We haven't found aliens because they're aren't any

[jon_berzerk]

That's the classic paradox. We all want there to be other life out there, but if it finds us before we find it, that means it's much more advanced and we are likely to be at the mercy of it.

We are so far apart, we will never find each other

one or the other will need to be able to travel faster much faster then the speed of light

Which is not possible

for now

For ever

While a subatomic particle can theoretically be accelerated to that speed, heat buildup and changes to the particles mass make it impossible for something the size of a spaceship to endure, let alone a living organism

you are thinking too small minded real flat earth stuff

we do not really know what advances there will be in the future

 

[theHawk]

This seems to be the new thought of many scientists, and I keep hearing it more and more.

I get the idea that a planets environmental hostility makes it nearly impossible for life forms to survive long enough to evolve into technological beings, but the idea that it has only happened here seems crazy to me.
They acknowledge the universe is likely filled with habitable planets. It's as if they are using that likliehood as a way of concluding there must not be any life out there, in other words, since there are likely habitable planets throughout, why aren't we finding life ? Life must be a complete fluke.
The conclusion then is to say we must be the only ones.

"What happened here was a fluke - and is highly unlikely to have happened elsewhere", the researchers say.


We Haven’t Found Aliens Because They’re All Already Dead, Scientists Say

The reason there has never been a confirmed sighting of an alien - or a message from an alien race - could be very depressing.
The reason we haven’t heard from aliens is because they’re all already dead, a new study has suggested.
Researchers from Australian National University suggest that the environments on early planets tend to be so hostile that even when life arises, it is quickly exterminated.
‘The Universe is probably filled with habitable planets, so many scientists think it should be teeming with aliens,’ said Aditya Chopra from the Australian National University.
‘Early life is fragile, so we believe it rarely evolves quickly enough to survive.’
‘Most early planetary environments are unstable. To produce a habitable planet, life forms need to regulate greenhouse gases such as water and carbon dioxide to keep surface temperatures stable.’’

We Haven’t Found Aliens Because They’re All Already Dead, Scientists Say

NASA has wasted so much time and resources searching for "life", they need to concentrate on finding natural resources for us to use. There isn't any life in the rest of our solar system. Scientists can't even explain how life ever came into existence from an inorganic universe, much less replicate the process, yet they expect to find life under a rock on Mars or a Saturn moon.

We only just started looking and you want to throw in the towel, less then one hundred years. You think we wasted resources but the advances nasa has done and able to do has been incredible, in a very short time. We believed certain scientific data for thousands of years until Galileo and Newton destroyed these false premises based on Aristotle and thinking like you just espoused. "Yet screw it! these scientists need to only work on what I want, so I can be more ignorant and lazy." I am glad you do not have any power controlling the money to research.

If you think we need to come up with other resources, what is stoping you from going to school and getting a degree in engineering, or physics or geology. You take all the advantages they have done, yet complain.

I don't have a problem with scientists doing whatever work they want. But NASA needs to focus on colonization and exploration of natural resources.

Believing that life can spontaneously come into existence in desolate places that can't even support life, is about as bad as believing in the tooth fairy. This belief has become their religion. It's a blind belief based on zero scientific evidence, which makes it a religion. Should NASA research and missions be based on dumb beliefs that have no scientific merit?

 

[sealybobo]

Which is not possible

Quantum Entanglement - Careful what you claim is impossible.

Beam me up Scotty

What you claim is possible for an atomic particle does not become possible for a living being

You said it is impossible to travel faster than speed of light... it's not impossible. Now you are backpedaling to say it's impossible for a human being to travel faster than speed of light... which is true. However, it may not ALWAYS be true. After all, what do you think human beings are comprised of? ...That's right... atomic particles.

Neutrinos?

 

[PK1]

Which is not possible

Quantum Entanglement - Careful what you claim is impossible.

