Waiting for Europa

[Wuwei]

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?

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.

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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

 

[Wuwei]

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.

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]

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]

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.

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]

Suppose abiogenesis actually was occurring right now.

Why would I suppose that?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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.​

Do you believe that awareness comes from sparked molecules?

 

[Wuwei]

Suppose abiogenesis actually was occurring right now.

Why would I suppose that?

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]

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]

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.
.

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]

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?

Yes. You got it.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

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?

Yes. You got it.

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

 

[DOTR]

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]

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]

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.

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

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

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.

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

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.