Kepler space telescope spots five Earth-sized planets in our galaxy

[farmkid]

Re: Kepler space telescope spots five Earth-sized planets in our galax

Who says the second genesis must have survived to this day, or even left a fossil/evolutionary record? It is possible that life began 5, 20, 2,000 times, but only one took long-term hold. In the volatile early solar system, and the volatile early Earth, it is certainly possible that multiple genesi (genesisieses?) were snuffed out by local catastrophe before they had a chance to expand. What's the likelihood of any evidence of these surviving?

I think it more likely that once life arose, the presence of that life prevented further genesis events. The first form of life that began to become plentiful would have metabolized the chemicals in the environment necessary for further genesis events, thereby preventing other genesis events. There may have been numerous events happening in parallel in the beginning, but once one of those became moderately successful, it would have overwhelmed the others and depleted the environment of the initial building blocks.

 

[ProtoAvatar]

Re: Kepler space telescope spots five Earth-sized planets in our galax

^Maybe the current tree of life is crowding out any others preventing them from getting a foothold?

Evolution doesn't work like this.
If it did, Earth would be inhabited by a single species that outcrowded all others.
But Earth is inhabited by innumerable species - from the simplest ones to the most complex ones, coexisting. This is possible because present species don't 'outcrowd' the new species that emerge by evolution, because complex life doesn't eliminate simpler life.

And a new tree of life would interact little with the already present one - due to different biochemistries, etc.
If anything, the presence of life should encourage the apparition of another tree of life by creating a wide variety of organic coumpounds, an environment much richer in the building blocks of life.

PS
farmkid
What I just said.

 

[farmkid]

Re: Kepler space telescope spots five Earth-sized planets in our galax

farmkid
What I just said.

Um, no. You keep arguing that the same conditions exist now that existed when life first arose. That assumption is where you go wrong. The same conditions do not exist now and haven't for billions of years. Once the first forms of life became plentiful, those conditions were gone forever.

You (or at least I think it was you, it doesn't really matter) mentioned something about a puddle full of amino acids next to a volcano. Before life began, that puddle would have been sterile, and it could have sat there for 1000s of years (okay, let's assume its a small pond, not a puddle) before the right molecules came in contact with each other and began to form something that might be considered life. Now, that puddle is not even close to sterile. It is filled with organisms that will gobble up any sugars, amino acids, whatever else is necessary for the creation of self-replicating molecules. Those molecules won't even see sunset that day, let alone be around long enough to do something. Even if some molecules did by chance come into contact and the right chemistry happened to make them something more, that molecule would be gobbled up almost immediately and would become part of some bacteria or algae or something. The time required for self-replicating molecules to evolve to something like a bacterial that might have a chance of surviving among the live that exists today must be on the order of millenia, if not millions of years, and is certainly orders of magnitude longer than the seconds to hours they might actually last in today's environment. It took the first billion years of the Earth's existence for single-celled organisms to appear. When the first self-replicating molecules appeared is anyone's guess, but I suspect it was a while before those prokaryotes that left fossils appeared. I doubt any self-replicating molecules that might form in a warm pond somewhere today could last long enough to evolve into something that could survive in today's environment.

 

[ProtoAvatar]

Re: Kepler space telescope spots five Earth-sized planets in our galax

farmkid
What I just said.

Um, no. You keep arguing that the same conditions exist now that existed when life first arose. That assumption is where you go wrong. The same conditions do not exist now and haven't for billions of years. Once the first forms of life became plentiful, those conditions were gone forever.

Already answered:
"Do you know what the latest/best theory about how life started states?
It states that life started in puddles filled with water and aminoacids, warmed at 75-80 degrees celsius, near active volcanoes. No other envinronment - past or present - is more amenable to life starting.

Earth presented such conditions - and many others - throughout the last BILLIONS of years. It presents them today.
And in all these BILLIONS of years, life started ONLY ONCE. There are no 'self-replicating molecules' appearing in puddles near volcanoes."


