"Humanity within 10 years of finding life elsewhere in the universe"

RSS
Email

0 Kudo

Author	Comment
Il Principe II	"Humanity within 10 years of finding life elsewhere in the universe"	Lead	[-]
Posts: 3912 (04/23/09 12:45:19) Antfucker Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Tags : None http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2009-04/uod-mes042109.php Will he be right? There is ice just underneath the surface of Mars. But for all we know the ice is 3 miles thick, you need quite the machine to drill through that. And would life be as omnipresent as they think it is? Isn't life just an anomaly? Our 'building blocks' don't live when you examine them individually. Only in a certain combination they 'live', maybe we are a strange mutation from the universal norm. Still, only one way to find out, and that is to go there. But then again, I find our efforts to explore our solar system still pretty underwhelming. I'd have expected them to send more Marslanders, they always told me it is bad to bet on just one horse.
Philosophaster		#1	[-]
Posts: 1108 (04/23/09 12:51:43) Wanderer Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	It's a nice prospect, but it doesn't seem like there's any particular reason to hope for it beyond, "Well, Mars has some liquid water and some nutrients." As far as I know, Mars has never had the sort of conditions that were conducive to the formation of life on Earth. That's not to rule out that life could have formed there in some other way, of course. I don't think that Earth's lifeforms are the last word on biological possibilities. But I think that we're more likely to discover lifeforms on planets with thicker atmospheres, large liquid oceans, and less extreme environments. Last Edited By: Philosophaster 04/23/09 12:54:07. Edited 2 times.
dyctiostelium		#2	[-]
Posts: 13 (04/23/09 13:16:13) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Why liquid oceans? Why less extreme environments? There is a bias towards looking for life as we know it , but I don´t think there is really a good justification to it. It even takes us a while to recognize life in this planet when not expecting it.
Philosophaster		#3	[-]
Posts: 1108 (04/23/09 13:20:11) Wanderer Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	You're right, extreme environments might not be a barrier to the formation of life. But it does seem to me that life would be less likely to form in an essentially static environment like Mars, which is why I listed "liquid oceans."
Il Principe II		#4	[-]
Posts: 3912 (04/23/09 13:27:24) Antfucker Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	dyctiostelium wrote: Why liquid oceans? Why less extreme environments? There is a bias towards looking for life as we know it , but I don´t think there is really a good justification to it. It even takes us a while to recognize life in this planet when not expecting it. Well yeah, for all we know there are sentient gas clouds. But we got nothing else to look for but life similar to that on Earth. If there are examples on Earth of life where and when we never expected it, then a small robot isn't going to uncover radically different lifeforms. We can only hope there is a familiar sign of life, I'm afraid we won't recongnize anything else.
Naturyl		#5	[-]
Posts: 11874 (04/23/09 19:07:24) Ozymandias Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	I think we need to be looking for life in really novel ways. KIR Discussion Forums - Religion, Philosophy, Science, Skepticism, Society, Culture, and Community.
dyctiostelium		#6	[-]
Posts: 13 (04/23/09 20:09:51) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Our 'building blocks' don't live when you examine them individually. Whadda ya mean by that?
Il Principe II		#7	[-]
Posts: 3912 (04/23/09 22:14:18) Antfucker Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	dyctiostelium wrote: Our 'building blocks' don't live when you examine them individually. Whadda ya mean by that? Take any piece of a human, no matter how big or small, without the rest of the human being it does not live. Or any other creature for that matter. To discuss life, humans are too compelx as examples. The origins of life are shrouded in mystery, but something caused those first cells to split, at the top of our evolutionary tree. Maybe that what has caused it could only happen on Earth and all we can find on Mars are building blocks that miss the 'spark' to live.
Philosophaster		#8	[-]
Posts: 1108 (04/23/09 22:16:14) Wanderer Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Il Principe II wrote: Take any piece of a human, no matter how big or small, without the rest of the human being it does not live. Or any other creature for that matter. You can cut some worms in half and get two worms.
dyctiostelium		#9	[-]
Posts: 13 (04/24/09 21:25:52) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Il Principe II wrote: Take any piece of a human, no matter how big or small, without the rest of the human being it does not live. Or any other creature for that matter. To discuss life, humans are too compelx as examples. The origins of life are shrouded in mystery, but something caused those first cells to split, at the top of our evolutionary tree. Maybe that what has caused it could only happen on Earth and all we can find on Mars are building blocks that miss the 'spark' to live. Ok, I take any piece of a bacterium and yes, without the rest of the bacterium it does not live. So far so good. But the origins of life are not really too shrouded in mystery anymore. Cells splitting at the top of the evolutionary tree? You mean divergence between eubacteria, archea and eucarya? Then the something was natural selection, of course. Unless you're getting Aristotelian on top of Earthcentric here, and are saying that only the Earth's nonliving material contains pneuma...
Il Principe II		#10	[-]
