CDZ Another "Evolution" Question

[fncceo]

The only option is spreading to other planets before we kill ourselves.

Not really an option. Life on this planet spent a billion years creating just the right form of life to thrive here. No other planet in our solar system (or off, so far), offers the same environment capable of supporting human life outside of habitrail modules.

It's be much more economically feasible to create an underground society here, isolated from the surface, to act as a backup civilisation in case of a failure of the primary ... they shouldn't have any problem finding food.

 

[BlackFlag]

The only option is spreading to other planets before we kill ourselves.

Not really an option. Life on this planet spent a billion years creating just the right form of life to thrive here. No other planet in our solar system (or off, so far), offers the same environment capable of supporting human life outside of habitrail modules.

It's be much more economically feasible to create an underground society here, isolated from the surface, to act as a backup civilisation in case of a failure of the primary ... they shouldn't have any problem finding food.

Possibly, but I still think were better off establishing colonies in space or on other planets until we can terraform parts of some planets to live off of.

 

[deanrd]

I am not opposed to the theory of evolution or any other scientific inquiry, but I was pondering the fact that we have not discovered any evidence of life on other planets in our solar system. It seems curious that truly spontaneous life would be so limited to a unique set of conditions that exist only on Earth. In addition, it appears probable that at least 99.99% of the universe is utterly devoid of any life forms. What does this say about the Big Bang theory? Was an inevitable development of life built into this process, or is it a unique response to a unique set of conditions that exist only on Earth?

Water is the key to life

It exists in liquid form between 32 and 212 degrees F
Most planets can’t support that

Carbon based.
Can life be silicon based?
Who knows?
We (earth) spends more money on defending crazy religions than on understanding the Universe and how we got here.

 

[fncceo]

Possibly, but I still think were better off establishing colonies in space or on other planets until we can terraform parts of some planets to live off of.

All our space launch systems are based on 1950's rocket technology. It costs $3500 to send this to Mars.

Pretty sure setting up a Google campus in space isn't a viable option, economically.

 

[fncceo]

We (earth) spends more money on defending crazy religions than on understanding the Universe and how we got here.

To be fair ... the crazy religions have been around a lot longer. They have first dibs.

 

[BlackFlag]

Possibly, but I still think were better off establishing colonies in space or on other planets until we can terraform parts of some planets to live off of.

All our space launch systems are based on 1950's rocket technology. It costs $3500 to send this to Mars.

Pretty sure setting up a Google campus in space isn't a viable option, economically.

It doesn’t have to happen tomorrow. Just before we off ourselves.

 

[fncceo]

Can life be silicon based?

Actually, Silicon has been generally discarded as an alternative to Carbon as a basis for creating organic molecules.

While Silicon is tetravelant like Carbon and has the ability to create molecule chains large enough to carry genetic data, it lacks the ability to bond with diverse groups of other elements necessary to create the types of organic molecules to support life.

Silicon molecules tend to be very similar to each other.

 

[fncceo]

It doesn’t have to happen tomorrow. Just before we off ourselves.

Only 30 years ago, nuclear devastation seemed inevitable. Now, it is much less likely as there is not longer a unrestrained nuclear arms race between superpowers.

My own personal opinion was that it was never really a threat during the height of the Cold War, in that human command and control systems would have prevented any total commitment of nuclear arsenals.

It was always a threat that played well in the media, but didn't really have any substance. Thank goodness, we don't have any highly-feared and over-hyped fears of devastation today.

 

[konradv]

Can life be silicon based?

Actually, Silicon has been generally discarded as an alternative to Carbon as a basis for creating organic molecules. While Silicon is tetravalent like Carbon and has the ability to create molecule chains large enough to carry genetic data, it lacks the ability to bond with diverse groups of other elements necessary to create the types of organic molecules to support life. Silicone molecules tend to be very similar to each other.

I believe it would have to be a planet with a non-oxygen atmosphere. When O2 and silicon meet, you generally get sand.

 

[BlackFlag]

It doesn’t have to happen tomorrow. Just before we off ourselves.

Only 30 years ago, nuclear devastation seemed inevitable. Now, it is much less likely as there is not longer a unrestrained nuclear arms race between superpowers.

My own personal opinion was that it was never really a threat during the height of the Cold War, in that human command and control systems would have prevented any total commitment of nuclear arsenals.

It was always a threat that played well in the media, but didn't really have any substance. Thank goodness, we don't have any highly-feared and over-hyped fears of devastation today.

And hopefully it stays that way until we figure out a way off the planet.

 

[fncceo]

Can life be silicon based?

