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

[ProtoAvatar]

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...

Apparently, you missed a lot from my posts, sojourner.

You want to claim mathematical probability theory is false?
Or do you want to claim life's apparition did not necessitate thousands to millions of steps?

Be my guest.
Also, be aware, such claims are absolutely ridiculous, making your future posts on the subject absolutely ridiculos.

 

[sojourner]

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

^Now your just trying to wittle down my posts to something you can contest. Go ahead. refute the statement you left out when quoting me. Where is the proof?

You want to claim mathematical probability theory is false?

Can you prove that it is true?

 

[ThankQ]

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

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.

This is where I keep bumping heads with you.

First, please try to understand that I'm not that Christian nutjob who hangs out with Mike Seaver opening jars of peanut butter saying "Where's the life?"

As expected, life did not appear twice - as physical evidence shows.

You're obviously not a dumbass. How can you keep making an obvious mistake like this? "Physical evidence shows" something didn't happen? No physical evidence has been discovered. Perhaps because it has never existed, perhaps because none is extant or, perhaps, because it has yet to be discovered.
Your statement is like claiming that you have physical evidence that I never played with Tinker Toys as a child.

On a side note, I find your reasoning odd. You claim that the chances of life are practically zero and that it's amazing that something with odds of nearly zero actually happened. But then you say it is so amazing and improbable that it couldn't have happened more than once. With one hand you champion the highly unlikely and with the other you waive it away as impossible.

As expected, life did not appear twice - as physical evidence shows.

As you say, it wasn't expected to appear once, was it? Yet here we are!


One again, if I had to put my money down, I'd bet with your side. You are, however, making/subscribing to a shitpile of assumptions and acting rather smug about it.

We all know there is no currently known evidence of a second genesis. There are speculations and hypotheses that could jib with our limited knowledge and best guesses.

Again, I find it so odd that as little as we know about the genesis that we can say with certainty did happen (because we are able to sit here and type about it), that you would offer our utter ignorance about how this life got started as proof that no other ever did.

"We don't really know dick about how life started, therefore it certainly never happened more than once."

 

[ProtoAvatar]

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

ThankQ

As you say, it wasn't expected to appear once, was it? Yet here we are!

Life appearing once is REALLY, REALLY UNLIKELY.
Yet, yes, here we are, winning this particular cosmic lottery. And let's be clear - when I say 'lottery' I don't mean something with chances of winning as enormously large (by comparison) as at a current day lottery.

Life appearing twice is FAR, FAR MORE UNLIKELY than life appearing once - as per cold, hard mathematical probability.
There have been many cases of a person winning the grand prize at a lottery. There are barely cases (was there even one?) of a person winning the grand prize twice in a row. And now you know why.

It makes perfect sense that life didn't appear twice.


And ThankQ, about life's appearance, we know with certainty that it involved thousands to millions of steps that had to happen just the right order - from which results, directly, the upper probability limit for life's apparition I discuss here.

How can you keep making an obvious mistake like this? "Physical evidence shows" something didn't happen? No physical evidence has been discovered.

As with your previous objection, I already answered this one, too, in my previous posts:

At present, humanity knows Earth's ecosystem so well, that the chances of there existing a second, undiscovered tree of life on Earth are minimal - MORE than small enough to exclude reasonable doubt.

As for the 'physical evidence' I'm referring to - I'm referring to the results of every genetical/microbiological/etc study made on Earth's ecosystem - in all its subdivisions.

 

[ThankQ]

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

^Now your just trying to wittle down my posts to something you can contest.

I'm detecting a pattern.

And let's be clear - when I say 'lottery' I don't mean something with chances of winning as enormously large (by comparison) as at a current day lottery.

Oh, is that what you mean? I'm glad you clarified that since, as you well know, all the rest of us here are, indeed, exceedingly stupid.

As for the 'physical evidence' I'm referring to - I'm referring to the results of every genetical/microbiological/etc study made on Earth's ecosystem - in all its subdivisions.

YES YES YES! No one, NO ONE is claiming there is a second "tree" of life around today. NO ONE! Yet you keep arguing against that? Over and over you do. Yet no one claims that. Yes, everything alive today (that we know of, and likey everything that we don't) came from the same genesis event.

We all grant that. NOW MOVE ON!

At present, humanity knows Earth's ecosystem so well, that the chances of there existing a second, undiscovered tree of life on Earth are minimal - MORE than small enough to exclude reasonable doubt.

Did you hear me say "move on"? No one is arguing otherwise. Not one person. Yet you make that point over and over again to argue w/something unrelated

It makes perfect sense that life didn't appear twice.

And it is equally absurd that it appeared once.

We all know there is no currently known evidence of a second genesis. There are speculations and hypotheses that could jib with our limited knowledge and best guesses.

Again, I find it so odd that as little as we know about the genesis that we can say with certainty did happen (because we are able to sit here and type about it), that you would offer our utter ignorance about how this life got started as proof that no other ever did.

"We don't really know dick about how life started, therefore it certainly never happened more than once."

 

[ProtoAvatar]

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

ThankQ

And it is equally absurd that it appeared once.

Not even close, ThankQ.
As I repeatedly told you - and you repeatedly pretended not to understand (because you seem unable to accept it) - life appearing ONCE is ridiculously improbable, but it is FAR more probable than life appearing a second time.
Don't beleive me? It's basic probability - cuantified in mathematics. Look it up.

As for the rest of your post - arguments I already responded to (repeatedly), straw-men and condescending statements wanna-be.
Very 'rational' of you, ThankQ.

 

[ThankQ]

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

As I repeatedly told you - and you repeatedly pretended not to understand (because you seem unable to accept it) - life appearing ONCE is ridiculously improbable, but it is FAR more probable than life appearing a second time.

Well, that's like saying a number divided by two must be smaller than the original number. Yeah, I think I can grasp that if I try real hard, thanks.

Of course I know that's what you mean and of course I understand. But you make assumptions and everything we know says you're flat out wrong about conditions 4500ma as compared to today. They are NOT remotely the same.

My only argument with you, and I hate to say it because I think it's used as a crap argument 99.3% of the time, is to open up your mind a little.

Life happened once. You seem to think we know the likelihood. We don't. We have no clue. Your positions could very well be right and is the most likely conclusion based on the evidence currently available.


I guess I feel a little insulted, too, because you've glossed over, skipped over or mocked points that I brought up. I've heard so many of the "Dude, just open your mind" arguments that are really just "ignore the empirical and just feel it man, the truth is what you feel it is, man, don't trust your eyes, man"... all that crap. I hate that stuff, and I've made every effort to stay as far away from it as I could, but you are treating me like I feel like treating those "Just feel the truth, man" people.

You seem to have mistaken me for one of them.

Mostly, I'm just shocked by the utter lack of humility before nature by someone as seemingly bright as you. It's funny, I'm always the one in the argument going "LOOK at the EVIDENCE! LOOK at the EVIDENCE!". This is an odd position for me to be in. I'm aware of how many times we thought we had something dead on and then something comes along and turns it on its head. You seem to think that impossible in this case. I see the possibilities for a multitude of unlikely surprises.

Life is likely to be rare. This whole thing got started when I made the point...

TQ: Life started very quickly after it was possible to do so on Earth, which may suggest it is a common occurrence under the right conditions.

PA: Yes, it started quickly, but it only started once, which means it must be very rare, probably unique.

You really seem to think that it MUST have happened only once. Almost like you have stake in it. I think that's probably right, that it only happened once, but I'm about 2.6% as clever as the most clever people around, and I can think of dozens of reasons that other geneses, if they existed, have yet to be discovered, and likely never would be discovered.

If this dummy here can do it, imagine what smart people could come up with!

I am not some starry eyed mystic. I just don't put anything past the universe.

 

[ThankQ]

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

ProtoAvatar, I thought of a cheesy mathematical way to express my problem with your take on the "odds"....


YOU say:

Nearly Impossible/1 = Damn Lucky

Nearly Impossible/2 = Damn Crazy

--------------------------

I disagree. We have two competing pieces of evidence.

1. Life arose very shortly after it became possible to do so.
2. Life arose only once.

We know 1. with more certainty that we know 2.

Yes, it is conceivable that life, against the odds, took hold early in the planet's history. You talk about the amazingly large number of things that have to happen in just the right order for life to have formed. For all we know, given the right conditions, the formation of life could be an almost inevitable consequence of chemical reactions. You talk of the long odds being due to "random" nature in which things must have happened. Chemical reactions, as I understand, are constants under like conditions. There's nothing random about them.

