Life is Only on Earth

Based on the analysis of only two stars?! And when "The preliminary results suggest that material blown out into space could vary dramatically in chemical composition."
Isn't it a little early to become a pessimist?
 
Last edited:
There's a huge difference between "the search for life elsewhere" and "the existence of life elsewhere". Our reach into space is minute. We aren't going to find life, unless it is on one of our very near neighbours. That doesn't mean that life doesn't exist elsewhere.
 
MikeG said:
There's a huge difference between "the search for life elsewhere" and "the existence of life elsewhere". Our reach into space is minute. We aren't going to find life, unless it is on one of our very near neighbours. That doesn't mean that life doesn't exist elsewhere.
Click to expand...
My thought experiment always reverts to the common ancestor comprising 4 amino acids, and thus questioning why our ideal laboratory with infinite microbial points could allow one common ancestor.
People contend there was continual annihilation of competitors until the one form predominated, BUT
At a microbial scale, there were infinite locales on earth for life to form in this most friendly environs, and thus there should be evidence of this primordial fight.
 
Samson said:
At a microbial scale, there were infinite locales on earth for life to form in this most friendly environs, and thus there should be evidence of this primordial fight.
Click to expand...

How would you recognize it? The primary components are all potential food sources, and would be mostly gobbled up. The only remaining microbial fossil remains might not allow you to distinguish between different origin groups.
 
Samson said:
My thought experiment always reverts to the common ancestor comprising 4 amino acids, and thus questioning why our ideal laboratory with infinite microbial points could allow one common ancestor.
People contend there was continual annihilation of competitors until the one form predominated, BUT
At a microbial scale, there were infinite locales on earth for life to form in this most friendly environs, and thus there should be evidence of this primordial fight.
Click to expand...

What has this got to do with my post, which you quoted?

Why should there be extant "evidence of this primordial fight"? How much evidence do you think would remain of such a minute bit of activity 3 or 4 billion years later, when the planet is subject to weather, erosion, tectonic forces, asteroid strikes, wild fires and on and on, to say nothing of the activity of later life?
 
MikeG said:
There's a huge difference between "the search for life elsewhere" and "the existence of life elsewhere". Our reach into space is minute. We aren't going to find life, unless it is on one of our very near neighbours. That doesn't mean that life doesn't exist elsewhere.
Click to expand...

There are a couple of possible candidates in our own backyard like Europa or Encaladus. We struggle to even test those, albeit, they do have possibilities. But you are correct, For any exoplanet the best we can do so far is claim that the evidence merely "suggests" the presence of liquid water. Sometimes I wonder if some people think Star Trek tricorders actually exist.
 
Ziggurat said:
How would you recognize it? The primary components are all potential food sources, and would be mostly gobbled up. The only remaining microbial fossil remains might not allow you to distinguish between different origin groups.
Click to expand...
Are you sure you are not arguing backwards?
Food sources are life forms.
I only suggest that singularities do happen without a helpful explanation.
The 4 amino acids might just explain a fluke that happened once after the big bang.
I think therefore I am is a helpful clause in illuminating thinking backwards.
 
aleCcowaN said:
Samson, your notions need some sharp tool, ask Occam if you can borrow one from him.
Click to expand...
I am lay person who wonders why there are only 4 amino acids, and one common ancestor on this fantastic "multiverse" of life starting locales.
I can see a trillion on my grubby keyboard :)
 
Samson said:
I am lay person who wonders why there are only 4 amino acids, and one common ancestor on this fantastic "multiverse" of life starting locales.
I can see a trillion on my grubby keyboard :)
Click to expand...

Excuse me, but that is not an argument.

Imagine one planet with a primordial soup that is kept in time. Imagine any kind of polymerization and imagine organisms similar to retrotransponsons playing in that field. Are retrotransponsons live enough? Don't they have elemental behaviour and create new life -copies of them-?

Imagine a persistent shuffle of elements in the soup and add evolution -as much as it is possible in such an environment-. Wouldn't it develop into more complex forms of life (a mitochondria, for instance) all built with the most efficient and reliable blocks the environment have created? What makes you think our "local" "4 amino acids" are not the product of such evolutive paths?
 
MikeG said:
There's a huge difference between "the search for life elsewhere" and "the existence of life elsewhere". Our reach into space is minute. We aren't going to find life, unless it is on one of our very near neighbours. That doesn't mean that life doesn't exist elsewhere.
Click to expand...

Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if we found at least fossil traces of micro-organisms in several other bodies in our solar system alone.
 