And about the interaction between different trees of life - also, already answered, in my last post:
"Evolution doesn't work like this.
If it did, Earth would be inhabited by a single species that outcrowded all others.
But Earth is inhabited by innumerable species - from the simplest ones to the most complex ones, coexisting. This is possible because present species don't 'outcrowd' the new species that emerge by evolution, because complex life doesn't eliminate simpler life.

And a new tree of life would interact little with the already present one - due to different biochemistries, etc.
If anything, the presence of life should encourage the apparition of another tree of life by creating a wide variety of organic coumpounds, an environment much richer in the building blocks of life."


farmkid, we're talking biochemistry. 'Sterile' is a bad thing. You need organic compounds interacting to have the slightest chance at life.
And, as the continued coexistence of simple life with complex life proves, complex life does NOT overwhelm simpler forms of life - which are not "gobbled up almost immediately and become part of some bacteria or algae or something".
If anything, the existence of a tree of life should INCREASE the chances of new trees of life appearing.

 

[farmkid]

Re: Kepler space telescope spots five Earth-sized planets in our galax

Already answered:
"Do you know what the latest/best theory about how life started states?
It states that life started in puddles filled with water and aminoacids, warmed at 75-80 degrees celsius, near active volcanoes. No other envinronment - past or present - is more amenable to life starting.

Earth presented such conditions - and many others - throughout the last BILLIONS of years. It presents them today.
And in all these BILLIONS of years, life started ONLY ONCE. There are no 'self-replicating molecules' appearing in puddles near volcanoes."

I bolded the problem in your argument. Earth does not present such conditions today. The conditions under which life arose provided a safe environment where organic molecules could interact with each other for millions of years without becoming food for other organisms. The abundance of life today does not allow that.

And about the interaction between different trees of life - also, already answered, in my last post:
"Evolution doesn't work like this.
If it did, Earth would be inhabited by a single species that outcrowded all others.
But Earth is inhabited by innumerable species - from the simplest ones to the most complex ones, coexisting. This is possible because present species don't 'outcrowd' the new species that emerge by evolution, because complex life doesn't eliminate simpler life.

And a new tree of life would interact little with the already present one - due to different biochemistries, etc.
If anything, the presence of life should encourage the apparition of another tree of life by creating a wide variety of organic coumpounds, an environment much richer in the building blocks of life."

What you say about there being a wider variety of organic compounds is true. But those organic compounds become food long before they can do anything resembling a genesis event.

farmkid, we're talking biochemistry. 'Sterile' is a bad thing. You need organic compounds interacting to have the slightest chance at life.
And, as the continued coexistence of simple life with complex life proves, complex life does NOT overwhelm simpler forms of life - which are not "gobbled up almost immediately and become part of some bacteria or algae or something".
If anything, the existence of a tree of life should INCREASE the chances of new trees of life appearing.

I have a Ph.D. in biochemistry. I know a little about the field. Sterile is not a bad thing in this context. Sterile means there are no living organisms around, it does not mean there are no organic compounds around.

I don't know how you reach the conclusion that complex life won't overwhelm a simpler life form. If some molecules go together and became the first step toward a self-replicating molecule, why wouldn't a bacteria that encountered those molecules not eat them? Those molecules would be food to a bacteria, and I don't think bacteria generally have a sense respect for life that would make them choose to eat something else. Those molecules have no defense against being eaten, so they would have to rely on the good will of all other organisms not to eat them for millions of years until they could evolve enough to become something more.

 

[sojourner]

Re: Kepler space telescope spots five Earth-sized planets in our galax

And in all these BILLIONS of years, life started ONLY ONCE.

You really have absolutely no proof for this. Theorys, yes. Proof, no. So it really makes you look stubborn and foolish to keep arguing for it.

 

[ProtoAvatar]

Re: Kepler space telescope spots five Earth-sized planets in our galax

farmkid

"But those organic compounds become food long before they can do anything resembling a genesis event."
Organic compounds can last a VERY long time before they become 'food' - especially in certain envinronments (in puddles filled with water and aminoacids, warmed at 75-80 degrees celsius, near active volcanoes, for example - where the envinronment is quite free of microorganisms). And whatever organic molecules become food are replaced with ~identical organic molecules.


