Faith in Extra-Terrestrial Life

_Howard wrote:

The existence of life elsewhere does not depend on man's ability or willingness to find it.

Nor does God's. By which I mean, of course, that you have entered into the realm of faith here, discarding science and proof as you have.

_Howard wrote:

Perhaps your strange affection for teapots in orbit fits this description, but not the rational, science-based arguments you disdain.

I use teapots as an allegorical example for the same reason Bertrand Russell chose them.  They are an everyday object -- I have one right next to me as I type this -- that everyone on this planet is familiar with.  But at the same time, outside of man's influence, you would not expect to find a teapot buried in a mountain or floating in the ocean and certainly not orbiting the Sun between Earth and Mars.  They are a Special Case that seems entirely normal to us, until you examine the circumstances outside Earth and realize that teapots would be exceedingly odd to find in outer space.

Like life.

Congratulations. You have managed to exceed your previous misunderstanding of everything that has been posted.

I don't think so Tim.

Or at least explain to me where I have left the tracks of logic.

You never got on the tracks.

Lame.

You started the thread by equating anyone who disagreed with your position as possessing  the same type of lunacy that creates god lovers. Not a good beginning:  pisses people off.

The two items which you presented to support your conclusion that life exists nowhere else in the universe are nothing more than anecdotes.

Scientists have failed at their attempts to create life in the laboratory. Maybe if they had used a laboratory the size of the Pacific Ocean and after starting up their experiment they went out for lunch and came back in a hundred million years, they may have had a different result. Who knows?

The few places that we have briefly looked for evidence of life has turned up nothing. Try this: Drop a billion quarters on the beach. If the first four you see landed heads up, are you going to conclude that all of them did? Will that first four be compelling evidence for you? (Remember Stat 101? Sample size? Margin of Error? Anything ringing a bell?)

That damnable teapot and references to god have no place in the discussion. They are irritating, insulting, and provide no evidence of anything one way or the other.

Yeow. Who pissed in your cornflakes?

NoCoPilot wrote:

Or at least explain to me where I have left the tracks of logic.

You asked. I answered.

No one pissed in my cornflakes; someone spilled tea in them.

Tea turns into piss pretty quickly.

Although a "pisspot" is not the same.

Here is the current state of the science on this.  Read this objectively and tell me "faith" isn't the stronger motivation.

Quote :

It is thought that PAHs can form one of two ways: nonbiologically, during early star formation; or biologically, through the activity of bacteria or other living organisms, or their degradation (fossilization). On Earth, PAHs are abundant as fossil molecules in ancient sedimentary rocks, coal and petroleum, the result of chemical changes that occurred to the remains of dead marine plankton and early plant life. They also occur during partial combustion, such as when a candle burns or food is grilled.

To address the origin of these PAHs, the authors examined the chemistry, mineralogy, and texture of carbonates associated with PAHs in the Martian meteorite. Under the transmission electron microscope, the carbonate globules were seen to contain fine-grained magnetite and iron-sulfide particles. From these and other analyses, the authors developed a list of observations about the carbonates and PAHs that, taken individually, could be explained by nonbiological means. However, "when considered collectively . . . we conclude that [these phenomena] are evidence for primitive life on early Mars." Some of their observations are as follows:

*The higher concentrations of PAHs were found associated with the carbonates. The carbonates formed within the rock fissures, about 3.6 billion years ago, and are younger than the rock itself.
*The magnetite and iron-sulfide particles inside the carbonate globules are chemically, structurally, and morphologically similar to magnetosome particles produced by bacteria on Earth.
*High-resolution scanning electron microscopy revealed on the surface of the carbonates small (100 nm) ovoids and elongated features. Similar textures have been found on the surface of calcite concretions grown from Pleistocene groundwater in southern Italy, which have been interpreted as representing nanobacteria.
*Some earlier reports had suggested that the temperature at which the ALH84001 carbonates formed was as high as 700 degrees C - much too hot for any kind of life. However, the isotopic composition of the carbonates, and the new data on the magnetite and iron-sulfide particles, imply a temperature range of 0 to 80 degrees C, cool enough for life.
*The magnetite - a mineral which contains some ferric (Fe3+) iron, perhaps indicating formation by oxidation (the addition of oxygen) - and iron sulfide - a mineral that can be formed by reduction (the loss of oxygen) - were found in close proximity in the Martian meteorite. On Earth, closely associated mineralogical features involving both oxidation and reduction are characteristic of biological activity.

