NASA Finds New Life Form...

Off Topic
61

A one in a million chance isn’t that terrible of odds if you have 10 million chances. Ditto for life, even intelligent life, on another planet. The notion that there are greater odds (given the number of special events needed to create intelligent life on OUR planet in OUR solar system) against life forming than for it seems to take a hit in light of this new data on what can actually end up creating life.

I would also point out there (get ready for Logic 101) are two forms of logic: deductive and inductive. EVERYTHING outside of mathematics and problems that can be solved PURELY by logic are by definition inductive and technically “unprovable”. The fact that conclusions brought about by inductive reasoning (i.e. science) are technically “unprovable” does not mean that all assumptions and theories are equally logical.

If a theory has both Occam’s Razor and a mountain of evidence (which could admittedly be invalidated but is the best we have at present) it is a far more “logical” theory than one that has neither of those two things.

As an example, if instead of gravity I propose the reason things fall to the ground is because there are millions of invisible hobgoblins that hate physical objects push them down when they try to rise would you think this is just as reasonable an assumption as that of gravity as physics describes it today? Technically neither one is “provable” but I think it is clear one of these two is much more logical an assumption than the other.

I am going to put words in his mouth but it sounds like this is basically what scj119 is trying to say.

62

[quote]kilpaba wrote:
A one in a million chance isn’t that terrible of odds if you have 10 million chances. Ditto for life, even intelligent life, on another planet. The notion that there are greater odds (given the number of special events needed to create intelligent life on OUR planet in OUR solar system) against life forming than for it seems to take a hit in light of this new data on what can actually end up creating life.

I would also point out there (get ready for Logic 101) are two forms of logic: deductive and inductive. EVERYTHING outside of mathematics and problems that can be solved PURELY by logic are by definition inductive and technically “unprovable”. The fact that conclusions brought about by inductive reasoning (i.e. science) are technically “unprovable” does not mean that all assumptions and theories are equally logical.

If a theory has both Occam’s Razor and a mountain of evidence (which could admittedly be invalidated but is the best we have at present) it is a far more “logical” theory than one that has neither of those two things.

As an example, if instead of gravity I propose the reason things fall to the ground is because there are millions of invisible hobgoblins that hate physical objects push them down when they try to rise would you think this is just as reasonable an assumption as that of gravity as physics describes it today? Technically neither one is “provable” but I think it is clear one of these two is much more logical an assumption than the other.

I am going to put words in his mouth but it sounds like this is basically what scj119 is trying to say.[/quote]

Hobgoblins? … I’m listening.

V

63

[quote]kilpaba wrote:
A one in a million chance isn’t that terrible of odds if you have 10 million chances. Ditto for life, even intelligent life, on another planet. The notion that there are greater odds (given the number of special events needed to create intelligent life on OUR planet in OUR solar system) against life forming than for it seems to take a hit in light of this new data on what can actually end up creating life.

I would also point out there (get ready for Logic 101) are two forms of logic: deductive and inductive. EVERYTHING outside of mathematics and problems that can be solved PURELY by logic are by definition inductive and technically “unprovable”. The fact that conclusions brought about by inductive reasoning (i.e. science) are technically “unprovable” does not mean that all assumptions and theories are equally logical.

If a theory has both Occam’s Razor and a mountain of evidence (which could admittedly be invalidated but is the best we have at present) it is a far more “logical” theory than one that has neither of those two things.

As an example, if instead of gravity I propose the reason things fall to the ground is because there are millions of invisible hobgoblins that hate physical objects push them down when they try to rise would you think this is just as reasonable an assumption as that of gravity as physics describes it today? Technically neither one is “provable” but I think it is clear one of these two is much more logical an assumption than the other.

I am going to put words in his mouth but it sounds like this is basically what scj119 is trying to say.[/quote]

It’s more than just common sense. My paragraphs of posting boil down to two points that are both logical arguments.