"The conditions under which life arose provided a safe environment where organic molecules could interact with each other for millions of years without becoming food for other organisms."
A chemical reaction lasts a fraction of a second.
Why were millions of years necessary? In order to build complex organic molecules by random chemical reactions - or, at least, that's the theory; nobody's been able to reproduce this beyond aminoacids even in laboratory (as in, NOT random) conditions (that says a LOT about how improbable life is).
No need for that anymore. These complex compounds already exist.
All that's needed is for these complex molecules to self-assemble into something that can self-replicate - a protocell. So far, nothing - either in BILLIONS of years or in laboratories with reconstructed or completely artificial conditions (which, again, speaks of how improbable life's apparition is).


"I don't know how you reach the conclusion that complex life won't overwhelm a simpler life form."
I already mentioned 'how': in any ecosystem, the complex life doesn't overwhelm simple life (despite the huge difference in complexity, lethality, defenses etc) - and that when both types of life belong to the same tree of life and are relatively compatible.

When we're talking about two different types of life with different biochemistries, the interaction should be minimal - for the same reason humans don't get sick with viruses tailored to attack trees. The two trees of life won't occupy the same niche.

 

[ProtoAvatar]

Re: Kepler space telescope spots five Earth-sized planets in our galax

And in all these BILLIONS of years, life started ONLY ONCE.

You really have absolutely no proof for this. Theorys, yes. Proof, no. So it really makes you look stubborn and foolish to keep arguing for it.

The irony.
You're telling me I have no proof?
Look at yourself. Lets see the proof for your second genesis. At least let's see proof - any proof - that it's even remotely plausible.

I have the entire natural world as proof that there's no second genesis.
You only have a 'stubborn and foolosh' affirmation that a second genesis is probable - or 'relatively' probable - supported by NOTHING beyond you saying 'because I want it so'.

 

[farmkid]

Re: Kepler space telescope spots five Earth-sized planets in our galax

farmkid

"But those organic compounds become food long before they can do anything resembling a genesis event."
Organic compounds can last a very long time before they become 'food' - especially in certain envinronments (at 75-80 degrees celsius, for example - where the envinronment is quite free of microorganisms). And whatever organic molecules become food are replaced with ~identical organic molecules.


"The conditions under which life arose provided a safe environment where organic molecules could interact with each other for millions of years without becoming food for other organisms."
A chemical reaction lasts a fraction of a second.
Why were millions of years necessary? In order to build complex organic molecules by random chemical reaction - or, at least, that's the theory; nobody's been able to reproduce it even with planned (as in, NOT random) conditions (that says a LOT about how improbable life is).
No need for that anymore.
All that's needed is for these complex molecules to self-assemble into something that can self-replicate - a protocell. So far, nothing - either in BILLIONS of years or in a laboratory with specially/artificially prepared conditions (which, again, speaks of how improbable life's apparition is).


"I don't know how you reach the conclusion that complex life won't overwhelm a simpler life form."
I already mentioned 'how': in any ecosystem, the complex life doesn't overwhelm simple life (despite the huge difference in complexity, lethality, defenses etc) - and that when both types of life belong to the same tree of life and are relatively compatible.

When we're talking about two different types of life with different biochemistries, the interaction should be minimal - for the same reason humans don't get sick with viruses tailored to attack trees. The two trees of life won't ccupy the same niche.

To build the complex organic molecules capable of self-replication is a multi-step process. And I mean MULTI-step, as in there are probably thousands to millions of steps from the primordial molecules in your puddle next to a volcano to something that can replicate. Those steps have to happen in the right order, and they have to happen by the molecules just randomly bumping into each other at the right time and in the right way. That's why it will take a long time for it to happen. As for a membrane-bound protocell, that's an entirely different problem, and much more complex one at that. That's way beyond self-replicating molecules on the complexity scale, and that's what a nascent organism would have to achieve if it were to have any chance of surviving in the presence of other organisms. All of those building blocks along the way from the primordial molecules would be food to other organisms.