Beam me up Scotty

What you claim is possible for an atomic particle does not become possible for a living being

You said it is impossible to travel faster than speed of light... it's not impossible. Now you are backpedaling to say it's impossible for a human being to travel faster than speed of light... which is true. However, it may not ALWAYS be true. After all, what do you think human beings are comprised of? ...That's right... atomic particles.

Neutrinos?

---
Neutrinos??
Our bodies cannot contain them. They pass thru ordinary matter, and we are very "ordinary".

.

 

[PK1]

Quantum entanglement is not talking about acceleration of a particle. It is the transfer of information. You have to think outside the box here because this is theoretical physics.

---
I hope you don't have a Physics degree; my friend does, in theoretical physics, and he thinks you're confused & gave me this info ...

quantum entanglement, might give the superficial impression of allowing communication of information faster than light. According to the no-communication theorem, these phenomena do not allow true communication; they only let two observers in different locations see the same system simultaneously, without any way of controlling what either sees.
The entangled particles do not convey energy or information faster than light, so they do not violate special relativity.
.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Life on earth is a mathematical impossibility.

---
That's like saying you have experienced mathematical infinity.
.

Well actually, if one considers a Big Bang happening, the odds that this earth just happened to become placed in a position whereby it could support life as we know it and also have all the right condition to support this life as we know it is in itself a stretch. If one further does the math, the odds of a single cell lifeform springing forth from some slime pool is practically an impossibility. The mathematical probability of a single cell mutating into a two or more celled lifeform is beyond the pale of any expectation.

And yet, it was destined to happen at the very moment of the big bang.

 

[EverCurious]

Snip:

I picked these two snippets to quote because I think it represents a lot of modern thinking on the subject. There are several major points you guys are failing to consider here. The most fundamental point is, we do not know how life originates. For over 300 years we have tried to make life spontaneously generate and it simply refuses to do so. Until you have an explanation for the origin of biogenesis you cannot assume that it just randomly happens. Inorganic matter does not become organic and then spontaneously generate living organisms. You may theorize that it could do that but you've not shown evidence for it.

Yes, life CAN survive in volcanic vents but did all living things evolve from volcanic vents? Or did the life in volcanic vents originate elsewhere and adapt to the environment? Again, until you come up with the process by which life originated in volcanic vents, you don't have anything.

Yes, amino acids and H2O are present in the universe, were you thinking that these things only exist on Earth and nowhere else? I would postulate that everything in the form of elements and compounds on Earth are also elsewhere in the universe. Why would they NOT be? It's not surprising that we find amino acids and water elsewhere, these are natural elements in our universe and not exclusive to this planet.

Again, until you come up with a process by which inorganic material becomes organic and then spawns living organisms, you have nothing. That's the key to the whole thing. You can speculate and assume, but speculation and assumption is not valid science.

Life’s First Spark Re-Created in the Laboratory

"Intriguingly, the precursor molecules used by Sutherland’s team have been identified in interstellar dust clouds and on meteorites.

“Ribonucleotides are simply an expression of the fundamental principles of organic chemistry,” said Sutherland. “They’re doing it unwittingly. The instructions for them to do it are inherent in the structure of the precursor materials. And if they can self-assemble so easily, perhaps they shouldn’t be viewed as complicated.”

See also: Life As We Know It Nearly Created in Lab
And next step: Multicellular Life Evolves in Laboratory

 

[Boss]

Snip:

I picked these two snippets to quote because I think it represents a lot of modern thinking on the subject. There are several major points you guys are failing to consider here. The most fundamental point is, we do not know how life originates. For over 300 years we have tried to make life spontaneously generate and it simply refuses to do so. Until you have an explanation for the origin of biogenesis you cannot assume that it just randomly happens. Inorganic matter does not become organic and then spontaneously generate living organisms. You may theorize that it could do that but you've not shown evidence for it.

Yes, life CAN survive in volcanic vents but did all living things evolve from volcanic vents? Or did the life in volcanic vents originate elsewhere and adapt to the environment? Again, until you come up with the process by which life originated in volcanic vents, you don't have anything.

