They found Arvin!

[YumYum]

Mathematical probabilities are meaningless when discussing whether there is life on other planets or mutations regarding evolution. It would be like asking: "What are the chances if we went back 2,000 years ago and started all over, and let history play out randomly anyway it chooses, that "I" would be here today?" The chances are zero, because the probability is zero. At best, it is so close to zero it is not worth measuring. For me to be here it would mean that all of the thousands of ancestors that I had (men and women) would have to meet and have sex at the exact same time that they had it for me to be here as I am now. It would mean that every grandpa that I ever had would have to make sure that out of the one hundred to three hundred million sperm that came out during sex with my grandmas, that exact same sperm would have to match up with that exact same egg. That in of itself is a zero probability. Then to make sure that I would be here all my grandpas and grandmas must never die before having the sex that would eventually allow me to be here. That would mean that they would have to live their lives over exactly the same; that means living through very close calls of death. The possibility of all of this happening a second time is so close to zero, we should just say that there is "zero" chances. Add it all up, there is a "zero" chance that I would be here if we went back in time and I hoped that history would repeat itself. It wouldn't and I wouldn't be here. But guess what? I am here, and that in itself is a "miracle". And I figure that if I can be here, when the probability of my very existence is so low and so close to zero we can't measure it, then I have no problem that other "miracles"; such as life on other planets, or millions of mutations, exist or have taken place.

 

[amy31416]

The probability is high that he went to a Catholic school. Science is "different" in those places.

Catholic schools teach science extensively.

 

[tpreitzel]

More ado with little substance. The problem isn't the possibility of extra-terrestrial (I'm using the term, extra-terrestrial, accurately here to accompany the possibility of "life" covering an unimaginable range) life, it's the ludicrous leaps of assumptions stemming from the possibility.

 

[tangent4ronpaul]

Post 16 was totally about pre-conceived bias and what glasses you are looking through. Nothing more

There have been a lot of planets discovered recently that are the correct distance from their sun to support earth like life. (though consider that life has been discovered at the bottom of the sea at pressures that should preclude it's existence and in volcano's where the temperatures and toxic atmosphere should preclude it. There are also recent discoveries of organisms that don't use the same chemical basics that we do.)

Some of these planets have been studied and found to have oceans of water and atmospheres of oxygen. Add to that the known fact that amino acids scoot around the universe on asteroids and impact planets at regular intervals....

 

[Petar]

I am saying that you need some kind of way (possibly a telescope) to:

1. Observe how many sun-like stars may exist in a statistically significant portion of a given galaxy.

2. Observe how many Earth-like planets may exist within a similar orbit to said sun-like stars.

If you can do that, then you can figure out how many planets *could possibly* support Earth-style life in that area, and perhaps legitimately apply that as a theoretical statistic for the rest of that galaxy, and perhaps the rest of the known Universe as well.

If you cannot at least sufficiently investigate a statistically significant portion of a given galaxy, then you are PULLING NUMBERS OUT OF YOUR ASS.

 

[erowe1]

I am saying that you need some kind of way (possibly a telescope) to:

1. Observe how many sun-like stars may exist in a statistically significant portion of a given galaxy.

2. Observe how many Earth-like planets may exist within a similar orbit to said sun-like stars.

If you can do that, then you can figure out how many planets *could possibly* support Earth-style life in that area, and perhaps legitimately apply that as a theoretical statistic for the rest of that galaxy, and perhaps the rest of the known Universe as well.

If you cannot at least sufficiently investigate a statistically significant portion of a given galaxy, then you are PULLING NUMBERS OUT OF YOUR ASS.

It looks like we're going in circles here. Are you saying that I personally have to do this? If not, then what's wrong with the source I gave you? Those figures are included in the hundred plus parameters they cover there.

 

[Petar]

It looks like we're going in circles here. Are you saying that I personally have to do this? If not, then what's wrong with the source I gave you? Those figures are included in the hundred plus parameters they cover there.

If you would stop playing dumb, then maybe we could walk in a straight line.

I already told you that some kind of legitimate source would suit our purposes here.

As for the sources that you provided, all I saw was a long list of bullshit.

Please tell me where they even claim to have thorough, observation-based information, regarding a statistically significant portion of any given galaxy.

 

[erowe1]

Post 16 was totally about pre-conceived bias and what glasses you are looking through. Nothing more

There have been a lot of planets discovered recently that are the correct distance from their sun to support earth like life. (though consider that life has been discovered at the bottom of the sea at pressures that should preclude it's existence and in volcano's where the temperatures and toxic atmosphere should preclude it. There are also recent discoveries of organisms that don't use the same chemical basics that we do.)

Some of these planets have been studied and found to have oceans of water and atmospheres of oxygen. Add to that the known fact that amino acids scoot around the universe on asteroids and impact planets at regular intervals....

Sure, add that, and add tons more factors that make such planets more conducive for life, and you're still at astronomical odds against it being on any of them.

But when you say, "There are also recent discoveries of organisms that don't use the same chemical basics that we do." What are you talking about?

And when you say, that it is a known fact that amino acids scoot around the universe on asteroids, is that really a known fact that has been verified? Or is it merely something that has been posited as a necessary precondition for the existence of life on earth, based on the religious assumption that it arose entirely by natural causes?

 

[erowe1]

If you would stop playing dumb, then maybe we could walk in a straight line.

I already told you that some kind of legitimate source would suit our purposes here.