Mars is the planet closest to Earth, not only in distance but geologically.  If life were to be found anywhere outside Earth, we would expect Mars to be the place.  It's the perfect laboratory to test "Star Trek Science" that life is everywhere.

You got the highlighting wrong. Let me fix it for you.

Quote :

It is thought that PAHs can form one of two ways: nonbiologically, during early star formation; or biologically, through the activity of bacteria or other living organisms, or their degradation (fossilization). On Earth, PAHs are abundant as fossil molecules in ancient sedimentary rocks, coal and petroleum, the result of chemical changes that occurred to the remains of dead marine plankton and early plant life. They also occur during partial combustion, such as when a candle burns or food is grilled.

To address the origin of these PAHs, the authors examined the chemistry, mineralogy, and texture of carbonates associated with PAHs in the Martian meteorite. Under the transmission electron microscope, the carbonate globules were seen to contain fine-grained magnetite and iron-sulfide particles. From these and other analyses, the authors developed a list of observations about the carbonates and PAHs that, taken individually, could be explained by nonbiological means. However, "when considered collectively . . . we conclude that [these phenomena] are evidence for primitive life on early Mars." Some of their observations are as follows:

*The higher concentrations of PAHs were found associated with the carbonates. The carbonates formed within the rock fissures, about 3.6 billion years ago, and are younger than the rock itself.
*The magnetite and iron-sulfide particles inside the carbonate globules are chemically, structurally, and morphologically similar to magnetosome particles produced by bacteria on Earth.
*High-resolution scanning electron microscopy revealed on the surface of the carbonates small (100 nm) ovoids and elongated features. Similar textures have been found on the surface of calcite concretions grown from Pleistocene groundwater in southern Italy, which have been interpreted as representing nanobacteria.
*Some earlier reports had suggested that the temperature at which the ALH84001 carbonates formed was as high as 700 degrees C - much too hot for any kind of life. However, the isotopic composition of the carbonates, and the new data on the magnetite and iron-sulfide particles, imply a temperature range of 0 to 80 degrees C, cool enough for life.
*The magnetite - a mineral which contains some ferric (Fe3+) iron, perhaps indicating formation by oxidation (the addition of oxygen) - and iron sulfide - a mineral that can be formed by reduction (the loss of oxygen) - were found in close proximity in the Martian meteorite. On Earth, closely associated mineralogical features involving both oxidation and reduction are characteristic of biological activity.

Occam's Razor -- which highlighting is the simpler explanation?

There's not one thing in that rather dry article that supports the contention that they are acting on "faith."

I heard that Occam cut himself with his razor when he was startled by a teapot flying out of his ass.

John Grant, in his book "Discarded Science," wrote:

Astronomers have been able to show that molecules called polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) are common in nebulae. These extremely stable molecules are widely found here on Earth, too -- for example, in car exhausts. Most recently, they've been found in open space as well, not just in nebulae. Astronomers like Adolf Witt of the University of Toledo have been painstakingly building up catalogs of the PAHs that can be shown to be present in the nebulae and in open space, and have found really quite complex molecules, such as anthracene and pyrene. The hypothesis is that smaller, less stable organic molecules that form in the nebulae, sheltered from potentially destructive radiation by the environment there, build up into stabler, more complex molecules that can survive escape into open space.

Physicists such as Louis Allamandola have been recreating the contents and conditions of interstellar nebulae in vacuum chambers in order to predict other organic chemicals that might be found in the real thing. An exciting early development was that, under these conditions, when the nebula is irradiated with ultraviolet light (plentiful in space, of course) there are photochemical reactions within the ice particles there. These reactions can convert simple molecules -- like those of water, ammonia, methanol and carbon monoxide -- into more elaborate compounds that form tiny protective membranes, reminiscent of cell membranes[....] The researchers have also created amino acids in their artificial nebulae; amino acids are the building blocks of proteins.

Perhaps most excitingly of all, Allamandola and his team found that, if they replaced one of the carbon atoms in a PAH with a nitrogen atom -- something that happens frequently enough in nature -- the end-products of the stimulated chemical reactions looked a lot like various of the components of DNA and RNA. Spectra obtained from space closely match the spectra of these nitrogen-containing variants.

Some meteorites contain what look like rudimentary fossil cells; and these meteorites are thought to have arisen as a result of the fragmentation of cometary nuclei. Since comets are, as it were, messengers from [...] gaseous nebulae, the materials detected in [their] outer parts contain complex organic molecules such as polysaccharides. When comets struck the primitive Earth, they would of course be releasing all this organic material, so starting terrestrial life on its way.

The building blocks of life (amino acids) may have extraterrestrial origins but the mere presence of these organic (carbon-based) but non-living compounds is not the same as "life."

Mars is dead.

It always has been, and always will be.

To think - hope - claim - wish otherwise is to abandon science and embrace faith.

You seem to have a lot of faith in your unproven assertions.

The thing about life is, it doesn't just pop up in one little corner.

Where it exists -- WHEN it exists -- it tends to be rather ubiquitous and expand to fill all ecological niches. I mean, we only have Earth to go by, but within that biosphere life is pretty much everywhere, right?

Since we have seen no signs of life yet, on either Mars or the Moon (or Venus for that matter), I feel pretty safe in extrapolating that those environments are likely barren of life. Chances are we will not find a solitary lonely microbe that has been hiding under a rock for the past 4.6 billion years.

Call me a pessimist if you want.

Maybe I didn't watch enough Star Trek as a kid.

One wouldn't expect to find life on our moon, as it has never had an atmosphere. Mars, on the other hand, did once have an atmosphere and was much more Earth-like. Whether there was ever life there or not, I have no idea and would not make a statement about it one way or the other.

But there are trillions of other places where life could have sprung up. The fact that we have not found evidence of life in the one place we looked (glanced at, really) is meaningless.

I don't know if there is life anywhere else, but my opinion - based on what I have read, not on faith - is that it is very likely.

My problem with what you post is not your opinion on the subject, but your continuing insult of those who disagree with you. Yes, I consider being accused of believing things on faith to be an insult.

And they didn't have Star Trek when I was a kid.

_Howard wrote:

Yes, I consider being accused of believing things on faith to be an insult.

Why? Because you value reason, and logic, and evidence?

Exactly. And it is not necessary to have found something to be able to judge whether or not its existence is possible or likely. The Higgs boson is a good example of this,

The Higgs boson was predicted to exist. There is good mathematical reason to expect it to exist.

I'm not saying extraterrestrial life CANNOT exist.

All I'm saying is it probably DOES NOT exist, and even if it did, we'll never get proof of it -- so it might as well NOT EXIST.

NoCoPilot wrote:

Now, if we define "life" to be any self-organizing molecular structure, that means -- unless that life has graduated to emitting EMF -- we will have to see it with our own eyes or sample it with our own instruments to verify its existence.

This pretty much guarantees it'll never happen, given the distances involved.

Ergo, the argument is purely sophistic, purely rhetorical. Purely faith-based. Just like the argument for God.

NoCoPilot wrote:

The Higgs boson was predicted to exist.  There is good mathematical reason to expect it to exist.

Yes, and many people believed it existed before there was evidence of its existence.

NoCoPilot wrote:

All I'm saying is it probably DOES NOT exist,...

But what are your reasons for believing that it probably does not exist? You've never offered that. You've just said that we haven't yet found it, therefore it doesn't exist.

NoCoPilot wrote:

This pretty much guarantees it'll never happen, given the distances involved.
Ergo, the argument is purely sophistic, purely rhetorical. Purely faith-based. Just like the argument for God.

That is ridiculous. What the fuck is "faith based" about it? That is where you come off the rails, IMO.

_Howard wrote:

But there are trillions of other places where life could have sprung up. The fact that we have not found evidence of life in the one place we looked (glanced at, really) is meaningless.

I'll tell you where faith comes in.

Why do you insist "there are trillions of other places where life could have sprung up" despite the fact that "we have not found evidence of life in the one place we have looked" -- and yet you dismiss as ridiculous the idea that there is a teapot circling the sun between Earth and Mars? We haven't even LOOKED for that one!!! Don't you think there are "trillions of places" a teapot could be orbiting?

Your distinction between one and the other is based on FAITH. Afterall, there is both Life, and Teapots, here on Earth. They both do exist.

What I think is that you have no valid reason to support your position and so you must resort to teapots and insult.

True. I cannot disprove a negative.

But by the same token, you have absolutely zero evidence for your stand -- therefore our positions are matters of faith.

I choose not to believe in the unprovable.