 

[ProtoAvatar]

Re: Kepler space telescope spots five Earth-sized planets in our galax

farmkid

"But those organic compounds become food long before they can do anything resembling a genesis event."
Organic compounds can last a very long time before they become 'food' - especially in certain envinronments (at 75-80 degrees celsius, for example - where the envinronment is quite free of microorganisms). And whatever organic molecules become food are replaced with ~identical organic molecules.


"The conditions under which life arose provided a safe environment where organic molecules could interact with each other for millions of years without becoming food for other organisms."
A chemical reaction lasts a fraction of a second.
Why were millions of years necessary? In order to build complex organic molecules by random chemical reaction - or, at least, that's the theory; nobody's been able to reproduce it even with planned (as in, NOT random) conditions (that says a LOT about how improbable life is).
No need for that anymore.
All that's needed is for these complex molecules to self-assemble into something that can self-replicate - a protocell. So far, nothing - either in BILLIONS of years or in a laboratory with specially/artificially prepared conditions (which, again, speaks of how improbable life's apparition is).


"I don't know how you reach the conclusion that complex life won't overwhelm a simpler life form."
I already mentioned 'how': in any ecosystem, the complex life doesn't overwhelm simple life (despite the huge difference in complexity, lethality, defenses etc) - and that when both types of life belong to the same tree of life and are relatively compatible.

When we're talking about two different types of life with different biochemistries, the interaction should be minimal - for the same reason humans don't get sick with viruses tailored to attack trees. The two trees of life won't ccupy the same niche.

To build the complex organic molecules capable of self-replication is a multi-step process. And I mean MULTI-step, as in there are probably thousands to millions of steps from the primordial molecules in your puddle next to a volcano to something that can replicate. Those steps have to happen in the right order, and they have to happen by the molecules just randomly bumping into each other at the right time and in the right way. That's why it will take a long time for it to happen. As for a membrane-bound protocell, that's an entirely different problem, and much more complex one at that.

Exactly.
Thousands to millions of steps in just the right order.
Each step necessitates its own specific conditions/envinronment - also, in just the right order.
All this, randomly, without any plan behind it.

I also want to add that, so far, scientists have not been able to reconstruct more than the first 2-3 steps in laboratories - or even theoretically.
And that with all of humanity's knowledge, with planning, in controlled conditions.

All this speaks to how MIND-BOGGINGLY IMPROBABLE life's apparition is.
For all intents and purposes, the chances of life appearing are so small, they are nothing more than a mathematical abstraction - 0.000000.......and only after lot of these there's an '1'.
You can increase such figures by ten orders of magnitude and they'll remain mind-boggingly small.

You can lengthen the time scale as much as you want - to BILLIONS of years - life appearing will still remain astonishingly improbable.

That's way beyond self-replicating molecules on the complexity scale, and that's what a nascent organism would have to achieve if it were to have any chance of surviving in the presence of other organisms. All of those building blocks along the way from the primordial molecules would be food to other organisms.

Only if those other microorganisms would actually 'like' these primordial molecules, would actually feed on them.
A new tree of life will have a different biochemistry, which will be partly (at least) incompatible with the already present tree of life.

And - as mentioned -, 'organic compounds can last a very long time before microorganisms 'encounter' them - especially in certain envinronments (at 75-80 degrees celsius, for example - where the envinronment is quite free of microorganisms)'.

 

[farmkid]

Re: Kepler space telescope spots five Earth-sized planets in our galax

Sooo...what exactly is your point? Are you arguing for intelligent design? It didn't seem so from your first few posts, but now I'm not so sure. I can't quite tell what your trying to say, other than life could only arise once on Earth.

As to your points in your last post, we don't really know how probable or improbable life appearing was. We can't recreate the environment that was present on the Earth for those first billion years. We can guess at what it was, but we can't recreate it. We don't know the steps involved, how long those steps might take, or how many dead ends might be taken along that road on the way. Scientists who study this sort of thing make guesses, but they are only guesses because we have no evidence demonstrating what conditions were actually like.

And yes, organic compounds can last a long time, when there's nothing around to eat them. However, there's virtually nowhere on Earth without bacteria. Your 75-80 C puddle is certainly amenable to life; there are many environments that hot and hotter that are teeming with microorganisms of many types. The only place on the surface of the earth (or within the first mile or so under it) I can think of where you wouldn't find bacteria would be inside an active volcano, where any organic molecules would be instantly destroyed.