As for the sources that you provided, all I saw was a long list of bullshit.

Please tell me where they even claim to have thorough, observation-based information, regarding a statistically significant portion of any given galaxy.

What makes you think that the articles cited there from Science, Nature, Astrophysical Journal, the Journal of Ecology, and so on, weren't observation-based?

And I noticed that the number that link gives for the question you're asking about planets is the same number given in the article tangent4ronpaul cited (10^22), which comes to the opposite conclusion about the likelihood of life's existence. So it seems doubtful that they both made it up.

 

[Petar]

What makes you think that the articles cited there from Science, Nature, Astrophysical Journal, the Journal of Ecology, and so on, weren't observation-based?

And I noticed that the number that link gives for the question you're asking about planets is the same number given in the article tangent4ronpaul cited (10^22), which comes to the opposite conclusion about the likelihood of life's existence. So it seems doubtful that they both made it up.

I guess I was thrown off by the idiotic conclusions, combined with the long list of bullshit...

 

[erowe1]

I guess I was thrown off by the idiotic conclusions, combined with the long list of bullshit...

That can happen. Refusing to accept the conclusion of an argument sometimes can cause a person to treat the steps that lead to it disingenuously.

 

[devil21]

Got two words for ya:

BLUE BEAM

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Our human minds cannot comprehend the vastness of the Universe. I have no doubt there is sentient life elsewhere within the vast cosmos, but finding it -- that I doubt.

 

[Vessol]

If something is statistically improbable enough, it warrants being called impossible.

Since the likelihood of any given planet being capable of sustaining life is something like 1 in 10^500, even if there were trillions of planets (which sounds high to me, but I can't remember), that would warrant calling it statistically impossible for life to exist on any of them. The fact that even one earth exists at all is a miracle.

I'd say that the building blocks of life, amino acids and the what-not are fairly common in the universe. These took billions of years for those acids to develop into even the most primitive forms of "life".

My understanding on it is of course fairly bare.


While kind of outdated, Carl Sagan is absolutely brilliant in his presentation and explanation of all this.

As for trillions of planets, that's not a high number at all. In the Milky Way Galaxy alone, our own galaxy, we believe there are 200-400 billion stars, each with their own potential planetary systems. Trillions of planets are easy to imagine.

But that's just our galaxy. Within visible universe(that is, space that is close enough to where we can actually see the light from billions of years ago) there is an estimated 50 BILLION individual galaxies, each with hundreds of billions of stars.

And that's just visible space, remember that after the Big Bang space rapidly expanded and it is most likely that we can only see a sliver of the entirety of the universe.

That's not even going into quantum theory and the idea of a multi-verse which I barely understand myself.

 

[erowe1]

As for trillions of planets, that's not a high number at all.

You're right. It's not.

 

[Vessol]

You're right. It's not.

I meant high as in I was countering your claim where you said "sounds high to me". Trillions of planets is a massive amount, and that is just in our galaxy. As I said, in visible space alone there are 50+ billion galaxies, each with trillions of planets themselves.

 

[tangent4ronpaul]

But when you say, "There are also recent discoveries of organisms that don't use the same chemical basics that we do." What are you talking about?

From Post 18: “If someone can explain how it is possible to have a biological remain that has no nitrogen, or nitrogen below the detect ability limits that I have, in a time period as short as 150 years, then I would be very interested in hearing that."

This one is currently contraversial but made it into Science and NASA did a televised press conference on it:
Discoverer Asks for Time, Patience Over Arsenic Bacteria Controversy
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/330/6012/1734.short

Seems like I've seen others, but not finding others right now

And when you say, that it is a known fact that amino acids scoot around the universe on asteroids, is that really a known fact that has been verified? Or is it merely something that has been posited as a necessary precondition for the existence of life on earth, based on the religious assumption that it arose entirely by natural causes?

Amino acid survival in large cometary impacts
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1945-5100.1999.tb01409.x/abstract

The chemical conditions on the parent body of the murchison meteorite: Some conclusions based on amino, hydroxy and dicarboxylic acids
http://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...900186dbdc81c2e9be0fff71cfb91fbb&searchtype=a

Amino acids from ultraviolet irradiation of interstellar ice analogues
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v416/n6879/abs/416403a.html

Extraterrestrial amino acids in Orgueil and Ivuna: Tracing the parent body of CI type carbonaceous chondrites
http://www.pnas.org/content/98/5/2138.abstract

 

[Vessol]

Guys, stop being researchers for others.

That's the number one thing I hate about forum debates.

Someone always goes "Well I don't believe you! Provide sources!" You then spend 30-60 minutes finding sources. They then glance over them for a second and then go "Meh! So!? I'm still right in this this and this way! Provide sources otherwise!" And then again, you waste more time.

If someone is interested themselves and is not a lazy bastard, then they'll go research what you claim themselves.

Just a little hint from an internet and forum veteran of 10+ years.

 

[Fox McCloud]

I'll wait a good month before I reach any conclusions; the arsenic bacteria claim turned out to be extreme hype and not, at all, what was originally described---if anything, this is coming off, to me, as just more hype to get extra funding.

 

[Vessol]

I'll wait a good month before I reach any conclusions; the arsenic bacteria claim turned out to be extreme hype and not, at all, what was originally described---if anything, this is coming off, to me, as just more hype to get extra funding.

Was the arsenic bacteria paper run through any peer-reviewing? I'm just wondering.