  1. The fact there is life on Earth proves life is possible
  2. Given that life is possible, and that there are an infinite number of places it can try to exist, it exists elsewhere.

The ONLY way that logic somehow doesn’t hold up is if our Sun is somehow different from all the other stars of the universe (I’m using the Sun, not the Earth, as a comparison because it is the central point of our solar system, and really, the whole solar system comes into play when describing how Earth became Earth). There is simply no reason to believe our Sun is different, IMO this is where the burden of proof lies for those who think there’s no other life.

The logic I presented is far closer to a logical proof than anything that can be offered by the side of people who thinks there is no life. They would have to prove that the Sun is most likely the only one of its type in the universe, and there’s no reason to think so.

DISCLAIMER: This is UNLESS we are talking about intelligent design or God. I’m strictly speaking science and logic.

64

[quote]scj119 wrote:

Take any probability equation. It does not matter HOW small you make the chances of success – when the number of trials approaches infinite, so does the number of successes.

Has this thread been hijacked enough?
[/quote]

So, if I live forever I’ll eventually be able to bench 5,000 lbs. raw? Sweet. No limits baby!

I agree on the second question. Yes, to the original point arsenicophiles (made that word up) are awesome.

65

[quote]scj119 wrote:

  1. Given that life is possible, and that there are an infinite number of places it can try to exist, it exists elsewhere.

[/quote]

I’ll like to talk with the statistician you have locked away in your room. You went from good odds to absolute certainty.

66

[quote]biglifter wrote:

[quote]scj119 wrote:

Take any probability equation. It does not matter HOW small you make the chances of success – when the number of trials approaches infinite, so does the number of successes.

Has this thread been hijacked enough?
[/quote]

So, if I live forever I’ll eventually be able to bench 5,000 lbs. raw? Sweet. No limits baby!

I agree on the second question. Yes, to the original point arsenicophiles (made that word up) are awesome. [/quote]

God you are dense. That is the worst analogy I’ve ever heard in my life.

It’s more like… if you tried to hit an ant on the sidewalk by throwing a rock from 30 feet away. If you did this an INFINITE NUMBER OF TIMES you would be successful an infinite number of times.

67

[quote]biglifter wrote:

[quote]scj119 wrote:

  1. Given that life is possible, and that there are an infinite number of places it can try to exist, it exists elsewhere.

[/quote]

I’ll like to talk with the statistician you have locked away in your room. You went from good odds to absolute certainty.

[/quote]

You are combining two separate points. The first time I made a GENERAL STATEMENT that any time you can’t prove something, I’ll believe in whichever side has the higher odds. And you combined that with a statement I made SPECIFIC TO THIS ARGUMENT that I believe there is a virtual certainty that life exists elsewhere.

68

[quote]scj119 wrote:

[quote]biglifter wrote:

[quote]scj119 wrote:

Take any probability equation. It does not matter HOW small you make the chances of success – when the number of trials approaches infinite, so does the number of successes.

Has this thread been hijacked enough?
[/quote]

So, if I live forever I’ll eventually be able to bench 5,000 lbs. raw? Sweet. No limits baby!

I agree on the second question. Yes, to the original point arsenicophiles (made that word up) are awesome. [/quote]

God you are dense. That is the worst analogy I’ve ever heard in my life.

It’s more like… if you tried to hit an ant on the sidewalk by throwing a rock from 30 feet away. If you did this an INFINITE NUMBER OF TIMES you would be successful an infinite number of times.
[/quote]

Yea and your genius is evident. Read your own words. There is chance, no matter how small with unlimited attempts. Universally applicable right? Somehow your pulling numbers out of your ass makes more sense than my over the top analogy. Again, you continue to prove my point. People get so fucking defensive and resort to grabbing at every straw to bolster their view. You bounce all over the place one minute saying neither side can be proven to yup, life has to be out there. I’m content to stay in the minority because I have no reason to think otherwise.

69

[quote]scj119 wrote:
I believe there is a virtual certainty that life exists elsewhere.[/quote]

That’s really all that needed to be said. Now, we are on the same page.

70

Essentially all you are arguing over is the frequentist interpretation of probability. Suppose the probability of some event is p. If I perform N trials and the event occurs T times then as I let N tend to infinity T/N tends to p.

Then the argument is that if p is non-zero the event must occur eventually. But since we are not talking about well-defined events here – the emergence of life is a process that we do not fully understand, and cannot quantify – this is in fact a subjective probability and we cannot apply this reasoning.

71

It should be pointed out, in fairness to both sides, that a non-zero possibility exists for both lots of life elsewhere and no life anywhere else. The question is which has the LARGER possibility of occurring given the data that we have currently. Current science and statistics would indicate there is a greater chance of other life than no other life. It is more reasonable given the evidence to assume something PROBABLY exists out there than to say that it is UNLIKELY anything else is out there.

72

[quote]Rational Gaze wrote:
Essentially all you are arguing over is the frequentist interpretation of probability. Suppose the probability of some event is p. If I perform N trials and the event occurs T times then as I let N tend to infinity T/N tends to p. Then the argument is that if p is non-zero the event must occur eventually. But since we are not talking about well-defined events here – the emergence of life is a process that we do not fully understand, and cannot quantify – this is in fact a subjective probability and we cannot apply this reasoning.[/quote]

Fucking right. We’re taking principles used within the confines of our well-defined existence here and trying to extrapolate them out to shit we haven’t even scratched the surface on understanding.

73

[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:
I read that the scientists took the bacteria from the bottom of the lake in question. Kept the bacteria, which were capable of USING arsenic to sustain life, in a lab in an environment of only arsenic. Over time the bacteria began to replace the phosphorus in their cell(s) with arsenic. Arsenic is one spot below phosphorus on the periodic table. Same number of valence electrons.

Its still a huge revelation in biology, but those arsenic based bacteria are not found in nature that way.

no sources find it yourself [/quote]

I watched about half of the press conference yesterday and this point was brought up. The scientist says the bacteria were grown first in the substrate where they are naturally found which is already high in arsenic and then had media added that contained only arsenic and without phosphorus/phosphate salts. I think the idea there being that they were already capable of metabolism using arsenic, but this proved that they could maintain metabolism on arsenic only in the absence of phosphates. She said the bacteria utilized arsenic regularly in it’s normal environment already and it wasn’t as if they induced arsenic metabolism in the lab.

Anyway, echoing earlier statements, this really changes the way we look at how life can exist. Environments don’t have to be like anything we’re familiar with to support life. This brings up things like silicon based life or environments where temperatures may not permit our type of biochemistry. I think the argument for life elsewhere is not only that there’s a lot of elsewhere out there, but also that elsewhere doesn’t have to be at all like here. That vastly increases the availability of environments that will support life.

It’s easy to see our particular existence as unique, and it certainly is, but that’s not to say there can’t be other unique existences out there. The life around us is built on the stacking of a few billion years of successful adaptations and events. But for all its complexity, it was built around something pretty simple a long time ago. I don’t think it’s out of the question that it could happen somewhere else.

I mean…

Just kidding. I don’t really see that part happening.

74

Returning to the original point, the discovery of a life form that metabolizes arsenic opens people’s eyes to something I’ve always wanted to be more broadly talked about – that just because life exists in a certain way here doesn’t mean it HAS to exist in the same way elsewhere. In other words – why say life can only exist on an earth-like planet just because that’s where we are? We adapted to our surroundings, why can’t it happen in somewhere that requires different adaptations?

Granted, the argument for looking for Earth-like planets is pretty sound: yeah, life may exist in other conditions, but we KNOW it CAN exist in these conditions, so by only looking for planets that mirror ours, we are removing a pretty big unkown (the unknown variable being whether it’s even possible for life to exist on the planet being examined).