Posts: 3912 (04/24/09 23:27:27) Antfucker Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	dyctiostelium wrote: Il Principe II wrote: Take any piece of a human, no matter how big or small, without the rest of the human being it does not live. Or any other creature for that matter. To discuss life, humans are too compelx as examples. The origins of life are shrouded in mystery, but something caused those first cells to split, at the top of our evolutionary tree. Maybe that what has caused it could only happen on Earth and all we can find on Mars are building blocks that miss the 'spark' to live. Ok, I take any piece of a bacterium and yes, without the rest of the bacterium it does not live. So far so good. But the origins of life are not really too shrouded in mystery anymore. Cells splitting at the top of the evolutionary tree? You mean divergence between eubacteria, archea and eucarya? Then the something was natural selection, of course. Unless you're getting Aristotelian on top of Earthcentric here, and are saying that only the Earth's nonliving material contains pneuma... You make a valid point. I am aware of the theory that the origins of life came from outside Earth and must say that some variants of the theory are very likely. However, the one that credits Mars as being the father of life on Earth somewhat puzzles me. It could have been any object in the Kuiper belt really. Natural selection is a good something, but I think it is evident that conditions on any planet must be favorable in order for any primitive life form to survive, or develop. But then again, most likely Mars was host to a favorable atmosphere at that time (or 'shortly' after), so Earth as well as Mars could have been viable places to let life develop. I'm not entirely Earthcentric here, part of it is being the devil's advocate.
Naturyl		#11	[-]
Posts: 11874 (04/25/09 00:07:43) Ozymandias Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Natural selection is a good something, but I think it is evident that conditions on any planet must be favorable in order for any primitive life form to survive, or develop. Is it? I don't mean to bust your chops here, but how is that "evident?" Personally, I think we have nowhere near enough evidence to say anything. Life could be swirling around everywhere, for all we know. We just don't have enough data to draw and real conclusions yet, IMO. KIR Discussion Forums - Religion, Philosophy, Science, Skepticism, Society, Culture, and Community.
Il Principe II		#12	[-]
Posts: 3912 (04/25/09 13:29:10) Antfucker Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Naturyl wrote: Natural selection is a good something, but I think it is evident that conditions on any planet must be favorable in order for any primitive life form to survive, or develop. Is it? I don't mean to bust your chops here, but how is that "evident?" Personally, I think we have nowhere near enough evidence to say anything. Life could be swirling around everywhere, for all we know. We just don't have enough data to draw and real conclusions yet, IMO. If a meteor with a carbon-based lifeform crashes into a planet that is outright hostile to any carbon-based lifeform, then the primitive lifeforms riding on that meteor have little chance to survive. While I have no evidence to prove that there is a lifeform that can survive in any condition, I believe that to be unlikely. It would be awesome if it existed, because if we could find that one common ancestor that can let life develop on even the most barren places, it would be a great thing to play around with, to see what becomes of life if you let it develop in a 'controlled environment'.
hmcclungiii		#13	[-]
Posts: 429 (05/17/09 05:42:33) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Philosophaster wrote: Il Principe II wrote: Take any piece of a human, no matter how big or small, without the rest of the human being it does not live. Or any other creature for that matter. You can cut some worms in half and get two worms. That's not actually true.
hmcclungiii		#14	[-]
Posts: 429 (05/17/09 05:48:44) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Naturyl wrote: Natural selection is a good something, but I think it is evident that conditions on any planet must be favorable in order for any primitive life form to survive, or develop. Is it? I don't mean to bust your chops here, but how is that "evident?" Personally, I think we have nowhere near enough evidence to say anything. Life could be swirling around everywhere, for all we know. We just don't have enough data to draw and real conclusions yet, IMO. And will we ever? Not until humanity gets the thought that it is so important out of its proverbial head.
hmcclungiii		#15	[-]
Posts: 429 (05/17/09 05:51:31) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Il Principe II wrote: Naturyl wrote: Natural selection is a good something, but I think it is evident that conditions on any planet must be favorable in order for any primitive life form to survive, or develop. Is it? I don't mean to bust your chops here, but how is that "evident?" Personally, I think we have nowhere near enough evidence to say anything. Life could be swirling around everywhere, for all we know. We just don't have enough data to draw and real conclusions yet, IMO. If a meteor with a carbon-based lifeform crashes into a planet that is outright hostile to any carbon-based lifeform, then the primitive lifeforms riding on that meteor have little chance to survive. While I have no evidence to prove that there is a lifeform that can survive in any condition, I believe that to be unlikely. It would be awesome if it existed, because if we could find that one common ancestor that can let life develop on even the most barren places, it would be a great thing to play around with, to see what becomes of life if you let it develop in a 'controlled environment'. Why does "life" have to be carbon based? That is another one of those egocentric constructs created by humanity biased by the lifeforms of the Earth.