Samson said:
My thought experiment always reverts to the common ancestor comprising 4 amino acids, and thus questioning why our ideal laboratory with infinite microbial points could allow one common ancestor.
People contend there was continual annihilation of competitors until the one form predominated, BUT
At a microbial scale, there were infinite locales on earth for life to form in this most friendly environs, and thus there should be evidence of this primordial fight.
Click to expand...

What fight? It's not like those amoebas and bacteria used swords and ballitae. They ate one another or encroached on one another's ressources and all but one line died out. There's just no other reasonable explanation.
 
abaddon said:
There are a couple of possible candidates in our own backyard like Europa or Encaladus. We struggle to even test those, albeit, they do have possibilities. But you are correct, For any exoplanet the best we can do so far is claim that the evidence merely "suggests" the presence of liquid water. Sometimes I wonder if some people think Star Trek tricorders actually exist.
Click to expand...

- "Captain, I'm reading life signs on the derelict vessel."
- "What the hell does that even mean?"
- "Well, sir the... the scanners say life signs."
- "Yeah but how can they tell? They're inside the wreck."
- "I... computer, site-to-site transport!" <vanishes>
 
Belz... said:
What fight? It's not like those amoebas and bacteria used swords and ballitae. They ate one another or encroached on one another's ressources and all but one line died out. There's just no other reasonable explanation.
Click to expand...
Exactly.
Earth is perfect laboratory, so trillions of locales issue their model.
Infinitely distant one from other.

No communication....
 
Given the vast size of the universe, it is almost certian that there are other places with life on it besides the Earth.

However, given the vast size of the universe, it is quite difficult for those on Earth to find any of those places.
 
Samson said:
Exactly.
Earth is perfect laboratory, so trillions of locales issue their model.
Infinitely distant one from other.

No communication....
Click to expand...

That's a nice boatload of claims, here. Would you mind demonstrating them?

Also: the universe is a much bigger laboratory, with quadrillions of planets not unlike Earth.
 
Samson said:
I have always contended search for life elsewhere will be a disappointment.
Here is a scholarly article to add to the gloom.

https://phys.org/news/2018-04-paucity-phosphorus-hints-precarious-path.html

Paucity of phosphorus hints at precarious path for extraterrestrial life
Click to expand...

It is important to remember that, though 'life as we know it,' does not exclude life other than as we know it, until we find compelling evidence of forms of life other than as we currently know it, life as we currently know it is all we can really discuss at this time.

Given this, the search for life means that the presence and availability of phosphorous (among a host of other factors) is an important consideration in our search for life beyond the Earth. To some considerations, the triple point of water is a holy grail of whether or not an environment has the potential to generate life, however, thus far it (like the availability of Phosphorous) is merely one of many factors (individually and jointly) which constrain the potential for life.

There may well be many types of life other than that which we currently recognize as life, but until compelling evidences of it are encountered, those potentials are predominantly speculative and fodder for imaginative musing moreso than anything which should be embraced as factual via apparent popular fiat.
 
Belz... said:
That's a nice boatload of claims, here. Would you mind demonstrating them?

Also: the universe is a much bigger laboratory, with quadrillions of planets not unlike Earth.
Click to expand...
Yes sextillions, I know the parameters, but the thread quotes a phosphorus problem, then we have the earth moon creation anomaly, and so on.
It takes few improbabilities to understand why monkeys don't write Shakespeare.
 
Samson said:
Yes sextillions, I know the parameters
Click to expand...

Do you have any idea how large that number is?

but the thread quotes a phosphorus problem, then we have the earth moon creation anomaly, and so on.
Click to expand...

And so on what? A moon might be completely irrelevant.

It takes few improbabilities to understand why monkeys don't write Shakespeare.
Click to expand...

Gibberish.
 
Belz... said:
Do you have any idea how large that number is?



And so on what? A moon might be completely irrelevant.



Gibberish.
Click to expand...
Yes there might be a sextillion stars and 10 times that number in planets, in the observable universe, sadly unless we are centered the number gets very much larger towards infinite.

However.
Not commonly realised is there are as many atoms in a drop of water as stars in the observable universe, and that renders the universe unexceptional in its proclivity to manufacture life.










in
 
Belz... said:
That's a nice boatload of claims, here. Would you mind demonstrating them?

Also: the universe is a much bigger laboratory, with quadrillions of planets not unlike Earth.
Click to expand...

Quadrillions of planets (somewhat) like Earth, after all, for the vast majority of concerns Venus is a virtual twin of the Earth, but not likely to have life as we know it. Even if there are 100s of billions of planets exactly like Earth, that doesn't assure the development of life on them. If life develops on a fraction of these, finding that life is a bigger problem with likely billions of years in time and billions of light-years of distance separating those within the range of these instances of occurrence.
 
