Evolution applies to everything

There are extremophiles that are resistant to radiation damage. They still mutate.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yes I suggest the first "spacers" to become "land-lubbers" were EXTREMOPHILES!
They were of course not perfect at it, but they were mastering two things:

1 To protect and repair their DNA.
2 To survive visits in "empty" space in the form of spores!

We are their extremely mutaded descendants! And we are in time going to return to our birth place: SPACE!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Hypotheses of extraterrestrial origins of life does not belong in the Sci & Tech forum. Requesting it be moved to a more appropriate forum.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Why? Is there a proof of a non extraterrestial origin of life?

Or better put:Is there a proof that lifes origin was on earth?

Have you heard of the pan spermi hypothesis?

It hypothesizes that life may have an extra terrestial origin!

It was formulated by The Swedish Philosopher Svante Arrhenius!

In early twentieth century!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius

NASA thought they found fossilized traces of life in a meteorite from Mars!

If life originates on Earth how could it be fossilised on Mars?

Please notice that we are in the "Alternative Forum"

Are you... a logician... claiming that the negation of the standard hypothesis does not belong in the alternative forum!

Where else then should the pan spermi hypothesis be put?

 

Science is not about proof. Science is about evidence.

There is what is known as "a preponderance of evidence" that life's origins are on Earth.

There is zero evidence of life elsewhere than Earth. Although there are some tantalizing hypotheses surrounding extra-terrestrial amino acids.

Yes.

Indeed. Until my post above, it was in the Bio & Gen forum. Upon posting that, when discussion had turned to extra-terrestrial origins for life, I reported the thread and asked for it to be moved to Alt Theories.

And now that it is in the correct forum, I don't need to be so by-the-book with known science.

You're welcome.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

1The topic is: Evolution applies to everything. Is the topic an alternative theory? If so, this thread is now in its proper forum.
2 The question of where the Origin of Earthly Life is, is not a theory, so I suggest we continue in:http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=114094
3 The question of what Science is about belongs both to Science and Philosophy, I suggest:http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=113917

 

To summarise - evolution as a word in the English language apllies to many things in the universe since it is similar in meaning to the word change. Evolution as a short hand word for Evolution by Natural Selection, or The Modern Synthesis of Evolution, can properly refer only to biological evolution.

Once those points are made the OP seems to have been comprehensively addressed.

 

On the topic.
Suppose for the argument that the theory of evolution gets extended to include anything.
Then evolution itself evolves...But that leaves us in an epistemic quagmire...
So I tentatively conclude:

NO! There are (yet unspecified) limits to the extensions of Darwinism.

 

This is why this thread belongs in the Alt Theories forum.

 

sigurdV:

science does not deal in proof. No science attempts to prove anything. Science deals in evidence.

There is a preponderance of evidence that life originated on Earth, and a paucity of evidence that it originated somewhere else.

This does not mean it is so; what it means is that our best model of the origin of life - the model that most closely matches what we observe - is one where life began here.

There is no question that the speculation of whether it began elsewhere is a possibility. Let me say that again: No one doubts that it is possible that life began elsewhere. but with zero evidence, it is simply speculation. it is not a theory, since theories require evidence. It is an hypothesis.

There's nothing wrong with an hypothesis, but it can't really go much farther (except as an alternate theory) without evidence to lend it strength.

 

Thank you. Eloquently said.

 

Your sentence in blue is only partially correct, lets consider Scientific Laws:

We "prove" them by trying to disprove them!
The idea, our strategy, is that it is better to use a law that we have not been able to prove incorrect than to use a law we proved to be wrong!

Your sentence in red is not true, just consider Mathemathics.

Your sentence in green I let slip by in order to simplify our communication!

When a claim is made its required by the forum rules to back it up,
so I expect you to present in here some of your evidence that life originated on Earth,

 

No we don't.

We strength them as leading theories by trying to falsify them.

No theory is ever proven*. It can always be falsified by the next piece of evidence. The theory of relativity could be falsified tomorrow. Then we would have to develop a new theory (or modify the old one) to account for the new data.

*Okay, maybe one: the atomic theory of matter. Safe to say that, with the advent of atomic microscopes, we've laid that one to rest.

Yes. Mathematical proofs are a thing unto themselves. They do not require observations from the real world (that's the diff between physics and math). In mathematics, one does establish mathematical proofs.

But the origin of life is not a mathematical construct. It is a physical construct. And therefore falls under physics, not math.


We can argue semantics all day. When all is said and done, especially about something that occurred billions of years in the past, there is only evidence, and models that attempt to rationalize that evidence. If you have a model that matches our current evidence better than the mainstream one we have, then you're off to a good start.

I would need to back it up if it were in contention in the scientific community. Being that it is the mainstream model of life, the onus is not on me to demonstrate it. Rather, the onus is on you to be reasonably read up in the field before challenging it.

The fact that we are in the Alt Theories forum is because what you are proposing goes against current understanding.

