Kepler space telescope spots five Earth-sized planets in our galaxy
- Thread starter doublegoodprole
- Start date
Re: Kepler space telescope spots five Earth-sized planets in our galax
The CNN article leaves out a bit of information that might be of interest.
Kepler actually found 68 candidate planets that are near earth size (no larger than 1.25 the size of earth). Five of these were also within the "habitable zone," which are the five mentioned in the CNN article. Of course these still need to be verified. However, I think that Kepler is running over 80 percent on its findings being verified as planets, so most of these should pan out.
Here is an article with a bit more information and a few neat graphs:
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=32632
If these are verified, one would expect a very large number of earth sized planets within the "habitable zone" to reside in the Milky Way given that 5 were found in such a small sampling.
The CNN article leaves out a bit of information that might be of interest.
Kepler actually found 68 candidate planets that are near earth size (no larger than 1.25 the size of earth). Five of these were also within the "habitable zone," which are the five mentioned in the CNN article. Of course these still need to be verified. However, I think that Kepler is running over 80 percent on its findings being verified as planets, so most of these should pan out.
Here is an article with a bit more information and a few neat graphs:
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=32632
If these are verified, one would expect a very large number of earth sized planets within the "habitable zone" to reside in the Milky Way given that 5 were found in such a small sampling.
Re: Kepler space telescope spots five Earth-sized planets in our galax
Sorry, I lost this in the shuffle. There is a proposed return mission to Titan...
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/features.cfm?feature=2035
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titan_Saturn_System_Mission
Sorry, I lost this in the shuffle. There is a proposed return mission to Titan...
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/features.cfm?feature=2035
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titan_Saturn_System_Mission
ProtoAvatar
Fleet Captain
Re: Kepler space telescope spots five Earth-sized planets in our galax
Yes, life arose on Earth soon after the envinronment allowed this.
But you may also want to notice how life arose on Earth ONLY ONCE in BILLIONS of years of varied, paradisiac conditions.
The chance of life arising - even in ideal conditions - is a LOT smaller than you think. Life arising is most definitely NOT 'fairly easy' - as the many scientists who tried (using intelligence, planning and skill, not random events) and failed to make life arise in a laboratory can attest to.
It does not.
The galaxy, as we observe it, is in its primordial state, shaped only by the laws of physics, untouched by intelligence across the aeons.
Hence, the fermi paradox.
Yes, life arose on Earth soon after the envinronment allowed this.
But you may also want to notice how life arose on Earth ONLY ONCE in BILLIONS of years of varied, paradisiac conditions.
The chance of life arising - even in ideal conditions - is a LOT smaller than you think. Life arising is most definitely NOT 'fairly easy' - as the many scientists who tried (using intelligence, planning and skill, not random events) and failed to make life arise in a laboratory can attest to.
If technological civilizations arose in our galaxy 'reasonably' often throughout the past billions of years, then the galaxy would be singing the songs of intelligence, transmitted via EM waves, astroengineering constructs, etc - detectable by us.
It does not.
The galaxy, as we observe it, is in its primordial state, shaped only by the laws of physics, untouched by intelligence across the aeons.
Hence, the fermi paradox.
Re: Kepler space telescope spots five Earth-sized planets in our galax
So, somewhere out there, there just might be a planet of Ewoks?
Re: Kepler space telescope spots five Earth-sized planets in our galax
As of right now, nobody has any way of knowing if that is true or not. It is simply an assumption.
Laced with assumption. If you can know what you have said above to be true, then can you describe in detail what type of communication our society will be using (assuming it doesn't fall) in say 10,000 years or 100,000 years? What if it was based on quantum entanglement or something like that? EM waves very likely would seem more primitive to such a society than sending a message by wire seems to us.
I have no idea if there is intelligent life out there or not, but the fermi paradox is just a silly little novelty. It certainly isn't the death nail argument that weights the scales heavily against life out there.