Last edited:
Samson said:
Are you sure you are not arguing backwards?
Click to expand...

Yes, I'm sure. But I'm not sure you're clear on what I'm arguing. I'm not arguing whether life originated only once on earth or more than once, or if alternative formulations evolved or didn't evolved. I'm pointing out that either way, there may be no surviving evidence that we could recognize.
 
Samson said:
Yes there might be a sextillion stars and 10 times that number in planets, in the observable universe, sadly unless we are centered the number gets very much larger towards infinite.
Click to expand...

What do you mean, "centered"?
 
Samson said:
Yes there might be a sextillion stars and 10 times that number in planets, in the observable universe, sadly unless we are centered the number gets very much larger towards infinite.

However.
Not commonly realised is there are as many atoms in a drop of water as stars in the observable universe, and that renders the universe unexceptional in its proclivity to manufacture life.
Click to expand...

One non sequitur after another...
 
Samson said:
Yes there might be a sextillion stars and 10 times that number in planets, in the observable universe, sadly unless we are centered the number gets very much larger towards infinite.

However.
Not commonly realised is there are as many atoms in a drop of water as stars in the observable universe, and that renders the universe unexceptional in its proclivity to manufacture life.
Click to expand...

What does that even mean?

Trakar said:
Quadrillions of planets (somewhat) like Earth, after all, for the vast majority of concerns Venus is a virtual twin of the Earth, but not likely to have life as we know it. Even if there are 100s of billions of planets exactly like Earth, that doesn't assure the development of life on them.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what argument you think I'm making. I'm saying that the extremely large number makes it very likely that at least a few planets have developed life like ours.
 
Ziggurat said:
What do you mean, "centered"?
Click to expand...
I know what I mean like Alice.
Look, what we do know from astronomy is the universe looks the same everywhere, so unless we are in the exact center, the damn thing is far bigger than we can ever see, but not necessarily infinite.
 
Wow! You have excelled yourself!

There's a lesson in this thread:

Have a bit of information and a superficial understanding of isolated scientific bits ... then declare yourself a layman and start to extract conclusions along the lines of your original whim... the name of the method is...

C.R.A.P.
 
Samson said:
However.
Not commonly realised is there are as many atoms in a drop of water as stars in the observable universe, and that renders the universe unexceptional in its proclivity to manufacture life.
Click to expand...

Meaningless drivel.
 
Samson said:
I know what I mean like Alice.
Look, what we do know from astronomy is the universe looks the same everywhere, so unless we are in the exact center, the damn thing is far bigger than we can ever see, but not necessarily infinite.
Click to expand...

You understand that this works against your argument, right?
 
Samson said:
I know what I mean like Alice.
Look, what we do know from astronomy is the universe looks the same everywhere, so unless we are in the exact center, the damn thing is far bigger than we can ever see, but not necessarily infinite.
Click to expand...

No. That's not how cosmology works. We're not at the center, because there IS no center.

And yes, it's far bigger than the visible portion. We know that because the visible portion is close to flat, so either it's infinite, or it wraps around on itself on a scale much bigger than the visible portion. In no case, however, is there an "edge" that we could be at the center of.
 
Samson said:
Exactly.
Earth is perfect laboratory, so trillions of locales issue their model.
Infinitely distant one from other.

No communication....
Click to expand...

Just my opinion since it’s difficult to prove one way or another:

The emergence of the first self-replicating RNA/DNA changes the picture because all the free building blocks would likely be used up relatively rapidly. At this point further replication requires finding a way to use material that is already part of different self-replicating molecules and the evolutionary arms race is on.

This all happens before the molecules can truly be called living so the chemical regime is set by the time the first living organisms evolve. At this point even if you get multiple emergences of life, they all evolve from a common non-living but self replicating molecule.
 
Ziggurat said:
We're not at the center, because there IS no center.

And yes, it's far bigger than the visible portion. We know that because the visible portion is close to flat, so either it's infinite, or it wraps around on itself on a scale much bigger than the visible portion. In no case, however, is there an "edge" that we could be at the center of.
Click to expand...

That, that!




(just kidding...I believe you, but I have no idea what that means. I'm totally unable to visualize that at all. Boo.)
 
Ziggurat said:
No. That's not how cosmology works. We're not at the center, because there IS no center.

And yes, it's far bigger than the visible portion. We know that because the visible portion is close to flat, so either it's infinite, or it wraps around on itself on a scale much bigger than the visible portion. In no case, however, is there an "edge" that we could be at the center of.
Click to expand...

I'm always amazed at how fast the universe grew in just 13.7 billion years.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom