NASA: ‘There’s a Chance’ of Alien Life Out There, But it Hasn’t Visited Earth

[Fort Fun Indiana]

...anymore than the need for native genesis...

It's not that anyone needs for "native genesis" to be true, it's just that there is zero reason to believe otherwise, at this point. It wouldn't undermine any of our fundamental theories or laws if abiogenis occured elsewhere, and earth was somehow "seeded" with life.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Yet they cannot even prove that life on earth, originated on earth.

So what? Such a thing would not have to be proven for abiogenis to be a foregone conclusion, or for one to determine that life has likely formed more than once in the universe.

"Oldest native ancestors"

Why would there be any need of aliens to exain such a thing? We can follow the evolution of all apes, including humans, on a smooth continuum back through the fossil record.

Massive Genetic Study Reveals 90 Percent Of Earth’s Animals Appeared At The Same Time.

Haha, yeah, that was hilarious when you embarrassed yourself in your own thread about that topic. You never did manage to understand what the study was saying. Good times.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Yet they cannot even prove that life on earth, originated on earth.

So what? Such a thing would not have to be proven for abiogenis to be a foregone conclusion, or for one to determine that life has likely formed more than once in the universe.

"Oldest native ancestors"

Why would there be any need of aliens to exain such a thing? We can follow the evolution of all apes, including humans, on a smooth continuum back through the fossil record.

Massive Genetic Study Reveals 90 Percent Of Earth’s Animals Appeared At The Same Time.

Haha, yeah, that was hilarious when you embarrassed yourself in your own thread about that topic. You never did manage to understand what the study was saying. Good times.

Uh.

 

[Vastator]

...anymore than the need for native genesis...

It's not that anyone needs for "native geneis" to be true, it's just that there is zero reason to believe otherwise, at this point.

There is just as much evidence to the contrary. None...

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

There is just as much evidence to the contrary. None..

False. We can trace the origins of life on this planet back to when the planet became somewhat habitable. This would seem to indicate that life formed here as soon as it got the chance.

Furthermore, we have found evidence of life that is just about as simple as life gets without becoming merely constituent chemicals/membranes, which would make sense, as those would not leave evidence for us to find. This also would seem to indicate that abiogenesis occured here on Earth.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Nobody in NASA has a clue if there is life outside Earth.

None of the scientists have any more valid information on that than any other human because right now we only have one data point and that is earth.

Until we get another data point from some place else all we have are jackshit guesses.

NASA deals in probabilities

They look at the vastness of the universe and calculate the probability of the existence of life.

Then they look at the vastness of the universe and calculate the improbability of ever getting there

What’s the probability of atoms writing Beethoven’s 5th? Because that’s what we’re talking about here.

Pretty darn good; since a collection of atoms did just that...

Really!?

So all I need to do is put the equivalent amount of atoms in a Tupperware bowl and it writes music!

Given enough atoms, enough time, enough sex, and enough death... atoms can do a lot. They can even invent Tupperware (tm).

Why would an atom invent Tupperware?

 

[Weatherman2020]

There is just as much evidence to the contrary. None..

False. We can trace the origins of life on this planet back to when the planet became somewhat habitable. This would seem to indicate that life formed here as soon as it got the chance. So no, you're wrong about that.

Uh uh.

 

[Vastator]

There is just as much evidence to the contrary. None..

False. We can trace the origins of life on this planet back to when the planet became somewhat habitable. This would seem to indicate that life formed here as soon as it got the chance. So no, you're wrong about that.

Not really. We've never witnessed life form on earth. And what's more... If genetics are correct... It happened only once. One singular example... Not too convincing an argument to support that conditions on earth were right for the formation of life. If it were... Countless examples would have been created from this fertile Eden.
But no... One single genetic strand is all that has ever been witnessed, and it's subsequent mutations, and evolution...

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

 

[Weatherman2020]

There is just as much evidence to the contrary. None..

False. We can trace the origins of life on this planet back to when the planet became somewhat habitable. This would seem to indicate that life formed here as soon as it got the chance. So no, you're wrong about that.

Not really. We've never witnessed life form on earth. And what's more... If genetics are correct... It happened only once. One example... Not too convincing an argument to support that conditions on earth were right for the formation of life. If it were... Countless examples would have been created from this fertile Eden.
But no... One single gentetic strand is all that has ever been witnessed, and it's subsequent mutations, and evolution...