As of right now, nobody has any way of knowing if that is true or not. It is simply an assumption.
Laced with assumption. If you can know what you have said above to be true, then can you describe in detail what type of communication our society will be using (assuming it doesn't fall) in say 10,000 years or 100,000 years? What if it was based on quantum entanglement or something like that? EM waves very likely would seem more primitive to such a society than sending a message by wire seems to us.
I have no idea if there is intelligent life out there or not, but the fermi paradox is just a silly little novelty. It certainly isn't the death nail argument that weights the scales heavily against life out there.
Last edited:
ProtoAvatar
Fleet Captain
Re: Kepler space telescope spots five Earth-sized planets in our galax
Really, PurpleBuddha?
As of right now - and for some time - biologists had the means to identify life belonging to another genesis, another tree of life - the "way of knowing if that is true or not".
And they searched quite thoroughly for it on Earth. They found none.
So - not 'simply an assumption'. A fact backed up by a lot of scientific investigation.
That would be because EM waves are travelling at the top speed of the universe - and are otherwise highly efficient.
Why won't ET use entanglement or other FTL means of communication?
Because, as per special relativity and causality - which are FAR more than 'assumptions' - FTL communication is and will remain impossible, due to the fundamental laws of this universe.
Also - EM communications are not the only means by which we can detect alien civilizations.
We can also 'see' astroengineering constructs, changes in the stars' spectrum, etc, etc. Not a trace of any such signs of intelligence was seen.
It is also not silly - the assuptions it implies are probable, sometimes inevitable, its reasoning is sound. You denying it 'just because' changes nothing to this.
And it is most definitely not 'little' in its implications.
You say my post is based on assumptions - but yours is based on some demonstrably false - or hugely improbable - assumptions.
Really, PurpleBuddha?
As of right now - and for some time - biologists had the means to identify life belonging to another genesis, another tree of life - the "way of knowing if that is true or not".
And they searched quite thoroughly for it on Earth. They found none.
So - not 'simply an assumption'. A fact backed up by a lot of scientific investigation.
The means of communications will still be EM waves.
That would be because EM waves are travelling at the top speed of the universe - and are otherwise highly efficient.
Why won't ET use entanglement or other FTL means of communication?
Because, as per special relativity and causality - which are FAR more than 'assumptions' - FTL communication is and will remain impossible, due to the fundamental laws of this universe.
Also - EM communications are not the only means by which we can detect alien civilizations.
We can also 'see' astroengineering constructs, changes in the stars' spectrum, etc, etc. Not a trace of any such signs of intelligence was seen.
PurpleBuddha - the fermi paradox is not novel, but already close to a century old.
It is also not silly - the assuptions it implies are probable, sometimes inevitable, its reasoning is sound. You denying it 'just because' changes nothing to this.
And it is most definitely not 'little' in its implications.
You say my post is based on assumptions - but yours is based on some demonstrably false - or hugely improbable - assumptions.
Last edited:
Re: Kepler space telescope spots five Earth-sized planets in our galax
Oh I understand the point. But you said life in fact only arose once on earth. There is no way for you to know that. I realize we have not found any other instances yet, but the search continues. They have not stopped looking because the question remains open.
Now if you want to say that so far the evidence supports that life only arose once, you will get no argument form me.
When did I ever say they might be using faster than light communication?
Anyway, we are only just barely beginning to discover other planets but you think we are advanced enough or have looked enough that we should have already discovered astroenginnering constructs indicating intelligence were it there.
Lets just pretend there are 100,000 planets occupied by intelligent civilizations in our galaxy (I highly doubt there is). That would mean these planets orbit .0000005 percent of all the stars in the milky way (using 200 billion as the number of stars). Obviously if the number of occupied planets is much smaller the percents get even worse. If we are looking for changes in a stars spectrum we may have to look at a lot more starts before we see something, even if there really was as many 100,000 or even 1 million (again, I do not think this many is likely at all, I just use higher numbers for the sake of the point).