Yes, amino acids and H2O are present in the universe, were you thinking that these things only exist on Earth and nowhere else? I would postulate that everything in the form of elements and compounds on Earth are also elsewhere in the universe. Why would they NOT be? It's not surprising that we find amino acids and water elsewhere, these are natural elements in our universe and not exclusive to this planet.

Again, until you come up with a process by which inorganic material becomes organic and then spawns living organisms, you have nothing. That's the key to the whole thing. You can speculate and assume, but speculation and assumption is not valid science.

Life’s First Spark Re-Created in the Laboratory

"Intriguingly, the precursor molecules used by Sutherland’s team have been identified in interstellar dust clouds and on meteorites.

“Ribonucleotides are simply an expression of the fundamental principles of organic chemistry,” said Sutherland. “They’re doing it unwittingly. The instructions for them to do it are inherent in the structure of the precursor materials. And if they can self-assemble so easily, perhaps they shouldn’t be viewed as complicated.”

See also: Life As We Know It Nearly Created in Lab
And next step: Multicellular Life Evolves in Laboratory

Sorry... no prize! NEARLY creating life is not creating life. Nearly only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades. Also, there is no experiment that shows single-to-multi-cellular evolution. The experiment you cited is not evolution of anything. The grouping of single cell organisms together doesn't constitute a multi-cellular organism.

You can have your theories, I don't dispute there are theories. Evidence is not a theory.

 

[Two Thumbs]

We are alone
We are the peak of civilization
No alien race is coming to save us
we aren't going to other planets
this is it

 

[DigitalDrifter]

We are alone
We are the peak of civilization
No alien race is coming to save us
we aren't going to other planets
this is it

Maybe. Maybe not.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence by the way...in any case the aliens being more intelligent and advanced may simply be saying "lets just stay well the hell away from these here Earth critters" know what I mean Vern...I mean if you saw some Mad Max style marauders with crazy weird Mohawk haircuts wielding weapons would you approach.........and so with camouflage being the first rule of survival they may very well be among us like some fungus and we don't even know it....In any case aliens "will not let me down because I am already standing on the ground"....10-4

 

[charwin95]

Life on earth is a mathematical impossibility.

---
That's like saying you have experienced mathematical infinity.
.

Well actually, if one considers a Big Bang happening, the odds that this earth just happened to become placed in a position whereby it could support life as we know it and also have all the right condition to support this life as we know it is in itself a stretch. If one further does the math, the odds of a single cell lifeform springing forth from some slime pool is practically an impossibility. The mathematical probability of a single cell mutating into a two or more celled lifeform is beyond the pale of any expectation.

And yet, it was destined to happen at the very moment of the big bang.

BIG BANG...... Hope you are not talking about your big guns. We are talking about life forms from outer space.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Life on earth is a mathematical impossibility.

---
That's like saying you have experienced mathematical infinity.
.

Well actually, if one considers a Big Bang happening, the odds that this earth just happened to become placed in a position whereby it could support life as we know it and also have all the right condition to support this life as we know it is in itself a stretch. If one further does the math, the odds of a single cell lifeform springing forth from some slime pool is practically an impossibility. The mathematical probability of a single cell mutating into a two or more celled lifeform is beyond the pale of any expectation.

And yet, it was destined to happen at the very moment of the big bang.

BIG BANG...... Hope you are not talking about your big guns. We are talking about life forms from outer space.

Yes....and?

 

[the_human_being]

All this talk about man traveling at the speed of light etc,. one might suppose somehow we could work on our airline scheduling a bit so it wouldn't take all day long to fly from Los Angeles to Pensacola. We might even visit our traffic control system so it wouldn't take thirty minutes to go five miles in Pensacola.

 

[EverCurious]

Sorry... no prize! NEARLY creating life is not creating life. Nearly only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades. Also, there is no experiment that shows single-to-multi-cellular evolution. The experiment you cited is not evolution of anything. The grouping of single cell organisms together doesn't constitute a multi-cellular organism.