Actually, Silicon has been generally discarded as an alternative to Carbon as a basis for creating organic molecules. While Silicon is tetravalent like Carbon and has the ability to create molecule chains large enough to carry genetic data, it lacks the ability to bond with diverse groups of other elements necessary to create the types of organic molecules to support life. Silicone molecules tend to be very similar to each other.

I believe it would have to be a planet with a non-oxygen atmosphere. When O2 and silicon meet, you generally get sand.

Even outside of an oxygenated environment, Silicon based molecules tend to be monolithic. Last I heard, 84 different Carbon based molecules have been discovered in space. Only 8 based on Silicon (and four of those include Carbon). There is more than ten times the amount of Carbon in space objects as Silicon.

Not saying it's impossible, but given the limitations of Silicon versus Carbon as a basis for organic life, it would seem the odds are against it.

 

[fncceo]

And hopefully it stays that way until we figure out a way off the planet.

Unfortunately, it's a pretty sure bet that for at least the next hundred years or so, the only way a large group of humans will get into space is watching a 'Star Wars' sequel.

 

[JoeMoma]

Possibly, but I still think were better off establishing colonies in space or on other planets until we can terraform parts of some planets to live off of.

All our space launch systems are based on 1950's rocket technology. It costs $3500 to send this to Mars.

Pretty sure setting up a Google campus in space isn't a viable option, economically.

I would think it costs a lot more than $3,500 to send that to mars.

 

[Crepitus]

I am not opposed to the theory of evolution or any other scientific inquiry, but I was pondering the fact that we have not discovered any evidence of life on other planets in our solar system. It seems curious that truly spontaneous life would be so limited to a unique set of conditions that exist only on Earth. In addition, it appears probable that at least 99.99% of the universe is utterly devoid of any life forms. What does this say about the Big Bang theory? Was an inevitable development of life built into this process, or is it a unique response to a unique set of conditions that exist only on Earth?

99.99%?

We've not really explored any of even out solar system, much less others. I think you're jumping the gun a bit here. Be careful that you don't jump the shark as well.

 

[fncceo]

Possibly, but I still think were better off establishing colonies in space or on other planets until we can terraform parts of some planets to live off of.

All our space launch systems are based on 1950's rocket technology. It costs $3500 to send this to Mars.

Pretty sure setting up a Google campus in space isn't a viable option, economically.

I would think it costs a lot more than $3,500 to send that to mars.

Based on a mars insertion orbit cost of $3500 per kilo.

 

[JoeMoma]

Possibly, but I still think were better off establishing colonies in space or on other planets until we can terraform parts of some planets to live off of.

All our space launch systems are based on 1950's rocket technology. It costs $3500 to send this to Mars.

Pretty sure setting up a Google campus in space isn't a viable option, economically.

I would think it costs a lot more than $3,500 to send that to mars.

Based on a mars insertion orbit cost of $3500 per kilo.

So you are using a volume discount. I suspect there would be a fixed cost of billions to send anything to mars. It’s not like I can buy a postage stamp for $3500 and mail a bottle of water to mars.

 

[fncceo]

So you are using a volume discount. I suspect there would be a fixed cost of billions to send anything to mars. It’s not like I can buy a postage stamp for $3500 and mail a bottle of water to mars.

Yes, the cost of even a small mission to Mars would be in the TRILLIONS -- given that it took 25 Billion to land 12 men on the moon with no permanent settlement.

To put it another way ... it would cost $334,000 extra to send Elon Musk to Mars even if the ship were going there anyway.

 

[WheelieAddict]

I am not opposed to the theory of evolution or any other scientific inquiry, but I was pondering the fact that we have not discovered any evidence of life on other planets in our solar system. It seems curious that truly spontaneous life would be so limited to a unique set of conditions that exist only on Earth. In addition, it appears probable that at least 99.99% of the universe is utterly devoid of any life forms. What does this say about the Big Bang theory? Was an inevitable development of life built into this process, or is it a unique response to a unique set of conditions that exist only on Earth?

Circumstellar habitable zone - Wikipedia

 

[JoeMoma]

 

[jwoodie]

Very interesting and informative comments. As to the statistical approach, there seems to be two mutually exclusive examples:

1. Enough monkeys at enough typewriters will eventaully reproduce the Encyclopedia Britannica verbatim.

2. If you take the typewriter apart and place the pieces in a washing machine, it will never be put back together.

In addition, taking statistical extrapolation to the extreme would guarantee that a duplicate Earth would exist somewhere in the universe, including all of the people on it. Is your identical double hiding somewhere out there?