Is Life Inevitable?

[Cassandro]

I'm an astronomer, I've studied astronomy, cosmology and astrophysics for about 50 years.

1. Having to claim credentials to bolster your argument is pathetic.

2. Where is the "proof" you claim, and how can you prove a "likelihood" (probability) without at least two occurrences? Otherwise, one divided by infinity is zero.

3. Referring to those who disagree with you as "Bible- thumping Earth-centric thinkers" is a classic ad hominem invalid argument.

4. There is no evidence of proteins or amino acids existing outside of Earth.

So much for you "proof."

 

[ReinyDays]

I'm an astronomer, I've studied astronomy, cosmology and astrophysics for about 50 years.

1. Having to claim credentials to bolster your argument is pathetic.

2. Where is the "proof" you claim, and how can you prove a "likelihood" (probability) without at least two occurrences? Otherwise, one divided by infinity is zero.

3. Referring to those who disagree with you as "Bible- thumping Earth-centric thinkers" is a classic ad hominem invalid argument.

4. There is no evidence of proteins or amino acids existing outside of Earth.

So much for you "proof."

1] Toobfreak's physics is spot on correct ... who cares how he learned it ...
2] The claim is that we are approaching certainty, not that it is certain ... that has special meaning in this context ...
3] I'm a Christian ... I laughed when I read that comment ...
4] Emission spectra ... like how neon signs work ...

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

2. Where is the "proof" you claim, and how can you prove a "likelihood" (probability) without at least two occurrences?

Simple: via theory, using evidence and reasoning. Just as we deemed it likely we would find exoplanets, before we ever found an exoplanet.

Just as we deemed it likely that all galaxies have black holes at their centers, before the first confirmation of a black hole at the center of a galaxy.

I'm sure you can think of other examples yourself.

 

[Carl in Michigan]

Isn't it possible that we might be alone?

Yes, other than our Creator

 

[Flash]

We only have one data point and that is earth. Until be get another data point then we have nothing but conjecture.

We know a lot about chemistry and a lot about biology but we do not know how to turn chemistry into biology.

If all we need are water, the right temperature and some organic chemicals then making life would be a Jr High School science class lab.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

We only have one data point and that is earth. Until be get another data point then we have nothing but conjecture.

No, we also have strong theory supported by evidence.

We know a lot about chemistry and a lot about biology but we do not know how to turn chemistry into biology.

Sure we do. We just can't do it, because we don't have the control over chemistry. If we could manipulate individual molecules as we pleased, we most definitely could construct an artificial cell .

If all we need are water, the right temperature and some organic chemicals then making life would be a Jr High School science class lab.

Okay, but nobody implied that is all that is required. In the case of abiogenesis, we also need trillion and of trillions of chemical reactions and a lot of time.

 

[toobfreak]

I'm an astronomer, I've studied astronomy, cosmology and astrophysics for about 50 years.

Having to claim credentials to bolster your argument is pathetic.

Right, right, right. So someone actually having some background to justify a position able to intelligently discuss a topic they are well-versed in rather than being like you with about 15 minutes worth of reading "Science Today" digest on the web makes someone pathetic in your mind?

Where is the "proof", There is no evidence of proteins or amino acids existing outside of Earth. So much for you "proof."

You're right. When someone is as totally ignorant of science as you obviously are, there isn't a thing on this planet that can change their mind about a thing.

NASA - NASA Researchers Make First Discovery of Life's Building Block in Comet

Took me all of 7 seconds to prove your ass wrong.

 

[toobfreak]

jwoodie, typical clueless, brainless, uneducated **** who ASKs the question of whether life is inevitable when he's really saying he doesn't want to believe so and isn't prepared to hear any evidence to the contrary because it upsets his delicate world view, and is going to run and hide his head like a little girl and say to anything that disputes his frigid, narrow opinion.

 

[toobfreak]

4] Emission spectra ... like how neon signs work ...

Right, just as we know the chemical make-up of the Sun and other stars by looking at their emission and absorption lines in their light, what they call Fraunhofer lines.

Fraunhofer lines - Wikipedia

Even ancient man observed that burning various metals and mineral each gave off their own characteristic colors of light. This chemistry is even exhibited in the making of stained glass.

NASA 'tasted' complex organic compounds in a blast of water from one of Saturn's moons — and can't yet rule out the possibility that they're from alien life

The question is how can a person like jwoodie raise a question and why he would start a discussion he is totally ignorant of and completely unable and unprepared to even discuss much less able to look at the facts on, without cowering like a frightened Neanderthal in his mental cave?http://www.usmessageboard.com/members/jwoodie.39025/

 

[Cassandro]

Try rereading my OP, morons:

As we discuss the probability of life on other planets, there seems to be a presupposition that life will automatically appear under the right environmental conditions. While scientists have created certain chemical compositions which are considered "building blocks" to life, the actual creation of life in a test tube seems as wistful an enterprise as alchemy.