Novel can also mean unique, which is how I used it here. But I could care about that. If you would rather, I will just call it silly to avoid further confusion.
It is good to question what is probable but so hard to determine the variables right now to be able to confidently say one way or the other. We have barely dampened our toes in the universe (to borrow for Carl Sagan). To make such definitive statements about whether there is life or not is more than premature.
Finally, what part of my post is demonstrably false? Can you demonstrate please?
Oh I understand the point. But you said life in fact only arose once on earth. There is no way for you to know that. I realize we have not found any other instances yet, but the search continues. They have not stopped looking because the question remains open.
Now if you want to say that so far the evidence supports that life only arose once, you will get no argument form me.
When did I ever say they might be using faster than light communication?
Anyway, we are only just barely beginning to discover other planets but you think we are advanced enough or have looked enough that we should have already discovered astroenginnering constructs indicating intelligence were it there.
Lets just pretend there are 100,000 planets occupied by intelligent civilizations in our galaxy (I highly doubt there is). That would mean these planets orbit .0000005 percent of all the stars in the milky way (using 200 billion as the number of stars). Obviously if the number of occupied planets is much smaller the percents get even worse. If we are looking for changes in a stars spectrum we may have to look at a lot more starts before we see something, even if there really was as many 100,000 or even 1 million (again, I do not think this many is likely at all, I just use higher numbers for the sake of the point).
Novel can also mean unique, which is how I used it here. But I could care about that. If you would rather, I will just call it silly to avoid further confusion.
It is good to question what is probable but so hard to determine the variables right now to be able to confidently say one way or the other. We have barely dampened our toes in the universe (to borrow for Carl Sagan). To make such definitive statements about whether there is life or not is more than premature.
Finally, what part of my post is demonstrably false? Can you demonstrate please?
ProtoAvatar
Fleet Captain
Re: Kepler space telescope spots five Earth-sized planets in our galax
PurpleBuddha
About life arising only once on Eath, despite a long period of extremely favorable conditions:
The search for another genesis on Earth is carried forward, yes. At this point, considering how well known Earth's ecosystem is, the chances of actually finding a second type of life, a second genesis are EXTREMELY (and I MEAN EXTREMELY) small.
About detection:
If you're talking about light speed communications, then EM waves are - and will remain - the most efficient method to communicate; yes, they really are so efficient regarding speed, energy expenditure, emission/detection, etc.
But just in case ET is fond of inefficiencies and huge energy expenditures, we can also detect, say, gravity waves, neutrinos, etc.
And the fact that we can detect planetes means we can detect astroengineering constructs; many theoretised such structures are FAR easier to detect than planets.
About the Fermi paradox:
"Lets just pretend there are 100,000 planets occupied by intelligent civilizations in our galaxy"
That would translate into 100,000 civilizations - all with different motivations.
If only one of these civilizations is motivated to explore/colonise the galaxy - either in person or by von Neumann probes -, then in 10 million years all the stars in the galaxy would be colonised by this civilization's offspring.
Considering the number of civilizations you posit and the strong rationale behind exploration/colonisation, it is extremely unlikely all would share the same 'stay at hume, stay quiet/hidden' philosophy - throughout BILLIONS of years.
Yes, these hypothetical civilizations already had at their disposal BILLIONS of years - far more than 10 million. Enough time to leave a LOT of signs, even without exploration/colonisation.
A galaxy inhabited by 100,000 civilizations would look inhabited, not empty of intelligence, as the Milky Way looks.
"We have barely dampened our toes in the universe (to borrow for Carl Sagan)."
Yes, we haven't travelled at all. But we've looked pretty far into the galaxy. Further away than we can hope to actually reach in less than astronomical time scales.
So far, what we found out regarding life and intelligence - on Earth and in the galaxy - is not encouraging.