This discovery opens up a lot, though…if it becomes verified by the scientific community, which as I understand is has NOT yet.

75

[quote]SSC wrote:

[quote]FlameofOsiris wrote:
I think it’s extremely shortsighted to say that there is no life on other planets. It’s like going into a forest, finding a stump with mushrooms growing on it, and then assuming that it’s the only stump that could sustain mushrooms. And really, how many other “stumps” have we checked? Two? Really, thoroughly checked? None. [/quote]

That’s a really, really bad analogy.

Basic biological and evolutionary history states that the human race and intelligent, sentient life itself is a relative anomoly and took a few strokes of luck for us to get this far.

We (people) wouldn’t likely be here had the asteroid effectively dismantling the dinosaur’s reign not hit us. I mean seriously, I couldn’t hang head-to-head with a Stegosaurus let alone anything else.

And let’s not dismiss the fact that the only reason the first lifeform ever left the water was because there was too much competition.

I’m advocating niether for the existence of aliens nor against it, but it’s also faulty thinking that “there could be aliens because there’s so many planets.” I’m fairly certain that this number may be off, but I read in article rather recently that there’s only two or three known planets wth similar compositions / distances to the sun / other compounding factors that would even have a chance for life. I feel like I may be skewing some kind of data so if anyone knows about what I’m talking about feel free to correct me.

EDIT: Okay, well fuck me. Just saw the thing on the page saying they could be harboring “hundreds” of Earths. But if it’s a dwarf star… does that mean there’s the same capacity for heat-driven life?[/quote]

Technically, the analogy would be fine if a forest had an infinite number of stumps. I think the fact that they don’t makes it even better. That’s regarding your first sentence. The rest of your post deals only with humans. No one ever said that there are human-like life forms elsewhere, although I do believe there are life forms as intelligent as ours, if not more so, somewhere. But yes, you’re right that a stump having fungus growing on it is far too likely to make it applicable.

Just to throw this out there, The Drake Equation, as of 2 years ago, predicts that there are 10,000 other planets with life on them. Just to be clear, life as we know it (I want to stress “as we know it,” because there are likely other ways) only requires oxygen, ammonia, methane and hydrogen, and this can be proven in a lab using the Miller-Urey Experiment, which essentially placed those elements in an environment, caused a type of spark (lightning-like), and formed 22 different amino acids, the precursors to protein. I think that’s fairly, amazing, in and of itself, and goes to show that life can form spontaneously.

Saying that the Earth has an infinitely small probability of being exactly how it is isn’t really valid to me. No one is saying that something exploded and created Earth exactly as you see it. THOSE odds would be extremely small, more than likely. It was a process that started with extremely simple organisms. The odds of all of us posting in this thread with the exact birthdays that we all have is 1/365 ^ However many people posted. But we all know it wasn’t some kind of fluke.

76

[quote]FlameofOsiris wrote:

[quote]SSC wrote:

[quote]FlameofOsiris wrote:
I think it’s extremely shortsighted to say that there is no life on other planets. It’s like going into a forest, finding a stump with mushrooms growing on it, and then assuming that it’s the only stump that could sustain mushrooms. And really, how many other “stumps” have we checked? Two? Really, thoroughly checked? None. [/quote]

That’s a really, really bad analogy.

Basic biological and evolutionary history states that the human race and intelligent, sentient life itself is a relative anomoly and took a few strokes of luck for us to get this far.

We (people) wouldn’t likely be here had the asteroid effectively dismantling the dinosaur’s reign not hit us. I mean seriously, I couldn’t hang head-to-head with a Stegosaurus let alone anything else.

And let’s not dismiss the fact that the only reason the first lifeform ever left the water was because there was too much competition.