 

[ProtoAvatar]

Re: Kepler space telescope spots five Earth-sized planets in our galax

farmkid
"Sooo...what exactly is your point? Are you arguing for intelligent design?"
No.
My point is - life appearing is really, really improbable - FAR more improbable than many think, when they postulate life appearing everywhere (even when we're talking about BILLIONS of years).
Which explains the Fermi paradox quite nicely - very few technological civiliztions appear in the universe.

As I said, we're the winners of a cosmic lottery game with astonishingly small chances of success.
Life appearing twice on Earth in ~4.5 BILLIONS of years is even more improbable. As expected, life did not appear twice - as physical evidence shows.


"As to your points in your last post, we don't really know how probable or improbable life appearing was."
Thousands to millions of steps in just the right order? Alone that puts life in the mind-boggingly improbable category. We know life is at least this improbrable.

The fact that scientists, working not at random, but from scientific grounds, can't figure out more than the first 2-3 steps only decreases the likelihood of life appearing.


"Your 75-80 C puddle is certainly amenable to life; there are many environments that hot and hotter that are teeming with microorganisms of many types."
Microorganisms will exist? Yes. Will they be 'teeming'? Not at these temperatures.
As said, organic molecules will survive for a long time in such conditions - especially if they're not entirely compatible with the existant microorganisms.

 

[farmkid]

Re: Kepler space telescope spots five Earth-sized planets in our galax

farmkid
"Sooo...what exactly is your point? Are you arguing for intelligent design?"
No.
My point is - life appearing is really, really improbable - FAR more improbable than many think, when they postulate life appearing everywhere (even when we're talking about BILLIONS of years).

As I said, we're the winners of a cosmic lottery game with astonishingly small chances of success.
Life appearing twice on Earth in ~4.5 BILLIONS of years is even more improbable. As expected, life did not appear twice - as physical evidence shows.


"As to your points in your last post, we don't really know how probable or improbable life appearing was."
Thousands to millions of steps in just the right order? Alone that puts life in the mind-boggingly improbable category. We know life is at least this improbrable.

The fact that scientists, working not at random, but from scientific grounds, can't figure out more than the first 2-3 steps only decreses the likelihood of life appearing.

I agree that it's improbable, but we really don't know how probable or improbable it is. You have no evidence that there were not multiple genesis events, just like there is no evidence that there were. We just don't know. I just jumped in this debate because you were using as proof of your point the fact that all life now known seems to have come from one genesis event and that there have been none since then. This point is based on the false premise that conditions now are as favorable for the spontaneous appearance of life as they were 4 billion years ago.

It may be probable enough that life could arise every 1000 years in that environment, or it might take 10 billion years on average. We really have no idea. But to say that because we have no evidence of it happening since and make some statement of probability based on that is faulty reasoning because it's based on a false premise.

As for scientists failure in the lab, we can derive nothing from that. We can only learn something about probability if they are successful. Their failures tell us nothing because the experiments they are able to do can't even come close to replicating the primordial Earth. Those experiments would have to run for millions of years and fail to create self-replicating molecules to do so.

"Your 75-80 C puddle is certainly amenable to life; there are many environments that hot and hotter that are teeming with microorganisms of many types."
Microorganisms will exist? Yes. Will they be 'teeming'? Not at these temperatures.
As said, organic molecules will survive for a long time in such conditions - especially if they're not entirely compatible with the existant microorganisms.

thermophiles

 

[Manticore]

Re: Kepler space telescope spots five Earth-sized planets in our galax

Sooo...what exactly is your point? Are you arguing for intelligent design?

No.
My point is - life appearing is really, really improbable - FAR more improbable than many think, when they postulate life appearing everywhere (even when we're talking about BILLIONS of years).
Which explains the Fermi paradox quite nicely - very few technological civiliztions appear in the universe.

As I said, we're the winners of a cosmic lottery game with astonishingly small chances of success.
Life appearing twice on Earth in ~4.5 BILLIONS of years is even more improbable. As expected, life did not appear twice - as physical evidence shows.