Not to replace scientific theory with religious dogma, but I wonder if this presupposition is well founded. Is it possible that life on Earth is an anomaly that has not been repeated in the universe? Is it really true that (cellular) life will automatically appear wherever liquid water and carbon-based molecules are present?

Isn't it possible that we might be alone?

(underlines added)

Why don't you address these questions instead of hysterically pledging your allegiance to some unproven theory about the certainty of (cellular) life outside of Earth?

 

[toobfreak]

Try rereading my OP, morons:

As we discuss the probability of life on other planets, there seems to be a presupposition that life will automatically appear under the right environmental conditions. While scientists have created certain chemical compositions which are considered "building blocks" to life, the actual creation of life in a test tube seems as wistful an enterprise as alchemy.

Not to replace scientific theory with religious dogma, but I wonder if this presupposition is well founded. Is it possible that life on Earth is an anomaly that has not been repeated in the universe? Is it really true that (cellular) life will automatically appear wherever liquid water and carbon-based molecules are present?

Isn't it possible that we might be alone?

(underlines added)

Why don't you address these questions instead of hysterically pledging your allegiance to some unproven theory about the certainty of (cellular) life outside of Earth?

^^^^^^ IDIOT. If it were PROVEN, Moron, it wouldn't be a THEORY.

By your standards, no one can state the near certainty of life beyond Earth until we have a UFO land and aliens sitting at the dinner table eating with us.

 

[Cassandro]

If it were PROVEN, Moron, it wouldn't be a THEORY.

By your standards, no one can state the near certainty of life beyond Earth until we have a UFO land and aliens sitting at the dinner table eating with us.

OK, now we're getting somewhere: Life beyond Earth is an UNPROVEN THEORY.

Now, let's discuss your "near" certainty. That mean that you are not 100% certain.

Neither am I.

 

[Likkmee]

Just because life developed on Earth is no justification for believing it also happened elsewhere

there is no proof those building blocks exist anywhere but here,,,

I'll try to say this just one more time for you guys. I'm an astronomer, I've studied astronomy, cosmology and astrophysics for about 50 years. I was going to go into it professionally but in high school, realized that the field would require me to relocate to another city far away, work in a university, endlessly applying for research grants to finance work writing papers and I didn't want to do that, so I got practical and went into electrical engineering instead.

But I still do astronomy, study it seriously, even teach it elsewhere, so let me say this as kindly as I can:

1. The justification for believing life MUST exist elsewhere and be rather common (even if intelligent, advanced civilizations aren't) is based on both physical and mathematical models and proof, some of it based on study of life here, that the odds of it not occurring elsewhere are so fantastically ridiculous as to be beyond laughable. It is extremely likely, we'll find traces of it under the sands of dead Mars, and active, primitive life living in the ocean of Europa and probably one or two other places ---- just within our own solar system and possibly discovered in the next 20 years or so. So to any Bible-Thumping Earth-centric thinkers out there who are offended by the idea that man is not unique in all creation, sorry, but that is a bet you are going to lose. In fact, I think the odds very good we have been visited by intelligent aliens.
2. There IS proof of those building blocks being rather common and we have found them all over. You don't need to go there and pick them up and hold them in your hand, they have been detected spectroscopically, and by robotic probes we have sent out which take samples and analyze. The proteins and amino acids needed for life as we know it are a common thing.

Lemme know when you assholes cure athletes foot or psoriasis

 

[ReinyDays]

there seems to be a presupposition that life will automatically appear under the right environmental conditions.

Again, we only say we're approaching certainty ... and we only say it appears that the only condition is liquid water on the planet surface ... scientific theory is written in pencil, so we can erase and change the parts that don't work ... this is a fundamental aspect of scientific method ... however, the Bible is different; we know pork is safe to eat, but we're not allowed to erase the prohibition against eating pork ... now can we? ...

I wonder if this presupposition is well founded

Yes ... as explained above ... it's not about the odds of this occurring in any given year, but the odds of it occurring at least once over many years ... one thing we have in huge abundance in this matter is years ... c.f. Wald, George; "The Origin of Life"; Scientific American; August 1954 ...

Is it really true that (cellular) life will automatically appear

Again, you seem to be using the word "automatic" as a talisman or crucifix to ward off evil or something ... the correct term is "approaching automatic" ... we do have one certainty, that cellular life does exist on Earth ... so there's proof positive that it can happen, and has happened ...

Creationism cannot be proved ... we can take all the ribs out of all the men and not a single rib will grow into a woman ... that was a unique event so it cannot be repeated in the lab ... that seems your only complaint about evolution ... "Judge not lest ye be judged, for that which you mete out will be measured unto you again" ... I'm sorry, you fail every test you set for evolution ... and that is how you are judged ...

