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

[karpenter]

We can follow the evolution of all apes, including humans, on a smooth continuum back through the fossil record.

All Apes Are Primates
But Not All Primates Are Apes

Humans Aren't Apes
Never Were

 

[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.

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.

Excuse you, crybaby. I did not insist that abiogenesis occured here, or that the planet was not seeded with life. What I did was propose simple explanations for life as we see it that don't involve seeding, along with circumstantial evidence that points to abiogenesis here. I quite well made the point that, when something can be more simply and easily explained by a set of ideas 'A', then it becomes NOT EVIDENCE for set of ideas 'B'. I undermined your claims of evidence by explaining them in other ways, in a more simple manner, using facts we know.

But when you are done complaining, maybe you can show us something that could not possibly be explained by abiogenesis or is much more likely explained by "seeding"...you know, since you have at hand such awesome arguments, as you made sure to point out earlier.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

We can follow the evolution of all apes, including humans, on a smooth continuum back through the fossil record.

All Apes Are Primates
But Not All Primates Are Apes

Humans Aren't Apes
Never Were

Humans, of course, are apes. And birds are dinosaurs. There, now you can pass a 7th grade science test.

 

[karpenter]

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

Predators Are Wired To
Eliminate Mutations

 

[karpenter]

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

Do It
And Collect Your Nobel Prize

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

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

Do It
And Collect Your Nobel Prize

Do what?

 

[karpenter]

Humans, of course, are apes.

Present Anthropologists That Agree With You

And birds are dinosaurs.

That's A Theory
But Just A Theory

Now Tell Me How The Yucatan Asteroid
Wiped Dinosaurs Out Is Science

 

[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.

Excuse you, crybaby. I did not insist that abiogenesis occured here, or that the planet was not seeded with life. What I did was propose simple explanations for life as we see it that don't involve seeding, along with circumstantial evidence that points to abiogenesis here. I quite well made the point that, when something can be more simply and easily explained by a set of ideas 'A', then it becomes NOT EVIDENCE for set of ideas 'B'. I undermined your claims of evidence by explaining them in other ways, in a more simple manner, using facts we know.

But when you are done complaining, maybe you can show us something that could not possibly be explained by abiogenesis or is much more likely explained by "seeding"...you know, since you have at hand such awesome arguments, as you made sure to point out earlier.

Sure; here's one possibility... Rather than your supposed multiple genesis's, and the subsequent battles for singular supremacy; for which no evidence exists... It is plausible that a singular strand was at some point introduced into a competition free evironment, allowing its rapid growth, expansion, and evolution. Completely unopposed. There's more fossil evidence to support that theory; than one of countless independently coalesced life forms duking it out. Leaving only one strand to rule the world. It is a rather large world after all if you are a micro organism. The odds of all of them meeting in a battle royale to the death, prior to any of them branching out is quite fantastical a notion. The idea that only the kind that exists today having been the only to leave evidence of its existence is even more far fetched...

 

[karpenter]

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

Do It
And Collect Your Nobel Prize

Do what?

What You Said
DNA Can Be Spontaneously Created

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

That's A Theory
But Just A Theory

See, you immediately reveal to everyone that you know less than nothing about science,vwhen you say something so stupid.


Gravity is alao "just a theory". Go test it.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

DNA Can Be Spontaneously Created

Right...of course DNA could be created in nature, with enough time and the right conditions. So can anything we observe, obviously. But you have reserved a special, absurd standard for this one chemical, probably because of some sort of supertsition to which you cling.

 

[karpenter]

That's A Theory
But Just A Theory

See, you immediately reveal to everyone that you know less than nothing about science,vwhen you say something so stupid.


Gravity is alao "just a theory". Go test it.

Dinosaurs Evolving Into Birds Is A Theory
Based On One Specie, That Is Not A Dinosaur
Found In Only One Place
And Humans Were Never Apes

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

It is plausible that a singular strand was at some point introduced into a competition free evironment, allowing its rapid growth, expansion, and evolution.

I agree fully, it is plausible. But it is also just as plausible that DNA did that while originating here, and was simply the most persistent model in an environment with few or no truly competing models.

The odds of all of them meeting in a battle royale to the death,

You're being too simple. There is no need to propose that they all formed and then fought it out at the same time. Rather, the most persistent form at the time it formed became dominant at the expense of other, less persistent forms, regardless of when these forms existed or appeared, be it before or after DNA appeared. In fact, it could be true that, had DNA not formed first, a later model that was, pound for pound, more fit and persistent would have ended up dominating the planet. But it formed in an environment that was already dominated by a sufficiently persistent model.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Dinosaurs Evolving Into Birds Is A Theory
Based On One Specie Found In Only One Place

100% false. There is a mountain of mutually supportive evidence that shows birds are the extant dinosaurs. You should just stop posting now and read a while.

 

[karpenter]

Right...of course DNA could be created in nature, with enough time and the right conditions.

No, It Can't
It's Beyond The Probability Of Chance
DNA Has To Exist In It's Entirety
For It To Work At All

Go Back To Eighth-Grade

What You Have Is Beyond Wishful Thinking
What You Just Presented Is Called "Faith"

 

[Vastator]

It is plausible that a singular strand was at some point introduced into a competition free evironment, allowing its rapid growth, expansion, and evolution.

I agree fully, it is plausible.

The odds of all of them meeting in a battle royale to the death,

You're being too simple. There is no need to propose that they all formed and then fought it out at the same time. Rather, the most persistent form at the time it formed became dominant at the expense of other, less persistent forms, regardless of when these forms existed. In fact, it could be true that, had DNA not formed first, a later model that was, pound for pound, more fit and persistent would have ended up dominating the planet. But it formed in an environment that was already dominated by a sufficiently persistent model.

But there is no evidence of any other strand, or example. We do however have evidence of only one. Going on that evidence... Are we to believe that this fertile Eden was a one trick pony, only capable of producing a single strand; and lucky enough to survive long enough, to evolve into what we see today? Or that this singular strand was but one, of many, like itself; which happened to end up on a fertile bit of planetary real estate..?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

DNA Has To Exist In It's Entirety
For It To Work At All

So what? That's the result of countless tiny steps and changes, not a single, spontaneous event.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

But there is no evidence of any other strand, or example.

So what? It's just as plausible that dna was persistent and had little no no real competition. There doesn't need to be evidence of another model (even thougheven though one may exist and we wouldn't know it if we saw it). Especially if this poor model was all but eradicated.

Are we to believe that this fertile Eden was a one trick pony,

No, and we have covered that many times already. You simply do not have good reason to insist that to be true, if one says abiogenesis occured here. The only argument for this you have proposed is that other models don't exist here, as far as we know. However, that is easily explained away by selection, and just the type of selection that would cause a dominant, most-persistent model to form in the first place. Therefore, this is just not good evidence or argument for what you are proposing, as it is just as simply, in fact more so, explained another way.

 

[karpenter]

DNA Has To Exist In It's Entirety
For It To Work At All

So what?

DNA Can't Evolve Itself Into Existence
It Has To Be There All At Once In Working Order

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

DNA Has To Exist In It's Entirety
For It To Work At All

So what?

DNA Can't Evolve Itself Into Existence
It Has To Be There All At Once In Working Order

I heard you the first 10,000 times.

That little round thing you are reading my post with? That eyeball also does not function properly, if not all there at once. Now, i want you to watch this great video, originally meant for children, about the evolution of the eye: