have they found anything?

[JoeTheJuggler]

I understand evolution. But evolution needs something to start it off. The origins of life is a completely different matter. Even today scientist cannot yet explain it.

That is a false statement. We certainly can explain abiogenesis. (ETA: And again this statement is exactly the kind of thing Creationists like to say.)

Not only can we explain how amino acids can form from abiotic processes, we also know that extra terrestrial space has such building blocks for life.

Through normal chemistry, polymers can form (amino acid polymers are called proteins). Some of these polymers have the ability to replicate themselves (that is, to serve as templates for other monomers in the environment to form copies of itself). (IMO, that is the beginning of natural selection. In any given sample of water, you'll find more examples of a self-replicating polymer than other polymers.) We also fully understand how simple lipid membranes can form into vessicles. These vessicles trap water inside them, and that water contains some of these self replicating polymers. The vessicles have the tendency (through chemistry and simple mechanical action) to grow into tubules and then break off into more vessicles. Again, the self-replicating polymers will be more represented than other stuff, and the ones that replicate more efficiently will be selected for in even greater numbers. Thus you have a rudimentary cell. The rest is natural selection.

There is no major gap in our understanding of this process.

Even if there were, it would not argue one way or the other on how likely abiogenesis is. We still know it happened at least once, and that's all we know about the frequency or probability of it happening. So your attempt to use your own ignorance to support your position is also illogical. (ETA: And yet again, this kind of argument from ignorance is a favorite technique of Creationists. It's the same logical fallacy behind their "God of the gaps" arguments.)

Here's a pretty good video explaining abiogenesis:

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

If this is correct, then many planets may have been seeded this way, and only a planet such as Earth may have had just the right conditions for life to get a foothold on and flourish. Dead planets such Mars, Venus, close to the habitable zone, but not quite enough to allow life to start, not animal life anyway.

Do you know for sure that Venus and Mars don't fall within the habitable zone? It could be they are unihabitable for any number of reasons other than their orbital radius. Mars, for example, might have done a lot better if it were more massive (and could hold a thicker atmosphere).

By "animal" life you mean complex, multicellular animals, I suppose. The methane plumes on Mars are pretty strong evidence that life existed there at one time. (We should find that out for sure when the Mars Science Laboratory checks out the deuterium proportion in the water vapor associated with some of these plumes.)

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

The discovery of another 32 extra solar planets was announced today.

These are discovered by the radial velocity method (detecting slight wobbles in the start caused by the tugging of the planet(s) orbiting the star).

From the CNN story (my bolding):

"We are on the road," Udry told CNN in a phone call from Portugal. "The end of the road is finding life and other planets like our own, but we have to go step by step."

HARPS has also boosted the discovery of so-called super-Earths -- planets with a mass a few times that of Earth. Of the 28 super-Earths known, HARPS facilitated the discovery of 24, the European Southern Observatory statement said. Most reside in multiplanet systems, with up to five planets per system.

Although only 32 were announced Monday, the team knows of many more exoplanets, although more observation is needed before they are formally announced and papers are written about them. "We have tons of them," Udry said.

So again, the one thing this says is that wherever we look for planets, we are finding them. Planet formation seems to be the rule and not the exception. Again, all these extra solar planets have only been discovered in our tiny neighborhood of the galaxy. (Remember the graphic someone posted earlier showing the sphere centered around the Earth within which all these planets exist compared to the size of the entire galaxy.)

So when you calculate something like Drake's Equation, we should estimate the number of planets as quite high. Not so long ago, this wasn't known. And some people were arguing that planetary systems might be extremely rare.

 

[Roboramma]

I have this phobia if there is abundance intelligent species out there, the creationist could argue that the cosmos is designed for life to evolve in many other places by a designer.

They already make that argument. It wouldn't make any more sense in that case than it does already.

But if we look at Darwinian evolution by natural selection, we should expect microbial, or lower complex life to populate the galaxy and beyond only.

Do you have any support for that assertion?

The chance of life originating without any interference from any god like force are almost zero.

Where do you get that number from?

 

[Roboramma]

I understand evolution. But evolution needs something to start it off. The origins of life is a completely different matter. Even today scientist cannot yet explain it. Sure all the elements that produced the very first living thing originated in the core of an exploding star many billions of years ago, but as yet no one has worked out how it happened. A very rare occurrence that may not even have happened here on Earth but was transported here by a comet. If this is correct, then many planets may have been seeded this way, and only a planet such as Earth may have had just the right conditions for life to get a foothold on and flourish. Dead planets such Mars, Venus, close to the habitable zone, but not quite enough to allow life to start, not animal life anyway.

To paraphrase the above:

We haven't figured out exactly how life began nor the ideal conditions for it to do so, thus we don't know how likely it is for life to arise.
Therefore we know that life is very unlikely to arise...

 

[amb]

A hundred years ago, scientists couldn't explain 90% of what everyone takes for granted on a daily basis now. They didn't even know about tectonic plates, or that asteroids impacted the earth, or a billion other things. So exactly what bearing does that have on the problem?

And if anything, a lot of studies are showing that self organization and self replication at the molecular level seems to be rather common. We are just starting on a realistic path of research here, and you're upset that we haven't found the answer?

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2008/06/harvard-team-cr.html

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2008/09/11/0806714105.full.pdf+html

http://web.archive.org/web/20061015...afe.edu/sfi/People/kauffman/sak-peptides.html

http://www.pnas.org/content/97/23/1...&stored_search=&FIRSTINDEX=0&journalcode=pnas

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/

And your fears... Sorry, I had to chuckle, because I see fear as the primary motivator for theistic thought. It may be driving you to Rare Earthism. Wouldn't it be funnier if we found all sorts of ETI, and none of them had a concept of god(s), and that left us as the socially retarded beings of the galaxy? (Yes, this is ultra speculative, and wishful thinking, just having fun.)

You did note the word YET in my post?

 

[amb]

There has been so far in the history of this planet one astonishing discovery, and that was the splitting of the atom, the making of an atomic bomb. When scientist finally create life in the laboratory, it will be an even greater achievement. Until then it has to be assumed that perhaps the origins of life is a once only phenomena whether it started here or elsewhere in the galaxy/universe is not important. What is important is that we are here to witness it.
The Nobel Prize winning Flemish biologist Christian de Duve once said that ''life is either a reproducible, almost commonplace manifestation of matter, given certain conditions, or a miracle. Too many steps are involved to allow for something in between.''
That's exactly my belief, only I don't for a mano-second believe in miracles.
But also, Fermi's Paradox still plays a large part of my thinking.

 

[LarianLeQuella]

Well... Given the point that we're here, and you don't believe in miracles, then wouldn't the quote from de Duv drive you towards the thought that intelligent life is commonplace instead of your insistence that it's not? You seem to be a mass of contradictions.

And yes, I noticed you "yet" in the other post. And exactly what bearing does that actually have on the possibility of understanding, or the reality of what happens? We didn't know the earth went around the sun (YET) in the 1600s. Did that actually have an impact on the earth's orbital path? Your argument is from ignornace? That doesn't make any sense at all.

And hasn't Fermi's Paradox been adequately debunked for you yet? Or do we have to rehas each and every point yet again?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

There has been so far in the history of this planet one astonishing discovery, and that was the splitting of the atom, the making of an atomic bomb.

There have been many many more astonishing discoveries than the splitting of the atom and making of a fission bomb.

When scientist finally create life in the laboratory, it will be an even greater achievement.

Depending on how you define life, it has been done. [ETA: Scientists create self-replicating RNA molecule in the lab.]

Until then it has to be assumed that perhaps the origins of life is a once only phenomena whether it started here or elsewhere in the galaxy/universe is not important.

I disagree. I think that's a wrong assumption. There's no reason to think that physics and chemistry which sufficiently explains abiogenesis only allows for abiogenesis to occur one time only.

I think abiogenesis may have happened (or continue to happen) very often here on Earth. It's just that those very primitive life forms (a self-replicating polymer surrounded by a simple membrane) don't compete well against the far more efficient reproducing life forms that have evolved.

As I said, I'd put the origin of life all the way back to the first self-replicating molecule. Some say it doesn't happen until you have cells that can directly compete with each other, but I think you can consider the advantage a self-replicating molecule has over others as a kind of competition (that is between proto-life and non-life). In the absence of higher life forms, a self-replicating molecule will be present in greater numbers than other molecules.

But also, Fermi's Paradox still plays a large part of my thinking.

Yes I've noticed how you cling to an argument despite the fact that it has been repeatedly proven wrong. (I even numbered my points, any one of which was sufficient to refute that argument.) That's another characteristic of thinking like a Creationist.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

And hasn't Fermi's Paradox been adequately debunked for you yet? Or do we have to rehas each and every point yet again?

I'd just refer him to the numbered points I made ages ago. Any one of these points is sufficient to refute the argument that the absence of evidence of ETIs proves the non-existence of ETIs.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4412527#post4412527

 

[Roboramma]

There has been so far in the history of this planet one astonishing discovery, and that was the splitting of the atom, the making of an atomic bomb.

You seriously think that was the only astonishing discovery?
Are you insane?

The fact that the earth moves wasn't astonishing?
The fact that an electron can be both here and there at the same time, wasn't astonishing?
The fact that time and space are relative, and change with motion wasn't astonishing?
The fact that things in the sky are made of the same stuff as things down here wasn't astonishing?
The fact that no matter what direction you look, everything seems to be moving away from everything else, wasn't astonishing?
The fact that the stars are distant suns wasn't astonishing?
The fact that those faint clouds in the sky are actually distant galaxies wasn't astonishing?

When scientist finally create life in the laboratory, it will be an even greater achievement. Until then it has to be assumed that perhaps the origins of life is a once only phenomena whether it started here or elsewhere in the galaxy/universe is not important.

No, it doesn't have to be assumed that the origins of life is a once only phenomena.

There is absolutely no reason to assume that.

 

[amb]

No, it doesn't have to be assumed that the origins of life is a once only phenomena.

There is absolutely no reason to assume that.

Are you absolutely sure about that? Isn't it at very best a 50/50 proposition? [intelligence that is]

 

[leonAzul]

Also, the space program from the start pretty much produced immediate, tangible benefits. What has SETI done in that regard?
.

Just think - If they redirected their billions to global warming and world peace, they could make the world a utopia!

Which is the immediate benefit that SETI has yielded. The same R & D that goes into developing its distributed computing systems is being directly applied to modeling climate change and determining how to mitigate it.

Check out http://boinc.org/ to see for yourself -- get involved if you care.

 

[Roboramma]

Are you absolutely sure about that? Isn't it at very best a 50/50 proposition? [intelligence that is]

Am I sure that "it doesn't have to be assumed that the origins of life is a once only phenomena"? Pretty sure. Even if it's a 50/50 proposition, my statement is still correct and the one I was responding to is incorrect.

Now, if you want to change the subject (ie. talk about something different than I was responding to), and come back to intelligence, of course that's more difficult, but it still can't be assumed that it's a once only proposition, and I don't know why you would do so.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Are you absolutely sure about that? Isn't it at very best a 50/50 proposition? [intelligence that is]

You said the origin of life. Now you're talking about intelligence. You claimed that the origin of life has to be assumed to be a one-time only event. You weren't talking about intelligence. You can't just pretend that's not what you said.

At any rate, where do you get the 50/50 figure from? Or is it just an expression of ignorance? (If so, it's not valid. It's better to say we don't know than to assert a 1 in 2 probability.)

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Which is the immediate benefit that SETI has yielded. The same R & D that goes into developing its distributed computing systems is being directly applied to modeling climate change and determining how to mitigate it.

Good point. I mentioned something similar earlier in the thread (or maybe it was in the SETI@home thread). Also I suspect the project has resulted in improved algorithms for analyzing the radio telescope data--fast Fourier transforms and so on.

 

[amb]

Happy b/day Joe. Every penny spent on SETI will one day be celebrated whether it produces the results wished for by Sagan and co. or not.
If that was the case for the huge amount of money spent on the Apollo moon landings and the spacecraft sent to Mars and beyond, we would still be ignorant of space, and not to mention the inventions that have benefited man from all that research.
I believe that we will find microbial life throughout the solar system, perhaps even on the planet Mercury. We have found bacteria alive right here on Earth in the most unlikely places we can imagine, like inside a live volcano, miles below the oceans close to volcanic vents where there is not a sliver of oxygen or sunlight, under the freezing ice of Antarctica.

I've always maintained that the universe is teeming with microbial life. Where this life originated is the million dollar question. Does it sprout up everywhere in the right conditions, or is it carried from planet to planet by comets, in other words, by seeding from a central source, space itself.
Self conscious intelligent beings could even sprout up every now and then from such humble beginnings, but I would hazard a guess and say; not too often.

 

[Roboramma]

Hey Amb, I think I can agree with everything in your last post, except perhaps for being a little less optimistic about life in this solar system (which I didn't expect, considering I think I'm somewhat of an optimist in that regard).

 

[LarianLeQuella]

Happy Birthday Joe!

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Thanks, Larian & amb.

I also mostly agree with what you said here, amb, but I'm also less optimistic about ubiquitous microbial life. That's an area where we would expect already to have such evidence, but we do not.

Also, not that I'm ruling out other mechanisms, what we know about chemistry and life suggests that for life as we know it, liquid water is probably necessary. (And that is present in relatively few places in the Solar System, much less in the galaxy at large.)


However, I'm uncomfortable hazarding guesses, so my position is still, "We don't know."

We can explain abiogenesis, and we can explain how that can lead to complex life including varying degrees of intelligent life. We have a lot of good information on the various components that make up "consciousness", and none of it is any great mystery. We also have no reason to think that the laws of physics, chemistry and evolution would operate any differently in other places in the galaxy. There has not been more time elapsed here than elsewhere, nor is there any scarcity of the resources needed for these processes to happen. So there's no reason to conclude that we are unique.