As to your points in your last post, we don't really know how probable or improbable life appearing was.

Thousands to millions of steps in just the right order? Alone that puts life in the mind-boggingly improbable category. We know life is at least this improbrable.

The fact that scientists, working not at random, but from scientific grounds, can't figure out more than the first 2-3 steps only decreases the likelihood of life appearing.

Your 75-80 C puddle is certainly amenable to life; there are many environments that hot and hotter that are teeming with microorganisms of many types.

Microorganisms will exist? Yes. Will they be 'teeming'? Not at these temperatures.
As said, organic molecules will survive for a long time in such conditions - especially if they're not entirely compatible with the existant microorganisms.

Could you please please please use the quote system already in place, rather than just sticking the quotes into the body with simple quotation marks? It would make your posts far more readable.

 

[sojourner]

Re: Kepler space telescope spots five Earth-sized planets in our galax

The irony.
You're telling me I have no proof?
Look at yourself. Lets see the proof for your second genesis. At least let's see proof - any proof - that it's even remotely plausible.

I have the entire natural world as proof that there's no second genesis.
You only have a 'stubborn and foolosh' affirmation that a second genesis is probable - or 'relatively' probable - supported by NOTHING beyond you saying 'because I want it so'.

You just have to prove it's impossible. Which you can't. Unless you have irrefutable records for the entire history of the planet?

 

[PurpleBuddha]

Re: Kepler space telescope spots five Earth-sized planets in our galax

And in all these BILLIONS of years, life started ONLY ONCE.

You really have absolutely no proof for this. Theorys, yes. Proof, no. So it really makes you look stubborn and foolish to keep arguing for it.

The irony.
You're telling me I have no proof?
Look at yourself. Lets see the proof for your second genesis. At least let's see proof - any proof - that it's even remotely plausible.

I have the entire natural world as proof that there's no second genesis.

Your position is stubborn. You are saying it didn't happen and we are saying it could have happened. Given that serious teams are searching for evidence of a second tree right now I would say the search is not over. They may fail, and you may well be correct, but none of us have any way to know that right now. To say otherwise is premature.

As well you do not have the entire natural world as proof unless you think everything about the natural world to be discovered has been. I would be careful before making such a claim.

You only have a 'stubborn and foolosh' affirmation that a second genesis is probable - or 'relatively' probable - supported by NOTHING beyond you saying 'because I want it so'

And that is all we are saying, that it is possible. Biologists agree. We are not arguing that because it is possible it must be so, just that it is still an open question. There is nothing unreasonable about that and you should see this too, do you not?

Edit: This reminds me of one of the reasons I respect science so much. The scientific community will demand very good evidence to affirm this claim. The NASA incident only goes to show that when you make an extraordinary claim, you'd better have your shit together or the scientific community will embarrass you.

 

[ProtoAvatar]

Re: Kepler space telescope spots five Earth-sized planets in our galax

farmkid

I agree that it's improbable, but we really don't know how probable or improbable it is.

Not quite, farmkid.
We can set upper limits on the probability of life appearing.

I already addressed the issue:
"Thousands to millions of steps in just the right order? Alone that puts life in the mind-boggingly improbable category. We know life is at least this improbrable.

The fact that scientists, working not at random, but from scientific grounds, can't figure out more than the first 2-3 steps only decreases the likelihood of life appearing."

Farmkid, as long as life, in order to appear, needs thousands (to millions) of steps (environments) in just the right order, the probability of life appearing is minuscule - even in BILLIONS of years. No other factor is needed in order to make life's apparition ridiculously improbable.
Fell free to run the numbers yourself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probability_theory

And the fact that scientists CAN'T FIGURE OUT more than the first 2-3 steps/environments - despite having a very good ideea of conditions on early Earth - further decreases the probability of these environments appearing then or anytime, telling us plenty about the small probability of life appearing.

But to say that because we have no evidence of it happening since and make some statement of probability based on that is faulty reasoning because it's based on a false premise.