You can have your theories, I don't dispute there are theories. Evidence is not a theory.

Can't think beyond what is written in the title? To highlight and put together the findings from the articles I linked:

"More accurately, RNA is thought to be a primitive ancestor of DNA. RNA can't run a life form on its own, but 4 billion years ago it might have been on the verge of creating life, just needing some chemical fix to make the leap."

"They mixed the molecules in water, heated the solution, then allowed it to evaporate, leaving behind a residue of hybrid, half-sugar, half-nucleobase molecules. To this residue they again added water, heated it, allowed it evaporate, and then irradiated it.

At each stage of the cycle, the resulting molecules were more complex. At the final stage, Sutherland’s team added phosphate. “Remarkably, it transformed into the ribonucleotide!” said Sutherland.

According to Sutherland, these laboratory conditions resembled those of the life-originating “warm little pond” hypothesized by Charles Darwin if the pond “evaporated, got heated, and then it rained and the sun shone.”

"Specifically, the researchers synthesized RNA enzymes that can replicate themselves without the help of any proteins or other cellular components, and the process proceeds indefinitely. "Immortalized" RNA, they call it, at least within the limited conditions of a laboratory."

"Remarkably, they bred.

And now and then, one of these survivors would screw up, binding with some other bit of raw material it hadn't been using. Hmm. That's exactly what life forms do ...

When these mutations occurred, "the resulting recombinant enzymes also were capable of sustained replication, with the most fit replicators growing in number to dominate the mixture," the scientists report."

-----

"Within just a few weeks, individual yeast cells still retained their singular identities, but clumped together easily. At the end of two months, the clumps were a permanent arrangement. Each strain had evolved to be truly multicellular, displaying all the tendencies associated with “higher” forms of life: a division of labor between specialized cells, juvenile and adult life stages, and multicellular offspring."


You may continue with the presumption that the scientists don't know what they are talking about as you wish, but personally I have little doubt that they have recreated not only the processes on early earth that started life, but also the process by which cells evolve to multicellular. -- The only reason the RNA experiment /isn't/ considered life as we know it (or a definitive precursor to life as we know it) is because these RNA enzymes didn't spontaneously invent their own survival tricks - which I personally believe is a product of environment adaptation, something they haven't tested yet.

And of course the tie into this particular conversation regarding life outside of Earth, is that such "building block ingredients" exist in interstellar clouds, meaning that it is pretty much everywhere, it simply needs the right environment to start the process, which the other experiments have shown to be not only be remarkably simple, but a spontaneously natural chemical process - not only the beginning, but multicellular evolution.

 

[Boss]

Sorry... no prize! NEARLY creating life is not creating life. Nearly only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades. Also, there is no experiment that shows single-to-multi-cellular evolution. The experiment you cited is not evolution of anything. The grouping of single cell organisms together doesn't constitute a multi-cellular organism.

You can have your theories, I don't dispute there are theories. Evidence is not a theory.

Can't think beyond what is written in the title? To highlight and put together the findings from the articles I linked:

"More accurately, RNA is thought to be a primitive ancestor of DNA. RNA can't run a life form on its own, but 4 billion years ago it might have been on the verge of creating life, just needing some chemical fix to make the leap."

"They mixed the molecules in water, heated the solution, then allowed it to evaporate, leaving behind a residue of hybrid, half-sugar, half-nucleobase molecules. To this residue they again added water, heated it, allowed it evaporate, and then irradiated it.

At each stage of the cycle, the resulting molecules were more complex. At the final stage, Sutherland’s team added phosphate. “Remarkably, it transformed into the ribonucleotide!” said Sutherland.

According to Sutherland, these laboratory conditions resembled those of the life-originating “warm little pond” hypothesized by Charles Darwin if the pond “evaporated, got heated, and then it rained and the sun shone.”