You say we haven't been able to create life in a lab. That means nothing. Shall we start the list of things the universe has been able to do that we haven't been able to recreate in a lab?

-------------

I think you're right that we should not just assume the universe is teeming with life. I think it's just as wrong to assume that life must be unique. Sagan would call that human arrogance. I'd say it practically smacks of religious pretense.

 

[doublegoodprole]

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

I think it's almost laughably small-minded to assume that in the entire universe, life has only occurred once and once only.

How can we even calculate a probability based on values we don't know? How many stars exist, have existed, or will exist? How many planets?

It makes no sense to assume this planet is the sole abode of life in the universe based on mathematics.

 

[doublegoodprole]

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

I think you're right that we should not just assume the universe is teeming with life.

Should we find evidence of life in our own solar system beyond Earth, I think we can safely make that assumption. Maybe not in every single solar system, but if life can make it on some moon of Saturn, it can make it in many places. Nothing special about our solar system, after all, in the universal scheme of things.

 

[ProtoAvatar]

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

ProtoAvatar, I thought of a cheesy mathematical way to express my problem with your take on the "odds"....


YOU say:

Nearly Impossible/1 = Damn Lucky

Nearly Impossible/2 = Damn Crazy

There's nearly impossible and there's ridiculously RIDICULOSLY nearly impossible, ThankQ.

Life appearing once fits in the first category.
Life appearing a second time fits in the second category.

You seem to think that life appearing a second time is only twice - or thereabouts - more improbable than life appearing once: "Well, that's like saying a number divided by two must be smaller than the original number. Yeah, I think I can grasp that if I try real hard, thanks."
This is INCORRECT.
Life appearing twice is BILLIONS of times more improbable than life appearing once, ThankQ - and I'm being VERY optimist here.


Let's start with some basic probability:
You have 2 elements - A,B - they can be arranged either A,B or B,A. The chances of one arrangement is 1 in 2.
You have 3 elements - A,B,C - they can be arranges in 6 different ways. The chances of one specific arrangement are 1 in 6.
4 elements - they can be arranged in 24 different ways. The chances of a specific arrangement are 1 in 24.
5 elements - 120 arangements. The chances of an arangement are 1 in 120.
6 elements - 720 arrangements. 1 chance in 720.
7 elements - 5400 arrangements. 1 chance in 5400.
8 elements - 43200 arrangements. 1 chance in 43200.
etc, etc - the chances fall exponentially, NOT linearly.

That's the decrease in chances, ThankQ.


Let's apply this to life:
Life appearing once requires thousands to millions of steps in just the right order - let's take 1000 and see how many arrangements are possible - and what is the chance for a specific arrangement.
Life appearing twice - two thousand steps in the right order - take 2000 and see how much the chance decreased (FAR FAR more than merely linearly - as in twice or so, ThankQ).

And make no mistake - the numbers you will obtain for the chances of life appearing are FAR larger than in reality. You see, I made two EXTREMELY optimistic assumptions:
I assumed that only a thousand steps are necessary for life appearing once (good luck trying to obtain life in 1000 steps).
I also assumed that each of these 1000 steps/environments will appear - in reality, each of these steps/environments competes with thousands/millions of other environments possible at a specific time in Earth's history (weather is a highly complex phenomenon) - meaning, alone the chance of a specific environment appearing are 1 to thousands/millionns.

 

[ProtoAvatar]

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

I think you're right that we should not just assume the universe is teeming with life.

Should we find evidence of life in our own solar system beyond Earth, I think we can safely make that assumption. Maybe not in every single solar system, but if life can make it on some moon of Saturn, it can make it in many places. Nothing special about our solar system, after all, in the universal scheme of things.

"life can make it on some moon of Saturn"?

That's a completely unproven speculation and NOT a fact, doublegoodprole.
When - AND IF - life is found on Mars/Euopa/Titan/etc, then you can come with this argument. Until then, it's worthless.

It makes no sense to assume this planet is the sole abode of life in the universe based on mathematics

So - you want to deny that mathematics apply to the universe, that it's the language that describes its physical laws?

BTW, we have a pretty good ideea how many sons existed or exist in the Milky Way - and only a small fraction of them can support the evolution of intelligent life (classes K, G, and maybe - probably not - F). And that's just the first term of Drake's equation.

I think it's almost laughably small-minded to assume that in the entire universe, life has only occurred once and once only.