"It is good to question what is probable but so hard to determine the variables right now to be able to confidently say one way or the other."
True enough. But we are at the stage where we can make some statements with a high degree of likelihood about extraterrestrial life.
For example, that it's highly improbable that there are 100,000 civilizations in the Milky Way galaxy.
About assumptions:
"Finally, what part of my post is demonstrably false? Can you demonstrate please?"
"As of right now, nobody has any way of knowing if that is true or not." - demonstrably false - microbiologists/geneticists DO have the means to determine whether a form of life belongs to another tree of life, another genesis than our own.
"What if it was based on quantum entanglement or something like that?" - FTL communication, demonstrably false - starting from special relativity.
PurpleBuddha
About life arising only once on Eath, despite a long period of extremely favorable conditions:
The search for another genesis on Earth is carried forward, yes. At this point, considering how well known Earth's ecosystem is, the chances of actually finding a second type of life, a second genesis are EXTREMELY (and I MEAN EXTREMELY) small.
About detection:
If you're talking about light speed communications, then EM waves are - and will remain - the most efficient method to communicate; yes, they really are so efficient regarding speed, energy expenditure, emission/detection, etc.
But just in case ET is fond of inefficiencies and huge energy expenditures, we can also detect, say, gravity waves, neutrinos, etc.
And the fact that we can detect planetes means we can detect astroengineering constructs; many theoretised such structures are FAR easier to detect than planets.
About the Fermi paradox:
"Lets just pretend there are 100,000 planets occupied by intelligent civilizations in our galaxy"
That would translate into 100,000 civilizations - all with different motivations.
If only one of these civilizations is motivated to explore/colonise the galaxy - either in person or by von Neumann probes -, then in 10 million years all the stars in the galaxy would be colonised by this civilization's offspring.
Considering the number of civilizations you posit and the strong rationale behind exploration/colonisation, it is extremely unlikely all would share the same 'stay at hume, stay quiet/hidden' philosophy - throughout BILLIONS of years.
Yes, these hypothetical civilizations already had at their disposal BILLIONS of years - far more than 10 million. Enough time to leave a LOT of signs, even without exploration/colonisation.
A galaxy inhabited by 100,000 civilizations would look inhabited, not empty of intelligence, as the Milky Way looks.
"We have barely dampened our toes in the universe (to borrow for Carl Sagan)."
Yes, we haven't travelled at all. But we've looked pretty far into the galaxy. Further away than we can hope to actually reach in less than astronomical time scales.
So far, what we found out regarding life and intelligence - on Earth and in the galaxy - is not encouraging.
"It is good to question what is probable but so hard to determine the variables right now to be able to confidently say one way or the other."
True enough. But we are at the stage where we can make some statements with a high degree of likelihood about extraterrestrial life.
For example, that it's highly improbable that there are 100,000 civilizations in the Milky Way galaxy.
About assumptions:
"Finally, what part of my post is demonstrably false? Can you demonstrate please?"
"As of right now, nobody has any way of knowing if that is true or not." - demonstrably false - microbiologists/geneticists DO have the means to determine whether a form of life belongs to another tree of life, another genesis than our own.
"What if it was based on quantum entanglement or something like that?" - FTL communication, demonstrably false - starting from special relativity.
Last edited:
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?
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?
ProtoAvatar
Fleet Captain
Re: Kepler space telescope spots five Earth-sized planets in our galax
ThankQ
Earth provided paradisiac condition for life since BILLIONS of years ago until today. Throughout all this time, life has proven quite resilient. Once it appeared, life was VERY persistent - if there's the smallest chance of survival, life will survive.
But our tree of life is, somehow, the only one that survived out of thousands that were magically snuffed out? The only one that left any fossil evidence?
And these thousands other trees of life were snuffed out by...what? Catastrophes are NOT so frequent on Earth; catastrophes don't target life; and life is more than able to survive a large variety of catastrophes.