And mutations created perfection, because we all know mutations are good in our babies.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

We've never witnessed life form on earth.

So what? We have also never witnessed the ignition of fusion at the center of a star. We have also never seen an electron. That is an absurd standard you have dusted off for an overwrought, far fetched claim of yours.

And what's more... If genetics are correct... It happened only once.

No, it just happened that one type became dominant, as it was more fit for persistence. This is precisely what we would expect to happen, when selection operates on a system. That does not mean other types of life did not form. In fact, they almost certainly did, depending on the working definiton of "life". There is only so much material available for interaction and incorporation. Naturally, the more persistent forms would be the most persistent forms and fill the niches at the expense of other types of life.

Also, once a very persistent form is in place, it becomes less likely for new types of life to form and persist, and for precisely the same reasons.

 

[karpenter]

Yet they cannot even prove that life on earth, originated on earth.

Or Life Would Have To Spring
From A Formerly Molten Sterile Rock

Currently, A Protein Can't Be Spontaneously Created
And Neither Can DNA

Our oldest native ancestors might in fact be "extraterrestrials"...

Plausible....Entirely
The Hominids Digging Roots With Pointed Sticks
Flew Themselves In From Outta Space

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Or Life Would Have To Spring
From A Formerly Molten Sterile Rock

Yes, "spring", over 10s or 100s of millions of years and trillions upon trillions upon trillions of chemcial reactions....

 

[Vastator]

We've never witnessed life form on earth.

So what? We have also never witnessed the ignition of fusion at the center of a star. We have also never seen an electron. That is an absurd standard you have dusted off for an overwrought, far fetched claim of yours.

And what's more... If genetics are correct... It happened only once.

No, it just happened that one type became dominant, as it was more fit for persistence. This is precisely what we would expect to happen, when selection operates on a system. That does not mean other types of life did not form. In fact, they almost certainly did, depending on the working definiton of "life". There is only so much material available for interaction and incorporation. Naturally, the more persistent forms would be the most persistent forms and fill the niches at the expense of other types of life.

You made that up whole cloth, and can offer no evidence what so ever to support your belief. Unless of course you intend to offer up examples of independently formed gentic strands unrelated to the only one we know... And we all know you can't.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You made that up whole cloth, and can offer no evidence what so ever to support your belief.

I didn't make up a word of it, but rather gleaned it from reading about selection. It is foreign to you because you haven't lifted a finger to educate yourself on this topic. You should, it's fascinating...it unifies everything we observe, life or otherwise. The same basic principle (selection) that causes the shape of the water molecule forced life to form. Very elegant.

The fact that one type of life dominates is, in no way, evidence for seeding of life, as it can be simply explained by other methods we already know to be fact (no matter the source of these explanations). That's the point.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Unless of course you intend to offer up examples of independently formed gentic strands

That's a logical error on your part. At no time would I have to produce other types of life to posit a simple explanation for why only one type dominates the planet. Please slow down.

 

[karpenter]

Or Life Would Have To Spring
From A Formerly Molten Sterile Rock

Yes, "spring", over 10s or 100s of millions of years and trillions upon trillions upon trillions of chemcial reactions....

Chemical Reactions Can't Spontaneously "spring" Forth DNA Or Protein
No Matter How Hard You Wish Upon A Star

 

[Vastator]

You made that up whole cloth, and can offer no evidence what so ever to support your belief.

I didn't make up a word of it, but rather gleaned it from reading about selection. It is foreign to you because you haven't lifted a finger to educate yourself on this topic.

The fact that one type of life dominates is, in no way, evidence for seeding of life, as it can be simply explained by other methods we already know to be fact (no matter the source of these explanations). That's the point, and it clearly sailed far over your head.

Lol... That's the difference between you and I. I know what I don't know. You on the other hand do not; and throw in the proverbial "God of the gaps" to bring you comfort. I don't mind not knowing... That's what drives me to search. You on the other hand quit looking, because you've convinced yourself that you've "found it" so to speak. Pride.... Lol... Have at it.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Chemical Reactions Can't Spontaneously "spring" Forth DNA Or Protein

Of course they can, what a silly thing to say.

 

[Vastator]

Unless of course you intend to offer up examples of independently formed gentic strands

That's a logical error on your part. At no time would I have to produce other types of life to posit a simple explanation for why only one type dominates the planet. Please slow down.

Run faster. Your claim is still right behind you...