It's "laughably small-minded" to assume that life appears just about everywhere - despite strong indications to the contrary - just because you want it to, doublegoodprole.

 

[sojourner]

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

So - you want to deny that mathematics apply to the universe, that it's the language that describes its physical laws?

Mathematics is one thing, statistics is another. As someone once said, "There are lies, damn lies, and statistics".

Here's a question that will throw a monkey wrench in your argument:

What if there is more than one set of "thousand to millions of steps" to creating life? What if there are countless variations that could lead to life?

And just a recommendation here. Never argue that something is "impossible". Invariably someone will prove you wrong.

 

[ThankQ]

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

There's nearly impossible and there's ridiculously RIDICULOSLY nearly impossible, ThankQ.

There's close to infinite, and there's ridiculously RIDICULOSLY close to infinite, ProtoAvatar.

 

[farmkid]

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

Let's apply this to life:
Life appearing once requires thousands to millions of steps in just the right order - let's take 1000 and see how many arrangements are possible - and what is the chance for a specific arrangement.
Life appearing twice - two thousand steps in the right order - take 2000 and see how much the chance decreased (FAR FAR more than merely linearly - as in twice or so, ThankQ).

And make no mistake - the numbers you will obtain for the chances of life appearing are FAR larger than in reality. You see, I made two EXTREMELY optimistic assumptions:
I assumed that only a thousand steps are necessary for life appearing once (good luck trying to obtain life in 1000 steps).
I also assumed that each of these 1000 steps/environments will appear - in reality, each of these steps/environments competes with thousands/millions of other environments possible at a specific time in Earth's history (weather is a highly complex phenomenon) - meaning, alone the chance of a specific environment appearing are 1 to thousands/millionns.

You keep using this "thousands to millions of steps" statement. I originally used that phrase and make that point to make the point that it would take a long time for life to arise, during which time those molecules would be vulnerable to other already existing organisms. Now, you seem to have latched on to that phrase and using it inappropriately. It's been bugging me for a while, but now I just need to correct you.

Sure, there are many chemical steps that must happen in order to create self-replicating molecules. No one knows exactly how many steps or in which order, but there are certainly many. Your argument here is based on the assumption that they can happen in any order, but that only one order will produce life. That is wrong. If you start out with the basic molecules, there are only a few chemical reactions that can happen, not thousands to millions. Once one of those happen, there are only a few others that can happen. In total, there are probably thousands of steps necessary, but that doesn't mean that the number of possible outcomes is exponential based on the number of steps or elements. That also doesn't mean that only one of those possible outcomes is life. To take my statement about "thousands to millions of steps" and use it in the way you have just demonstrates that you didn't understand the point the first time.

Those self-replicating molecules developed some time in the first billion years of Earth's existence. Nature had a very long time and lots of material to start with to try lots of things. We have no idea when in that billion years self-replicating molecules came into being, or how many times. Scientists have not been able to reproduce it, but then again, their experiments are about 9 orders of magnitude smaller in time scale and even smaller in size compared to nature's experiment during those first billion years. If scientists even come close to succeeding, it would suggest that life probably arose very quickly and probably many times, with all but one of those trials losing out to the one that worked the best and produced all living things today.

 

[ProtoAvatar]

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

farmkid

Your argument here is based on the assumption that they can happen in any order, but that only one order will produce life.

Not really.
In my previous post, I treated a simplified assumption - for ease of understanding. My assumptions, per total, were VERY optimistic with regard to life emerging - for example, I assumed that the only envinronments that can appear are envinronments that can lead to life; that life necessitates only a thousand steps.

Let's assume there are a few succesions of thousands of steps that lead to life - but only very few out of the possible succesions - if the research into the origin of life proved anything, it proved that NOT all roads lead to Rome; indeed, most roads are dead ends.

Weather is a highly complex element. There are thouands - at least - of possible envonents that can appear at a given moment.
Out of these thousands, only very few are viable steps to life (each of these few leading to a different kind of life). The chances of one of these envinronmets appearing are very small.
And that's only the first step needed.
In order for life to appear, one needs thousands to millions of steps to create any type of life (the claim that something as complex as life could appear in less steps is, frankly, a joke).
With each step, the chances of one of the viable environments appearing decrease exxponentially (as per basic probability) - and far faster than in my previous figures, due to the thousands of possible environments that can appear at each step.