Where are the trees of life that appeared recently and didn't have time to dissapear? Now life can appear only in the distant past?
A highly unlikely speculation.
ThankQ
Earth provided paradisiac condition for life since BILLIONS of years ago until today. Throughout all this time, life has proven quite resilient. Once it appeared, life was VERY persistent - if there's the smallest chance of survival, life will survive.
But our tree of life is, somehow, the only one that survived out of thousands that were magically snuffed out? The only one that left any fossil evidence?
And these thousands other trees of life were snuffed out by...what? Catastrophes are NOT so frequent on Earth; catastrophes don't target life; and life is more than able to survive a large variety of catastrophes.
Where are the trees of life that appeared recently and didn't have time to dissapear? Now life can appear only in the distant past?
A highly unlikely speculation.
Re: Kepler space telescope spots five Earth-sized planets in our galax
I'm not saying there are undiscovered trees of life, but possible false starts. I think you misunderstood me. I wasn't suggesting these genesi ever got beyond the self-replicating molecules stage. Doubtfully to the single celled organism phase.
That is not "way out there" far fetched.
Only one human species made it to today. No "magic" required.
And I was obviously going over the top w/20,000. But any number greater than ONE changes the whole ball game.
I never said they got so far down the line. Maybe life started multiple times in a somehow contained area. It consumed all its fuel and couldn't spread. Maybe only one genesis happened under the proper circumstances that allowed it to become widespread.
You're right, its all speculation. My point is, we could sit around and thing of a thousand reasons that a genesis could have an early, abrupt ending. By "local catastrophe" I wasn't talking massive impacts. A "Meteor Crater" sized impact, even smaller, could have done the job nicely. And those, in fact, were very common 4.5 billion years ago. Like I said before, running out of resources in a contained area w/out the ability to leave. Atmospheric changes. Climate changes. Solar activity.... Catastrophes were much more frequent 4500ma.
These early forms would not have gotten to the point where they could leave behind a record in stone. Yes, speculation that can likely never be falsified. That is a bit of a sticking point, but in this situation I think the great old saying applies: Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
That could very damn well be true. The guys in the labs trying to create life from scratch, you read much about them? They try to duplicate the conditions of earth 4500ma. The Earth is not nearly the same as it was when we think like first began. Maybe life can't get started under the current conditions.
I'm not saying there are undiscovered trees of life, but possible false starts. I think you misunderstood me. I wasn't suggesting these genesi ever got beyond the self-replicating molecules stage. Doubtfully to the single celled organism phase.
That is not "way out there" far fetched.
Only one human species made it to today. No "magic" required.
And I was obviously going over the top w/20,000. But any number greater than ONE changes the whole ball game.
I never said they got so far down the line. Maybe life started multiple times in a somehow contained area. It consumed all its fuel and couldn't spread. Maybe only one genesis happened under the proper circumstances that allowed it to become widespread.
You're right, its all speculation. My point is, we could sit around and thing of a thousand reasons that a genesis could have an early, abrupt ending. By "local catastrophe" I wasn't talking massive impacts. A "Meteor Crater" sized impact, even smaller, could have done the job nicely. And those, in fact, were very common 4.5 billion years ago. Like I said before, running out of resources in a contained area w/out the ability to leave. Atmospheric changes. Climate changes. Solar activity.... Catastrophes were much more frequent 4500ma.
These early forms would not have gotten to the point where they could leave behind a record in stone. Yes, speculation that can likely never be falsified. That is a bit of a sticking point, but in this situation I think the great old saying applies: Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
That could very damn well be true. The guys in the labs trying to create life from scratch, you read much about them? They try to duplicate the conditions of earth 4500ma. The Earth is not nearly the same as it was when we think like first began. Maybe life can't get started under the current conditions.
ProtoAvatar
Fleet Captain
Re: Kepler space telescope spots five Earth-sized planets in our galax
ThankQ
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.