I’m advocating niether for the existence of aliens nor against it, but it’s also faulty thinking that “there could be aliens because there’s so many planets.” I’m fairly certain that this number may be off, but I read in article rather recently that there’s only two or three known planets wth similar compositions / distances to the sun / other compounding factors that would even have a chance for life. I feel like I may be skewing some kind of data so if anyone knows about what I’m talking about feel free to correct me.

EDIT: Okay, well fuck me. Just saw the thing on the page saying they could be harboring “hundreds” of Earths. But if it’s a dwarf star… does that mean there’s the same capacity for heat-driven life?[/quote]

Technically, the analogy would be fine if a forest had an infinite number of stumps. I think the fact that they don’t makes it even better. That’s regarding your first sentence. The rest of your post deals only with humans. No one ever said that there are human-like life forms elsewhere, although I do believe there are life forms as intelligent as ours, if not more so, somewhere. But yes, you’re right that a stump having fungus growing on it is far too likely to make it applicable.

Just to throw this out there, The Drake Equation, as of 2 years ago, predicts that there are 10,000 other planets with life on them. Just to be clear, life as we know it (I want to stress “as we know it,” because there are likely other ways) only requires oxygen, ammonia, methane and hydrogen, and this can be proven in a lab using the Miller-Urey Experiment, which essentially placed those elements in an environment, caused a type of spark (lightning-like), and formed 22 different amino acids, the precursors to protein. I think that’s fairly, amazing, in and of itself, and goes to show that life can form spontaneously.

Saying that the Earth has an infinitely small probability of being exactly how it is isn’t really valid to me. No one is saying that something exploded and created Earth exactly as you see it. THOSE odds would be extremely small, more than likely. It was a process that started with extremely simple organisms. The odds of all of us posting in this thread with the exact birthdays that we all have is 1/365 ^ However many people posted. But we all know it wasn’t some kind of fluke.[/quote]

I was going to leave out the Miller-Urey experiment as people who don’t believe in extrasolar life tend to dismiss the creation of amino acids as something different than creating life. But since you brought it up, I’ll second it.

77

The Drake equation is only a tool to frame the discussion of the possibility of intelligent life on other planets. You can plug in estimates for the parameters to show that we’re alone in the universe, or that there are thousands of alien civilisations. This is subjective probability, and although I believe that extraterrestrial life exists, I think it’s disingenuous to claim otherwise.

78

[quote]Rational Gaze wrote:
The Drake equation is only a tool to frame the discussion of the possibility of intelligent life on other planets. You can plug in estimates for the parameters to show that we’re alone in the universe, or that there are thousands of alien civilisations. This is subjective probability, and although I believe that extraterrestrial life exists, I think it’s disingenuous to claim otherwise.[/quote]

Agreed. I think it’s interesting and worth bringing up, though.

79

[quote]CubanMeat32 wrote:

[quote]biglifter wrote:
Kinda awesome. I still don’t believe any life exists beyond our planet. [/quote]

as far as we know the universe is infinite, and the telescopes we have, can only look so far, the chances of another solar system existing, in a distance far away from us ,that technology will never give us the possiblility of seeing probably may exist. They even found another planet recently that is roughly just as far from its sun as earth is, that most likely has water, where there is water, there is most likely life, i think the possibility of this is to high for me to personally believe that. It doesnt have to be little green men martians it can be microbial life, to think a piece of microbial life does not exist anywhere in the unknown universe is probably a stretch to say.[/quote]

Sounds reasonable. I proudly stake my claim to the minority

80

[quote]kilpaba wrote:
It should be pointed out, in fairness to both sides, that a non-zero possibility exists for both lots of life elsewhere and no life anywhere else. The question is which has the LARGER possibility of occurring given the data that we have currently. Current science and statistics would indicate there is a greater chance of other life than no other life. It is more reasonable given the evidence to assume something PROBABLY exists out there than to say that it is UNLIKELY anything else is out there. [/quote]

I love T-Nation!

Where else could I find a wonderful written erudite paragraph like that from a guy (if that’s you in your avatar) that looks like that?!