 

[ReinyDays]

OK, now we're getting somewhere: Life beyond Earth is an UNPROVEN THEORY.
Now, let's discuss your "near" certainty. That mean that you are not 100% certain.
Neither am I.

We don't even have Universal Field Theory in hand yet ... nothing about the universe is certain by your standards ... the existence of electricity is unproven, yet that doesn't stop us from posting to the internet ...

 

[progressive hunter]

there seems to be a presupposition that life will automatically appear under the right environmental conditions.

Again, we only say we're approaching certainty ... and we only say it appears that the only condition is liquid water on the planet surface ... scientific theory is written in pencil, so we can erase and change the parts that don't work ... this is a fundamental aspect of scientific method ... however, the Bible is different; we know pork is safe to eat, but we're not allowed to erase the prohibition against eating pork ... now can we? ...

I wonder if this presupposition is well founded

Yes ... as explained above ... it's not about the odds of this occurring in any given year, but the odds of it occurring at least once over many years ... one thing we have in huge abundance in this matter is years ... c.f. Wald, George; "The Origin of Life"; Scientific American; August 1954 ...

Is it really true that (cellular) life will automatically appear

Again, you seem to be using the word "automatic" as a talisman or crucifix to ward off evil or something ... the correct term is "approaching automatic" ... we do have one certainty, that cellular life does exist on Earth ... so there's proof positive that it can happen, and has happened ...

Creationism cannot be proved ... we can take all the ribs out of all the men and not a single rib will grow into a woman ... that was a unique event so it cannot be repeated in the lab ... that seems your only complaint about evolution ... "Judge not lest ye be judged, for that which you mete out will be measured unto you again" ... I'm sorry, you fail every test you set for evolution ... and that is how you are judged ...

using religion/creation as a defense for evolution further proves that evolution is a religion,,,

if it wasnt the science could stand on its own,,,

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Try rereading my OP, morons:

As we discuss the probability of life on other planets, there seems to be a presupposition that life will automatically appear under the right environmental conditions. While scientists have created certain chemical compositions which are considered "building blocks" to life, the actual creation of life in a test tube seems as wistful an enterprise as alchemy.

Not to replace scientific theory with religious dogma, but I wonder if this presupposition is well founded. Is it possible that life on Earth is an anomaly that has not been repeated in the universe? Is it really true that (cellular) life will automatically appear wherever liquid water and carbon-based molecules are present?

Isn't it possible that we might be alone?

(underlines added)

Why don't you address these questions instead of hysterically pledging your allegiance to some unproven theory about the certainty of (cellular) life outside of Earth?

there seems to be a presupposition that life will automatically appear under the right environmental conditions

No, the presupposition is that it CAN form under the right environmental conditions, which is a known fact. And when something is known to be possible, and there have been trillions upon trillions of opportunities for it to occur over 13 billion years, the likelihood that it happened only and exactly once, and not at least twice, begins to vanish.

Is it really true that (cellular) life will automatically appear

It is only "true" that the process of selection will always operate on physical systems. Persistent and self replicating models will, of course, always be selected "for" in terms of persistence and replication. While various environmental conditions may halt or slow this process by which selection produces life, the natural processes selecting for these properties will always be present.

Just as the processes selecting "for" the spheroid shape of stars will always be present. Just as the processes selecting "for" the tetrahedral shape of the methane molecule will always be present.

So, when stable, self replicating molecules form, there will always be factors selecting "for" the persistence and replication of these molecules. Unless another set of local factors selects against these molecules forming and replicating, yes, life will arise in this system, given time. In this sense, abiogenesis is an inherent property of our universe, just as star formation is an inherent property of our universe.

 

[ReinyDays]

using religion/creation as a defense for evolution further proves that evolution is a religion

Oh good ... then you agree that creationism is religion? ... that's very helpful ... you'd be surprised how many people compare the two ...

As a Christian, I'm fine with our Spiritual God taking the Spiritual Mud and fashioning the Spiritual Man ... all Evolution gives us is a particularly rancid tasting flesh and horrific smell, something best left dead for a few weeks before presented to the table ... human's fragile and tender ego can't handle that fact ...

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

4. There is no evidence of proteins or amino acids existing outside of Earth

By the way, this is utterly false. If you are truly interested in having an honest discussion, you should immediately admit that you made an error in stating this.

Building Blocks of Life Found in Comet's Atmosphere | Space

NASA - Partial Ingredients for DNA and Protein Found Around Star

 

[progressive hunter]

4. There is no evidence of proteins or amino acids existing outside of Earth

By the way, this is utterly false. If you are truly interested in having an honest discussion, you should immediately admit that you made an error in stating this.

Building Blocks of Life Found in Comet's Atmosphere | Space

NASA - Partial Ingredients for DNA and Protein Found Around Star

when did they bring back samples for testing???

yeah I thought so,,,