Your claim that life could easily start multiple times in the distant past and not once today is baseless, has no supporting evidence.
And you made a few other 'out-there' claims:
"I wasn't suggesting these genesi ever got beyond the self-replicating molecules stage. Doubtfully to the single celled organism phase.
That is not "way out there" far fetched."
'self-replicating molecules stage'? You seem to think that's easy.
Scientists who try to create life in a laboratory - by whatever conditions they deem necessary (conditions that existed on Earth, completely artificial conditions/chemical reaction, etc) - are dreaming about creating self-replicating molecules. And failing.
You think self-replicating molecules appear just like that - just put some chemicals together? Guess again. If that were the case, nanotechnology would be easy to create.
"But any number greater than ONE changes the whole ball game."
Any number greater than one is really 'out-there', unsupported speculation.
And the chances of a catastrophe striking at just the right place and time and with enough force to snuff out a tree of life while sparing the other are INFINITESIMALLY small.
And these infinitesimal chances - ridiculously small as they are - somehow manage to become even smaller (essentially, mathematical abstactions) when you posit that 2 such catastrophes managed to surgically strike/destroy 2 trees of life.
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."
This particular truism does not apply in this case.
Why?
Because there is compelling 'evidence of absence' - the ridiculosly small probability of another tree of life first: appearing and second: disppearing before leaving any trace.
I have nothing against some healthy specualtion - but it has to at least appear credible.
ThankQ
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.
Your claim that life could easily start multiple times in the distant past and not once today is baseless, has no supporting evidence.
And you made a few other 'out-there' claims:
"I wasn't suggesting these genesi ever got beyond the self-replicating molecules stage. Doubtfully to the single celled organism phase.
That is not "way out there" far fetched."
'self-replicating molecules stage'? You seem to think that's easy.
Scientists who try to create life in a laboratory - by whatever conditions they deem necessary (conditions that existed on Earth, completely artificial conditions/chemical reaction, etc) - are dreaming about creating self-replicating molecules. And failing.
You think self-replicating molecules appear just like that - just put some chemicals together? Guess again. If that were the case, nanotechnology would be easy to create.
"But any number greater than ONE changes the whole ball game."
Any number greater than one is really 'out-there', unsupported speculation.
And the chances of a catastrophe striking at just the right place and time and with enough force to snuff out a tree of life while sparing the other are INFINITESIMALLY small.
And these infinitesimal chances - ridiculously small as they are - somehow manage to become even smaller (essentially, mathematical abstactions) when you posit that 2 such catastrophes managed to surgically strike/destroy 2 trees of life.
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."
This particular truism does not apply in this case.
Why?
Because there is compelling 'evidence of absence' - the ridiculosly small probability of another tree of life first: appearing and second: disppearing before leaving any trace.
I have nothing against some healthy specualtion - but it has to at least appear credible.
Last edited:
Re: Kepler space telescope spots five Earth-sized planets in our galax
Here is the main thing you keep missing...
I do not claim that!
Show me where I've claimed it? I have not. I'm just not dismissing it outright.
No I don't! You seem to think I'm saying, "This happened, I know it, I just can't prove it." That's not at all what I'm saying!
I'm just less dismissive of the possibilities than you are.\
No I don't, no I don't, no I don't. I don't know how else to say it!
In my opinion, the probability is greater than it is in your opinion. That's is the only thing I'm saying.
Unsupported speculation, yes. "Out there"? I disagree with that. Doubtful? I'll go along with doubtful. "Out there", to me, means about the same as "batshit crazy talk", which I don't think this is. "This" meaning anything other than your all but outright dismissal of the idea of the possibility of a second genesis.
Not a whole tree, a localized beginning. Itty-bitty chance? Okay, I can go along w/that, too. But I think you're neglecting the the level of volcanic activity and impact bombardment of the early Precambrian.
Again, as I said in my previous replies and once already in this one, not "trees of life" -- a localized genesis.
