar chemically.

But arsenic impersonating phosphorous in DNA, is unknown to us in life. As "life as we know it".

But DNA that started replicating, had to go two ways. Phosphorus, or Arsenic. Almost all life went for phosphorus. So this bacteria, if not shown to be alive elsewhere, could be an indigenous species. Life 2.0...

That does not make it life 2.0. It makes it an extremely old branching of DNA.

Life 2.0 is referring to a second genesis which would teach us a ton about how life formed. Anything that shares an ancestor does very little to help with how life formed.

How did you conclude that this newly discovered strain is old?

 

[RWS]

But everything's cool.

I want to discuss life 3.0....

Who's ready?

C'mon, let's do it! Don't be a dick!

Then start, what is life 3.0 to you?

I can't wait for a computer program to say hello and not have that be in the programming.

The next level. Where we can drop religious bullshit, and ascend to a new level of spiritual and scientific awareness, and get to a new way of living and looking forward to the future.

That's what it is to me.

 

[Frannie]

But everything's cool.

I want to discuss life 3.0....

Who's ready?

C'mon, let's do it! Don't be a dick!

Then start, what is life 3.0 to you?

I can't wait for a computer program to say hello and not have that be in the programming.

The next level. Where we can drop religious bullshit, and ascend to a new level of spiritual and scientific awareness, and get to a new way of living and looking forward to the future.

That's what it is to me.

That is the same thing I have now, you might be lacking this however.

I do agree with you however that religion is BS, God however is a scientific need unless you truly believe that life created itself one day because nothing just felt like creating life.

Nothing has no feelings, or ability to do anything except it's namesake, which is nothing. So from nothing you get more nothing. Not 200 trillion operations per second supercomputers which is now raised to millions of times 200 trillion operations per second quantum computers.

See everything that man can achieve begins with man's DNA code, the most intelligent thing in the known universe that is not pond scum as fools believe

Most intelligent thing rhymes with God...……...

 

[Wuwei]

DNA is not necessarily the beginning of life. Abiogenesis had to have come from a more basic beginning. Think of the process as a Markov Chain.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Scientists say NASA's 'new arsenic form of life' was untrue

Debunked

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

God however is a scientific need unless you truly believe that life created itself one day

Science has no need of God.

Nobody says life "created itself", except for you religious goobers. Why do you keep repeating that moronic talking point? You're embarrassing yourself.

 

[Frannie]

God however is a scientific need unless you truly believe that life created itself one day

Science has no need of God.

Nobody says life "created itself", except for you religious goobers. Why do you keep repeating that moronic talking point? You're embarrassing yourself.

You said life created itself, that is what the abiogenesis nonsense that you babble about constantly means.

Jesus u r tupid

 

[Frannie]

DNA is not necessarily the beginning of life. Abiogenesis had to have come from a more basic beginning. Think of the process as a Markov Chain.

All life has dna

 

[RWS]

Replicating RNA or DNA should be the definition of life.

Once that is discovered elsewhere that should end the creation debate. Just a matter of time.

Because it occurred elsewhere it could happen almost everywhere. And then we're not a unique creation of God. We are a product of chaos and natural selection over 3.5 billions of years.

Another society out there may be millions or billions of years ahead of us in terms of development. And they should rightfully be our gods should we meet them. But they started from the same primordial soup that we did.

 

[RWS]

You always have to ask... Where did god come from?

For human mythology and religion I argue that our gods were originally extraterrestrial. Later on they were just made up to suit the needs of the rulers.

 

[Frannie]

You always have to ask... Where did god come from?

For human mythology and religion I argue that our gods were originally extraterrestrial. Later on they were just made up to suit the needs of the rulers.

What one needs to ask is where are we taking life to in the future. There are billions of planets that are dead but perfectly suited for life. The moment we find one and open the door we are God.

So look ahead instead of to the dead past

 

[Wuwei]

DNA is not necessarily the beginning of life. Abiogenesis had to have come from a more basic beginning. Think of the process as a Markov Chain.

All life has dna

Life is generally defined as having reproduction, growth, response to stimuli, adaptation to environment, etc.
A prototype life could first contain reproduction without the other attributes, and then gain the attributes one at a time.
For example pre-life could start out with DNA as a very short strand of a just a few nucleotides that does nothing but reproduce.

.

 

[Frannie]

DNA is not necessarily the beginning of life. Abiogenesis had to have come from a more basic beginning. Think of the process as a Markov Chain.

All life has dna

Life is generally defined as having reproduction, growth, response to stimuli, adaptation to environment, etc.
A prototype life could first contain reproduction without the other attributes, and then gain the attributes one at a time.
For example pre-life could start out with DNA as a very short strand of a just a few nucleotides that does nothing but reproduce.

.

You can imagine anything if you try, but imagination is not fact

 

[OldLady]

“The universe is a pretty big place. If it's just us, seems like an awful waste of space.”

― Carl Sagan, Contact

 

[Frannie]

“The universe is a pretty big place. If it's just us, seems like an awful waste of space.”

― Carl Sagan, Contact

Carl never could accept that when we explore and find a new home that we are doing what God did here.

Sagan was a moron, he said that science was ending because everything was learned. Intel researchers ignored the moron

 

[Wuwei]

DNA is not necessarily the beginning of life. Abiogenesis had to have come from a more basic beginning. Think of the process as a Markov Chain.

All life has dna

Life is generally defined as having reproduction, growth, response to stimuli, adaptation to environment, etc.
A prototype life could first contain reproduction without the other attributes, and then gain the attributes one at a time.
For example pre-life could start out with DNA as a very short strand of a just a few nucleotides that does nothing but reproduce.

.

You can imagine anything if you try, but imagination is not fact

I stated facts. Imagination is when you think life is started by by mythological entities.

.

 

[Frannie]

DNA is not necessarily the beginning of life. Abiogenesis had to have come from a more basic beginning. Think of the process as a Markov Chain.

All life has dna

Life is generally defined as having reproduction, growth, response to stimuli, adaptation to environment, etc.
A prototype life could first contain reproduction without the other attributes, and then gain the attributes one at a time.
For example pre-life could start out with DNA as a very short strand of a just a few nucleotides that does nothing but reproduce.

.

You can imagine anything if you try, but imagination is not fact

I stated facts. Imagination is when you think life is started by by mythological entities.

.

There are no facts about pre life woowoo, just your imagination imagining imaginary darwinian ponds that existed only in Darwin's imagination

Lol you have facts about pre life.....

Just stay away from the red button please

 

[Wuwei]

DNA is not necessarily the beginning of life. Abiogenesis had to have come from a more basic beginning. Think of the process as a Markov Chain.

All life has dna

Life is generally defined as having reproduction, growth, response to stimuli, adaptation to environment, etc.
A prototype life could first contain reproduction without the other attributes, and then gain the attributes one at a time.
For example pre-life could start out with DNA as a very short strand of a just a few nucleotides that does nothing but reproduce.

.

You can imagine anything if you try, but imagination is not fact

I stated facts. Imagination is when you think life is started by by mythological entities.

.

There are no facts about pre life woowoo, just your imagination imagining imaginary darwinian ponds that existed only in Darwin's imagination

Lol you have facts about pre life.....

Just stay away from the red button please

I stated physical possibilities. A possibility is a fact. You are concerned with the probabilities, not the possibilities. The imagining of a mythical entity starting life is outside a physical possibility, and is therefore woowoo. You stay away from the red button.

.