Philosophaster		#16	[-]
Posts: 1108 (05/17/09 10:00:59) Wanderer Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	hmcclungiii wrote: Philosophaster wrote: Il Principe II wrote: Take any piece of a human, no matter how big or small, without the rest of the human being it does not live. Or any other creature for that matter. You can cut some worms in half and get two worms. That's not actually true. Yeah it is. You can't do this with earthworms, which is a common misconception, but some flatworms (planarians) can be cut in half and become two living individuals. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planarian Last Edited By: Philosophaster 05/17/09 10:03:34. Edited 2 times.
Il Principe II		#17	[-]
Posts: 3912 (05/17/09 10:21:15) Antfucker Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	hmcclungiii wrote: Il Principe II wrote: Naturyl wrote: Natural selection is a good something, but I think it is evident that conditions on any planet must be favorable in order for any primitive life form to survive, or develop. Is it? I don't mean to bust your chops here, but how is that "evident?" Personally, I think we have nowhere near enough evidence to say anything. Life could be swirling around everywhere, for all we know. We just don't have enough data to draw and real conclusions yet, IMO. If a meteor with a carbon-based lifeform crashes into a planet that is outright hostile to any carbon-based lifeform, then the primitive lifeforms riding on that meteor have little chance to survive. While I have no evidence to prove that there is a lifeform that can survive in any condition, I believe that to be unlikely. It would be awesome if it existed, because if we could find that one common ancestor that can let life develop on even the most barren places, it would be a great thing to play around with, to see what becomes of life if you let it develop in a 'controlled environment'. Why does "life" have to be carbon based? That is another one of those egocentric constructs created by humanity biased by the lifeforms of the Earth. I never said it had to be. It was just an example. Could as well be <insert any element here> based.
hmcclungiii		#18	[-]
Posts: 429 (05/18/09 13:35:57) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Philosophaster wrote: hmcclungiii wrote: Philosophaster wrote: Il Principe II wrote: Take any piece of a human, no matter how big or small, without the rest of the human being it does not live. Or any other creature for that matter. You can cut some worms in half and get two worms. That's not actually true. Yeah it is. You can't do this with earthworms, which is a common misconception, but some flatworms (planarians) can be cut in half and become two living individuals. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planarian Your right. For some reason, whenever someone mentions cutting a worm in half to get two worms I immediately conjure the image of an earthworm. Probably because I've heard so many people make this claim.
hmcclungiii		#19	[-]
Posts: 429 (05/18/09 13:43:39) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	If a meteor with a carbon-based lifeform crashes into a planet that is outright hostile to any carbon-based lifeform, then the primitive lifeforms riding on that meteor have little chance to survive. This is what we've all been taught, that life must be "carbon-based", like us. Which is why thats the first thing to come out. We have absolutely no idea what life based on any other element might be like. While I have no evidence to prove that there is a lifeform that can survive in any condition, I believe that to be unlikely. Your definition of lifeform is implied by your statement of "carbon based" above. Conditions that are extremely hostile to a carbon based form might be quite suitable for a life form based on another element. It would be awesome if it existed, because if we could find that one common ancestor that can let life develop on even the most barren places, it would be a great thing to play around with, to see what becomes of life if you let it develop in a 'controlled environment'. Do you believe that there must be a common ancestor of the primordial soup?
Strange Loops		#20	[-]
Posts: 126 (05/19/09 09:22:38) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Don't discount how well carbon-based lifeforms can handle extreme environments too, though. Water bears can handle near absolute zero temps, survive in space, go 10 years without water, and handle pretty high heat too. Other organisms here on Earth can handle crazy heat, and some are really resistant to radiation. Given the right environmental pressures, it's not impossible to imagine a pretty resiliant creature rocking an "inhospitable" planet, even if it's carbon-based. And like others said, we can't assume other bases for life aren't possible or even more common. Edit: I just realized that dyctio had covered extremophiles earlier, and I'd forgotten that post. My bad "Nothing can hold you back - not your childhood, not the history of a lifetime, not even the very last moment before now. In a moment you can abandon your past. And once abandoned, you can redefine it. If the past was a ring of futility, let it become a wheel of yearning that drives you forward. If the past was a brick wall, let it become a dam to unleash your power. The very first step of change is so powerful, the boundaries of time fall aside. In one bittersweet moment, the sting of the past is dissolved and its honey salvaged." --Tzvi Freeman Visit www.strange-loops.com/blog/ for science, philosophy, politics and naked pictures of your mom. Last Edited By: Strange Loops 05/19/09 09:27:34. Edited 1 times.

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Yuku free message boards

"Humanity within 10 years of finding life elsewhere in the universe"

"Humanity within 10 years of finding life elsewhere in the universe"

Quick Reply