And again, they don't have to be big explosions, it could simply be running out of fuel with no ability to spread out.
Either you misunderstood my first post, or I communicated my arguments poorly, whichever or both, I spent the next post trying to correct the ideas that were miscommunicated, and then you seem to have skipped over that and gone back to your original points.
ETA:
We don't know how small the probability is, that's mere speculation as well...
The time between "self replicating molecules" and "leaving trace fossils" is vast, even in geological terms.
Here is the main thing you keep missing...
I do not claim that!
Show me where I've claimed it? I have not. I'm just not dismissing it outright.
No I don't! You seem to think I'm saying, "This happened, I know it, I just can't prove it." That's not at all what I'm saying!
I'm just less dismissive of the possibilities than you are.\
No I don't, no I don't, no I don't. I don't know how else to say it!
In my opinion, the probability is greater than it is in your opinion. That's is the only thing I'm saying.
Unsupported speculation, yes. "Out there"? I disagree with that. Doubtful? I'll go along with doubtful. "Out there", to me, means about the same as "batshit crazy talk", which I don't think this is. "This" meaning anything other than your all but outright dismissal of the idea of the possibility of a second genesis.
Not a whole tree, a localized beginning. Itty-bitty chance? Okay, I can go along w/that, too. But I think you're neglecting the the level of volcanic activity and impact bombardment of the early Precambrian.
Again, as I said in my previous replies and once already in this one, not "trees of life" -- a localized genesis.
And again, they don't have to be big explosions, it could simply be running out of fuel with no ability to spread out.
Either you misunderstood my first post, or I communicated my arguments poorly, whichever or both, I spent the next post trying to correct the ideas that were miscommunicated, and then you seem to have skipped over that and gone back to your original points.
ETA:
We don't know how small the probability is, that's mere speculation as well...
The time between "self replicating molecules" and "leaving trace fossils" is vast, even in geological terms.
ProtoAvatar
Fleet Captain
Re: Kepler space telescope spots five Earth-sized planets in our galax
ThankQ
I'm being 'dismissive' of this 'possibility' because this possibility is as likely as me seeing a dog flying when I next exit the house.
And this extreme implausibility is immediately evident:
No new trees of life appear today, despite the same conditions as before existing on Earth;
A catastrophe striking at just the right time and place is highly improbable; this happening twice is practically impossible;
Life running out of fuel? Fuel means organic molecules and energy/sun-light; proto-molecules could only appear in a rich organic envinronment (rich enough to last for the rest of eternity when valorified only by some proto-molecules); sunlight is also not amenable to disappearing.
You claim life appearing left and right is far more probable than this, but you can offer no arguments in support of this claim beyond 'because you say so'.
You seem to immensely underestimate the complexity of even the simplest proto-molecules. Life is characterised by complexity on every level - from the microscopic to the macroscopic.
You find it probable that life appears spontaeously, just like that (such a theory is not new, it was quite popular last century - until it was completely disproven).
I find it astounding that something as awe-inspiring as life appeared even once on Earth - in all its BILLIONS of years.
Black holes, quasars, suns, etc? - yes, they're titanic forces - boring titanic forces, informationally as simplistic as one can get when compared to life.
We are the winers, the end-product of a cosmic lottery game with a stunningly small chance of wining.
ThankQ
I'm being 'dismissive' of this 'possibility' because this possibility is as likely as me seeing a dog flying when I next exit the house.
And this extreme implausibility is immediately evident:
No new trees of life appear today, despite the same conditions as before existing on Earth;
A catastrophe striking at just the right time and place is highly improbable; this happening twice is practically impossible;
Life running out of fuel? Fuel means organic molecules and energy/sun-light; proto-molecules could only appear in a rich organic envinronment (rich enough to last for the rest of eternity when valorified only by some proto-molecules); sunlight is also not amenable to disappearing.
You claim life appearing left and right is far more probable than this, but you can offer no arguments in support of this claim beyond 'because you say so'.