"Specifically, the researchers synthesized RNA enzymes that can replicate themselves without the help of any proteins or other cellular components, and the process proceeds indefinitely. "Immortalized" RNA, they call it, at least within the limited conditions of a laboratory."

"Remarkably, they bred.

And now and then, one of these survivors would screw up, binding with some other bit of raw material it hadn't been using. Hmm. That's exactly what life forms do ...

When these mutations occurred, "the resulting recombinant enzymes also were capable of sustained replication, with the most fit replicators growing in number to dominate the mixture," the scientists report."

-----

"Within just a few weeks, individual yeast cells still retained their singular identities, but clumped together easily. At the end of two months, the clumps were a permanent arrangement. Each strain had evolved to be truly multicellular, displaying all the tendencies associated with “higher” forms of life: a division of labor between specialized cells, juvenile and adult life stages, and multicellular offspring."


You may continue with the presumption that the scientists don't know what they are talking about as you wish, but personally I have little doubt that they have recreated not only the processes on early earth that started life, but also the process by which cells evolve to multicellular. -- The only reason the RNA experiment /isn't/ considered life as we know it (or a definitive precursor to life as we know it) is because these RNA enzymes didn't spontaneously invent their own survival tricks - which I personally believe is a product of environment adaptation, something they haven't tested yet.

And of course the tie into this particular conversation regarding life outside of Earth, is that such "building block ingredients" exist in interstellar clouds, meaning that it is pretty much everywhere, it simply needs the right environment to start the process, which the other experiments have shown to be not only be remarkably simple, but a spontaneously natural chemical process - not only the beginning, but multicellular evolution.

Let's begin with the very first sentence of your argument here...

"More accurately, RNA is thought to be a primitive ancestor of DNA."

You see, I have highlighted in red a very important aspect and detail. This is not proven. But you seem to read it as if it's proven. The rest of the conjecture is based on the assumption this is proven. Until someone can show how the process started and reproduce this process in an experiment, we cannot call it science. It's really no different than me stating: Life is thought to be created by God.

You go on to explain about the interstellar clouds containing "the ingredients" but again... duh! Why wouldn't the ingredients for life be found in the rest of the universe? It would be pretty fucking remarkable if we only found these ingredients here and nowhere else. But there is no "simple spontaneous chemical process" that we have discovered. That is a theory, a speculation, a conjecture... NOT a fact.

 

[EverCurious]

You're completely ignoring the experiments because it's not what /you/ are looking for aka right now proof.

As I said, personally I have little doubt that they have recreated not only the processes on early earth that started life, but also the process by which cells evolve to multicellular.

 

[Boss]

You're completely ignoring the experiments because it's not what /you/ are looking for aka right now proof.

As I said, personally I have little doubt that they have recreated not only the processes on early earth that started life, but also the process by which cells evolve to multicellular.

But they haven't and the previous post you made tells you they haven't. This is the problem with many people who wish to believe this... you get the cart ahead of your horse. When you start with a conclusion then construct a hypothesis around it to support the conclusion, that is not science and not how science works. It's simply a hypothesis based on speculation.

 

[TNHarley]

What if, in 2K years, WE are the aliens looking at immature civilizations and laughing?
It could be true that we are the first. Im not saying I believe it but it is a possibility..
We are also only looking for carbon-based life. Life could go beyond carbon.. We don't know shit..

 

[EverCurious]

You're completely ignoring the experiments because it's not what /you/ are looking for aka right now proof.

As I said, personally I have little doubt that they have recreated not only the processes on early earth that started life, but also the process by which cells evolve to multicellular.

But they haven't and the previous post you made tells you they haven't. This is the problem with many people who wish to believe this... you get the cart ahead of your horse. When you start with a conclusion then construct a hypothesis around it to support the conclusion, that is not science and not how science works. It's simply a hypothesis based on speculation.

By your ideology then, technically nothing is proven. I personally prefer to believe that the scientists aren't just "making shit up," if you wish to believe otherwise, that is your choice, as I said.