Anti-Evolution Theories?

[Dinosaur]

From Origin Post 73

If we were to find evidence that life exists or existed on mars or moon of Jupiter then I would tend to think life is common in the universe.

That sounds like you expect life to be extremely rare.

Why require life to exist in such places in order to be common in the universe? There are a lot of places more suitable than those two. In our solar system there is good reason to not expect life other than on Earth.

BTW: Are you referring to any type of life or life capable of producing a technological culture? There is a vast difference in the likely hood of those two possibilities.

 

[origin]

From Origin Post 73That sounds like you expect life to be extremely rare.

It is not that I expect it to be rare, the point is we only have evidence of life on 1 planet.

It is possible we are the only life that exists in the galaxy. We do not know what conditions result in life, it could be that it is so difficult to get those conditions that we are a one off fluke.

I do not thinks this is the case but there is no evidence to the contrary.

Why require life to exist in such places in order to be common in the universe? There are a lot of places more suitable than those two. In our solar system there is good reason to not expect life other than on Earth.

Based on our current technology and our current understanding of physics we will not travel to the stars any time in the foreseeable future, so this solar system is the only opportunity to determine if n > 1.

BTW: Are you referring to any type of life or life capable of producing a technological culture? There is a vast difference in the likely hood of those two possibilities.

Any life no matter how primitive is what I am referring to.

The universe is incredibly hostile to life. The only known place that life can exist is in an exceedingly thin shell on a single planet.

 

[DaveC426913]

Based on our current technology and our current understanding of physics we will not travel to the stars any time in the foreseeable future, so this solar system is the only opportunity to determine if n > 1.

Er. We don't have to actually travel to the stars to identify life elsewhere.

 

[origin]

Er. We don't have to actually travel to the stars to identify life elsewhere.

Sure if we get a 'phone call' from an alien that would do it. Are you alluding to something else?

 

[spidergoat]

You can analyze the composition of light to detect chemicals that indicate the possible presence of life.

 

[DaveC426913]

You can analyze the composition of light to detect chemicals that indicate the possible presence of life.

Amongst several other possibilities (granted, of decreasing likelihood).

 

[origin]

You can analyze the composition of light to detect chemicals that indicate the possible presence of life.

From what I have read, in the future we will be able to infer that there may be life on a planet by spectrographic analysis of the atmosphere.

 

[TheFrogger]

Probability?

1÷2=0.5

Half!

1÷2÷4=0.125

This is if we are the first, which we are not. However,

n÷2n÷4n=2

Not one.

 

[DaveC426913]

Probability?

1÷2=0.5

Half!

1÷2÷4=0.125

What do these numbers and formulae mean?
1 what? 2 what? Why divide them? 4 what?

This is if we are the first, which we are not. However

n÷2n÷4n=2

Not one.

Your answer here is incorrect.

That is an exponential function:
For n=0.1, the result is 1.25 (.1÷.2÷.4).
For n=1, the result is .125 (1÷2÷4).
For n=2, the result is .0625 (2÷4÷8),
For n=10, the result is .0125 (10÷20÷40).

 

[Write4U]

The universe is incredibly hostile to life. The only known place that life can exist is in an exceedingly thin shell on a single planet.

The common mistake is that people compare the Universe with stars and planets.
Yes, the universal expanse cannot support life, it has no properties that can support free existing life.

But a star is a source of energy, warmth and planets have chemical compositions. As Robert Hazen clearly demonstrated any planet that even remotely resembles the earth, most likely will evolve a form of life, eventually..

start watching at 25:10

 

[origin]

The common mistake is that people compare the Universe with stars and planets..

I don't think that is a common mistake, I don't think I have ever heard of anyone making that mistake

.

But a star is a source of energy, warmth and planets have chemical compositions. As Robert Hazen clearly demonstrated any planet that even remotely resembles the earth, most likely will evolve a form of life, eventually.

A common mistake people make is going to YouTube and finding silly videos to support there hopes.

 

[Write4U]

I don't think that is a common mistake, I don't think I have ever heard of anyone making that mistake

.
A common mistake people make is going to YouTube and finding silly videos to support there hopes.

Well obviously you are not familiar with Robert Hazen. I would suggest you watch the presentation he gave at the Carnegie Institute for Science, after a long introduction which lists his credentials. That's why I suggested to start the video at 25:10.