 

So you HAVE no evidence!? Just as I thought!

I find your understanding of science medieval, please brush it up :http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper

I dont think I have proposed a theory (yet)... What I claim is that there is no evidence that the origin of Earthly life was on Earth

If YOU cant present convincing evidence perhaps someone else can?

Unless this so called "preponderance of evidence" is made probable

by demonstrating at least ONE convincing example I consider my claim to be proven true!

 

You have an obligation to know what you're talking about before challenging it. It is not my job to educate you on mainstream understanding. Start with Wiki.

Your logic is irrefutable. I am humbled by your prowess.

 

Early life is found on Earth.

Several plausible routes to the origin of life have been proposed for a Terrestrial origin. These are consistent with what is known of the Hadean and early Archaen times.

Interplanetary debris contains abundant evidence of pre-biotic chemistry, but no established evidence of biological constructs or activity.

 

True.

Plausibility is not the same as evidence! There have been many suggestions: from the pool of Darwin to the Smokers at the transatlantic ridge...

Would you refere to them otherwise?

Also reported from clouds of dust in the process of forming stellar systems...
It IS evidence of some kind, but it remains to decide what it is evidence FOR!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Such evidence WOULD strenghten my thesis!

Well then, first I must thank you for your honest attempt to refute my thesis!

Then I suggest that the proposals were NOT attempts to prove that the origin of life necessarily is on planets,
I think what was searched for is the conditions for life to occur!
And unconsciously researchers assume that only planets may have such conditions.
Its possibly so... but: Where is the evidence?

 

I repeat, the existence of ealy life on Earth is evidence that life originated on Earth. Evidence, as you well know, is not the same as proof. Evidence is an observation that is consistent with a particualr model or hypothesis. Therefore finding early life on Earth and not finding it in, for example, meteorites is evidence that life originated on Earth.

I do not need to proceed further than this, though my other two examples can also be defended. I have presented you with an instance that disproves your claim that "there is no evidence that the origin of Earthly life was on Earth."

I, for a variety of reasons, am sympathetic to pan spermia in general and the origin of life in dust and gas clouds specifically. The opportunity to persaude people to consider this possibility is greatly weakened when someone, like yourself, promotes the idea and simultaneously makes unwarranted claims of the type I have just dismissed here. If you cannot be objective in your presentation of the facts you will rightly be ignored.

 

Aha! Well then: I shouldnt for the sake of communication have accepted "evidence" as approximately the same as "scientific proof!".

What a useless concept! No amount of evidence for x assures us that x is true!
Evidence for x means only that x is possible! Do I understand the concept of "evidence" correctly now?
Will no english court of justice condemn the accused of a crime only because there is evidence that he did the crime?
Maybe english has a lot of nuances im not aware of, say: Is a claim warranted if evidence for it is given?

Reformulation of the thesis: "There is yet no scientific proof that the origin of any planetary life was on any planet"

Sometimes one should try the strategy of asking questions:

1 Since even the founder of the pan spermi hypothesis assumed that the life on Earth originated on some other planet,
shouldnt a new name be given to theories that claim that the necessary conditions for life is rarely found on planets?

2 Are there areas within a dustcloud becoming a stellar system where the conditions are acceptable for producing life?

3 Does not such a cloud originally consist lots of frozen water among other things?

4 Will not,somehow, most frozen ice get covered by pre biotic substances?

5 Are there not relatively large, compared to planets, volumes where temperature and pressure are sufficient to melt water?

6 will that water form "drops" containg the molecules previously on the frozen surfaces.

7 Is it probable that radiation will effect the molecules in the water drops?

8 will this volume contain many drops for a long time?

9 Is it possible that autocatalysis, radiation and self organisation will produce more complex molecules within the drops?

10 Is this a description of a possible situation for an origin on life?

11 If so can this situation occur on any planet?

 

They are completely different things, therefore you are correct - you should not have accepted that they were approximately the same. When there is extensive and varied evidence for something, validated in many ways, under varied conditions, by several researchers then we may have what you call scientific proof. However, that is a long way from an item or two of evidence.

sigurd, that is basic science methodology. We never have an absolute assurance of any scientific hypothesis or theory. A single contrary observation could overturn/negate/falsify any theory. Some have been so thoroughly confirmed that it is thought highly improbable that such an observation will arise, but science is always open to the possibility that it might.

You think it is an absurd concept. Science has delivered its advances because the practitioners of science do not think it is absurd.

If you are looking for assurances try creationism.

The Law and Science are two different fields. Comparison between the two is generally unproductive.

Yes, it is warranted. That means it is reasonable to make the claim. It does not mean the claim is right it means that there is some reason to believe the claim may be right. There is some evidence the claim is right.

Fine. I was objecting to your earlier form which I now understand was a consequence of your misunderstanding of the meaning of evidence in this context.

Irrelevant. Together these make the unwarranted, implied assumption that life can originate in only one way in only one set of environmental conditions.