You seem to immensely underestimate the complexity of even the simplest proto-molecules. Life is characterised by complexity on every level - from the microscopic to the macroscopic.
You find it probable that life appears spontaeously, just like that (such a theory is not new, it was quite popular last century - until it was completely disproven).
I find it astounding that something as awe-inspiring as life appeared even once on Earth - in all its BILLIONS of years.
Black holes, quasars, suns, etc? - yes, they're titanic forces - boring titanic forces, informationally as simplistic as one can get when compared to life.
We are the winers, the end-product of a cosmic lottery game with a stunningly small chance of wining.
Re: Kepler space telescope spots five Earth-sized planets in our galax
^I'm going to stop now simply because I feel that you are either ignoring or misrepresenting everything I say, and making the same points over and over again, and what I was thinking was going to develop into a very interesting point/counterpoint conversation stopped being fun for me two posts ago.
^I'm going to stop now simply because I feel that you are either ignoring or misrepresenting everything I say, and making the same points over and over again, and what I was thinking was going to develop into a very interesting point/counterpoint conversation stopped being fun for me two posts ago.
Re: Kepler space telescope spots five Earth-sized planets in our galax
So, from what I can see, ProtoAvatar thinks life on Earth only developed once in the past 4.5 billion years. While ThankQ thinks it is possible it has happened more than once.
I side with ThankQ, it's possible. So far though, there is no proof, nor disproof.
So, from what I can see, ProtoAvatar thinks life on Earth only developed once in the past 4.5 billion years. While ThankQ thinks it is possible it has happened more than once.
I side with ThankQ, it's possible. So far though, there is no proof, nor disproof.
Re: Kepler space telescope spots five Earth-sized planets in our galax
Just wanted to add something on this very important point to the discussion. While scientists have investigated this aspect of life on Earth for some time, the scope of the search has been limited. Just last year, it was announced that bacteria composed of arsenic rather than phosphorus had been discovered; this discovery questions just how much we actually know about the necessary conditions of life. Now, this particular discovery doesn't point specifically to a second genesis of life on Earth, but it does open the door to possibilities that we had not previously considered.
Whether or not life arose on Earth more than once is a very interesting question, and not one that should be dismissed simply because of high improbability. I think that we call agree to that high improbability, but there's still so much uncertainty to the degree of high improbability... and that's all that's needed to leave room for debate.
Just wanted to add something on this very important point to the discussion. While scientists have investigated this aspect of life on Earth for some time, the scope of the search has been limited. Just last year, it was announced that bacteria composed of arsenic rather than phosphorus had been discovered; this discovery questions just how much we actually know about the necessary conditions of life. Now, this particular discovery doesn't point specifically to a second genesis of life on Earth, but it does open the door to possibilities that we had not previously considered.
Whether or not life arose on Earth more than once is a very interesting question, and not one that should be dismissed simply because of high improbability. I think that we call agree to that high improbability, but there's still so much uncertainty to the degree of high improbability... and that's all that's needed to leave room for debate.
ProtoAvatar
Fleet Captain
Re: Kepler space telescope spots five Earth-sized planets in our galax
And the scientific community demolished NASA's arsenic bacteria as belonging to another tree of life conjecure immediately after pubication - with rock-solid arguments.
There were other claims of discoverinng another tree of life, too - and all were proven wrong.
Also - the scope of the search for another genesis was anything but limited.
Every ecosystem/place on Earth studied genetically/microbiologically was automatically studied for signs of another tree of life.
And the scientific community demolished NASA's arsenic bacteria as belonging to another tree of life conjecure immediately after pubication - with rock-solid arguments.
There were other claims of discoverinng another tree of life, too - and all were proven wrong.
Also - the scope of the search for another genesis was anything but limited.
Every ecosystem/place on Earth studied genetically/microbiologically was automatically studied for signs of another tree of life.
Similar threads