First - my statement about the improbability of life is based primarily on the steps necessary for life to appear (and basic probability) - another tree of life not appearing is a natural consequence of the improbability of life's apparition.

Second - you may want to take a look at your posts, too, vis a vis 'faulty reasoning'. If you make a statement, you must prove it.

I claimed life appearing is extremely improbable - and I proved it.

You claim life could plausibly appear again and that any new tree of life will be inevitably destroyed by present life.
But you fail to support in any way your statement that life appearing again is even remotely plausible. More plausible than me seeing flying dogs when I walk out of my house, that is.
And your arguments supporting your claim that any new life will be inevitably destroyed by the existing life are unconvincing.
What's your latest argument?
Thermophiles?
Are thermophiles present in ANY place which is at 75-80 C or only in a few select places - many other locations being free of them?
Also - as per wikipedia - "As a prerequisite for their survival, thermophiles contain enzymes that can function at high temperature." Apparently, in order to survive at high temperatures, microorganisms need specific enzymes, lacking in your garden variety microbes AKA many puddles across the world, at 75-80 C, are practically free of microorganisms - no one to eat the precursors of life. And yet, life did not appear there throughout the aeons.

 

[ProtoAvatar]

Re: Kepler space telescope spots five Earth-sized planets in our galax

The irony.
You're telling me I have no proof?
Look at yourself. Lets see the proof for your second genesis. At least let's see proof - any proof - that it's even remotely plausible.

I have the entire natural world as proof that there's no second genesis.
You only have a 'stubborn and foolosh' affirmation that a second genesis is probable - or 'relatively' probable - supported by NOTHING beyond you saying 'because I want it so'.

You just have to prove it's impossible. Which you can't. Unless you have irrefutable records for the entire history of the planet?

Not quite, sojourner.
All I have to prove is that life appearing is ridiculosly improbable.
Which I did prove.

 

[ProtoAvatar]

Re: Kepler space telescope spots five Earth-sized planets in our galax

You really have absolutely no proof for this. Theorys, yes. Proof, no. So it really makes you look stubborn and foolish to keep arguing for it.

The irony.
You're telling me I have no proof?
Look at yourself. Lets see the proof for your second genesis. At least let's see proof - any proof - that it's even remotely plausible.

I have the entire natural world as proof that there's no second genesis.

Your position is stubborn.

My position is stubborn? - it may be, but it's also supported by strong arguments.

Your position is stubborn and supported by very little (practically nothing) - by some extreme improbabilities and....what? just because? the fact that you would like life to appear in every nook and cranny of the universe? (btw, good luck with that!)

As well you do not have the entire natural world as proof unless you think everything about the natural world to be discovered has been. I would be careful before making such a claim.

And this is an example of one of those extreme improbabilities I mentioned:
At present, Earth's biosphere is so well known that the chances of there being another unknown tree of life are minuscule - as in small enough to exclude reasonable doubt.
But, for you, these minuscule chances of another tree of life existing translate into ~it's a reasonable possibility that another tree of life exists.

You only have a 'stubborn and foolosh' affirmation that a second genesis is probable - or 'relatively' probable - supported by NOTHING beyond you saying 'because I want it so'

And that is all we are saying, that it is possible. Biologists agree. We are not arguing that because it is possible it must be so, just that it is still an open question. There is nothing unreasonable about that and you should see this too, do you not?

A lot is unreasonable about your position, PurpleBuddha.

Life's apparition is incredibly improbable - that it appeared once in ~4.5 BILLION years is already the equivalent of winning 1000s of times in a row the grand prize at the lottery.

Life appearing twice in ~4.5 BILLION years is not merely twice as improbable - it's FAR FAR more improbable than that.

Yet, in place of this extreme implausibility, you use the euphemism 'possible' which falsely skyrockets the probability of life appearing - which is 'unreasonable'.

 

[sojourner]

Re: Kepler space telescope spots five Earth-sized planets in our galax

Not quite, sojourner.
All I have to prove is that life appearing is ridiculosly improbable.
Which I did prove.

Really? I missed the post where you presented the irrefutable records for the entire history of the planet. You have no proof that a second genesis never actually occurred, only supposition and statistics.