The chances of such environments appearing in any combination that could lead to life are FAR smaller than my very optimistic figures two pots back.

If you start out with the basic molecules, there are only a few chemical reactions that can happen, not thousands to millions. Once one of those happen, there are only a few others that can happen. In total, there are probably thousands of steps necessary, but that doesn't mean that the number of possible outcomes is exponential based on the number of steps or elements.

You think?
In the first envinronment, only a few chemical reactions can happen - each with a different chemical outcome.
In the second envinronment, for EACH chemical outcome that resulted there are a few chemical reactions that can happen.
In the third envinronment, for EACH compund resulting in the second step there are a few chemical reactions; etc
All this means the number of possible outcomes grows exponentially with the number of steps, farmkid.

Not that the very high improbability of life I mentioned in my previous posts (and this one) is based on - or needs - this particular exponential growth.

If scientists even come close to succeeding

If this, if that - so far, the scientists failed to come even close to succeding; and there's no sign of this changing. And this, while basing their attepts on biochemical knowledge and intent to create self-replicating molecules or precursors thereof - not on random, unplaned events.

 

[ProtoAvatar]

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

sojourer

And just a recommendation here. Never argue that something is "impossible"

Never did argue that - but, by all means, feel free to point out where i did.

For example, did you know that there's a non-zero chance for you to pass though a wall?
Or for a paper plane you throw to fly at FTL speeds?
Or for Earth to explode in the next second - just because?

But, sojourner, these chances are so small as to exclude anything even resembling something that has a remote resemblance to resonable doubt.
You actually think such events will happen/happened? Good luck with that.

As for "countless variations that could lead to life" - read my previous post.

 

[ProtoAvatar]

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

There's nearly impossible and there's ridiculously RIDICULOSLY nearly impossible, ThankQ.

There's close to infinite, and there's ridiculously RIDICULOSLY close to infinite, ProtoAvatar.

Not really.
You see, ThankQ, the number 'google' - or gazillion, etc - is as close to infinite as the number one - I think Carl Sagan mentioned this expressly in 'Cosmos' (which you obviously watched).

You want a different formulation?
There's extremely improbable and there's ridiculously RIDICULOUSLY extremely improbable.

 

[Arrqh]

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

Weather is a highly complex element. There are thouands - at least - of possible envonents that can appear at a given moment.

Weather is chaotic, not random. In fact, true randomness is actually predictable over sufficiently long periods of time with sufficient trials. For example: radioactive decay.

In the first envinronment, only a few chemical reactions can happen - each with a different chemical outcome.
In the second envinronment, for EACH chemical outcome that resulted there are a few chemical reactions that can happen.
In the third envinronment, for EACH compund resulting in the second step there are a few chemical reactions; etc
All this means the number of possible outcomes grows exponentially with the number of steps, farmkid.

This does not make sense. If you are talking about a truly random multi-step process, each trial is independent and each step in the process is independent of the ones that came before. The "wrong" interactions would not preclude the "right" ones from occurring afterwards.

 

[ProtoAvatar]

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

Weather is a highly complex element. There are thouands - at least - of possible envonents that can appear at a given moment.

Weather is chaotic, not random. In fact, true randomness is actually predictable over sufficiently long periods of time with sufficient trials. For example: radioactive decay.

And? Where have I said that weather is 'random'?
It's governed by chaos theory - meaning it's VERY complex, generating a great variety of environments.

Also - radioactive decay is NOT governed by chaos theory; indeed, it's a rather predictable phenomeon (within rather tight probabilistical boundaries) - in this respect, it's nothing like weather (which is most definitely NOT predictable over long periods - no one will be able to tell you what the weather in a year will be like - this limitation is due to chaos theory mathematics and is fundamental)

In the first envinronment, only a few chemical reactions can happen - each with a different chemical outcome.
In the second envinronment, for EACH chemical outcome that resulted there are a few chemical reactions that can happen.
In the third envinronment, for EACH compund resulting in the second step there are a few chemical reactions; etc
All this means the number of possible outcomes grows exponentially with the number of steps, farmkid.

This does not make sense. If you are talking about a truly random multi-step process, each trial is independent and each step in the process is independent of the ones that came before. The "wrong" interactions would not preclude the "right" ones from occurring afterwards.

Of course the 'wrong' reactions would preclude the ulterior 'right' reactions - you see, the compounds needed for the 'right' reactions would not exist.