It's you who looks stupid making silly comments about respected scientists. Count yourself lucky that occasionally YouTube does present some very interesting videos. You can also find trash books in any library. Are libraries silly sources for seeking information?

 

[origin]

Well obviously you are not familiar with Robert Hazen. I would suggest you watch the presentation he gave at the Carnegie Institute for Science, after a long introduction which lists his credentials.

Oh my God he has a long list of credentials? Well then, I guess we now know that Mars and Venus both developed life.

 

[Write4U]

Oh my God he has a long list of credentials? Well then, I guess we now know that Mars and Venus both developed life.

No one made such a claim. Watch the clip! Jeeeez.....

 

[origin]

No one made such a claim.

Really?

any planet that even remotely resembles the earth, most likely will evolve a form of life, eventually.

Bye.

Watch the clip!

Nah.

 

[Write4U]

origin said: Oh my God he has a long list of credentials? Well then, I guess we now know that Mars and Venus both developed life.

Write4U said: No one made such a claim.
Origin said: Really?

W4U said: any planet that even remotely resembles the earth, most likely will evolve a form of life, eventually.
Origin said: Bye.

W4U said: Watch the clip!
Origin said: Nah.

Where did anyone say ; "we know that Mars and Venus both developed life".

Don't misquote me or try to misdirect a statement I made. It's not honest.

And not watching the clip will be your loss of some very interesting aspects of bio-chemistry, as all who have watched it will attest to.

 

[Write4U]

origin said:
The universe is incredibly hostile to life. The only known place that life can exist is in an exceedingly thin shell on a single planet.

Write4U said: ↑
The common mistake is that people compare the Universe with stars and planets.

.

I don't think that is a common mistake, I don't think I have ever heard of anyone making that mistake

Then you would not say that the universe is incredibly hostile to life. Again, the Universe (space) is hostile to life, but as soon as there is a source of energy and a planet with somewhat similar chemical makeup as the earth, you know like hydrogen, oxygen, carbon, rocks, stuff like that, yes, it is likely that life exists elsewhere in the universe.

In fact we already have completely alien non-photosynthetic, sulfur based alien life forms right here on earth.

Life in the Abyss
If there is a harsher place to live than a hydrothermal vent, it hasn't been found yet. Pitch darkness, poison gas, heavy metals, extreme acidity, enormous pressure, water at turns frigid and searing—this seafloor environment seems more like something from deep space than from our own deep sea.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/nature/life-in-the-abyss.html

But I'm sure you consider NOVA as just another silly program.

 

[origin]

.

Then you would not say that the universe is incredibly hostile to life. Again, the Universe (space) is hostile to life, but as soon as there is a source of energy and a planet with somewhat similar chemical makeup as the earth, you know like hydrogen, oxygen, carbon, rocks, stuff like that, yes, it is likely that life exists elsewhere in the universe.

In fact we already have completely alien non-photosynthetic, sulfur based alien life forms right here on earth.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/nature/life-in-the-abyss.html

But I'm sure you consider NOVA as just another silly program.

Have good day.

 

[Write4U]

Have good day.

Oh thank you, I shall. Today I am going to do some research on "chemosynthesis".

 

[DaveC426913]

.
yes, it is likely that life exists elsewhere in the universe.

No, this does not follow. We have one example. That is no sufficient to establish a probability.

.In fact we already have completely alien non-photosynthetic, sulfur based alien life forms right here on earth.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/nature/life-in-the-abyss.html

To be clear, they are not alien. True, they do not employ photosynthesis, but they are still related to all other life on Earth. They still use the same ol' DNA.

.
If there is a harsher place to live than a hydrothermal vent, it hasn't been found yet. Pitch darkness, poison gas, heavy metals, extreme acidity, enormous pressure, water at turns frigid and searing—this seafloor environment seems more like something from deep space than from our own deep sea.

This is a pretty humanocentric scare story.

Darkness isn't hostile to many forms of life. In fact, it's an advantage to many.
Poison is relative to the particular metabolism.
Pressure is only an issue for organisms with heterogeneous components, such as lungs and sinuses. Entirely fluid creatures (such as fish) often have no problem with pressure.
etc.