Here's a look at where the hunt for aliens has been and where it's headed.
The search for alien life : Read more
The search for alien life : Read more
The search for alien life
- Thread starter Admin
- Start date
Interesting report and historical information provided concerning the search for life outside of Earth.
My observation. 1. Abiogenesis is assumed to be the true explanation for the origin of life on Earth (no special creation). 2. Abiogenesis is assumed to take place on other worlds too, not just here on Earth. 3. Alien life exists somewhere today in the Universe, including perhaps on other planets in our solar system or other solar system moons like Europa or Enceladus.
None of the 3 points are confirmed at present by the scientific method as true like the observations supporting the heliocentric solar system or observations support the Earth is round and not flat.
My observation. 1. Abiogenesis is assumed to be the true explanation for the origin of life on Earth (no special creation). 2. Abiogenesis is assumed to take place on other worlds too, not just here on Earth. 3. Alien life exists somewhere today in the Universe, including perhaps on other planets in our solar system or other solar system moons like Europa or Enceladus.
None of the 3 points are confirmed at present by the scientific method as true like the observations supporting the heliocentric solar system or observations support the Earth is round and not flat.
Catastrophe
"Science begets knowledge, opinion ignorance.
rod,
1. Observation: we are here along with millions of other species. That is incontrovertible.
2. Whilst I agree that we have not observed any 'super being' I believe that one does not exist. Science has not shown any evidence of this, nor is it a practice of science (imho) to engage in magical invention. Occam's Razor would be against 'creation of . . . by . . . created by . . . created by . . . created by . . . '
Thus I believe it is a working model to suggest that life can and does arise via organic molecules, which we do know to exist.
3. This does not really merit a separate point (imho), since if life can originate here, it can also start up in other suitable environments. Observation: We see live here. According to model 2, life may start up in other suitable environments.
Cat
P.S. I have noted other articles in the 'astronomy' magazines. I will look see whether there is anything of interest there.
Also, regarding heliocentric etcetera, at least the Sun was observed, and life is observed here, so that is a start vis à vis a workable model.
I have never (myself) seen any heliocentric arguments depending on whether or not the Sun was created, as opposed to condensing from molecular cloud. Perhaps we should delay believing in the existence of the Sun (or life) until we know whether or not they were created from/by an external entity?
1. Observation: we are here along with millions of other species. That is incontrovertible.
2. Whilst I agree that we have not observed any 'super being' I believe that one does not exist. Science has not shown any evidence of this, nor is it a practice of science (imho) to engage in magical invention. Occam's Razor would be against 'creation of . . . by . . . created by . . . created by . . . created by . . . '
Thus I believe it is a working model to suggest that life can and does arise via organic molecules, which we do know to exist.
3. This does not really merit a separate point (imho), since if life can originate here, it can also start up in other suitable environments. Observation: We see live here. According to model 2, life may start up in other suitable environments.
Cat
P.S. I have noted other articles in the 'astronomy' magazines. I will look see whether there is anything of interest there.
Also, regarding heliocentric etcetera, at least the Sun was observed, and life is observed here, so that is a start vis à vis a workable model.
I have never (myself) seen any heliocentric arguments depending on whether or not the Sun was created, as opposed to condensing from molecular cloud. Perhaps we should delay believing in the existence of the Sun (or life) until we know whether or not they were created from/by an external entity?
Last edited:
Catastrophe
"Science begets knowledge, opinion ignorance.
Rod, I have found one of them quite quickly. BUT, if I may raise a point of procedure - definitely in order to abide by the rules.
R******n is prohibited. Therefore, according to the Rules, it is not allowed to discuss any alternative to abiogenesis.
This is a science forum, and if we remain here, we have to accept the Rules and, by my reading, and I stand open to correction, abiogenesis is the only subject open to discussion on this table.
Quote
In evolutionary biology, abiogenesis, or informally the origin of life (OoL), is the natural process by which life has arisen from non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds. ... Many approaches to abiogenesis investigate how self-replicating molecules, or their components, came into existence.
Quote I know that you know this - it is for the benefit of new participants.
As I have said before, and it is sincere, I do respect the right of any thoughtful person to believe whatever they wish.
I am just sincerely suggesting that R*******s matters are best discussed on forums dedicated to that persuasion, and not introduced, even incidentally into forums where they are forbidden.
This thread refers to The search for alien life which, I believe, restricts discussion to abiogenesis. I stand open to correction.
Cat
R******n is prohibited. Therefore, according to the Rules, it is not allowed to discuss any alternative to abiogenesis.
This is a science forum, and if we remain here, we have to accept the Rules and, by my reading, and I stand open to correction, abiogenesis is the only subject open to discussion on this table.
Quote
In evolutionary biology, abiogenesis, or informally the origin of life (OoL), is the natural process by which life has arisen from non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds. ... Many approaches to abiogenesis investigate how self-replicating molecules, or their components, came into existence.
Quote I know that you know this - it is for the benefit of new participants.
As I have said before, and it is sincere, I do respect the right of any thoughtful person to believe whatever they wish.
I am just sincerely suggesting that R*******s matters are best discussed on forums dedicated to that persuasion, and not introduced, even incidentally into forums where they are forbidden.
This thread refers to The search for alien life which, I believe, restricts discussion to abiogenesis. I stand open to correction.
Cat
Reference Cat post #3. "Also, regarding heliocentric etcetera, at least the Sun was observed, and life is observed here, so that is a start vis à vis a workable model."
Observing life here on Earth is not the same as observing abiogenesis take place on Earth or anywhere else in the Universe. Observing life on Earth is observing biogenesis. This is not the same problem as geocentric astronomy where observations of the Sun indicated the Sun moved around the immovable Earth. Geocentric astronomy had observations from nature showing the Sun did indeed move relative to the belief the Earth was immovable and viewing the Sun from Earth's frame of reference. Abiogenesis converting non-living matter into life has not been observed operating in nature. My observation. Much of the article looks like a philosophy concerning the origin of life in search of becoming a *science*. My opinion.
Observing life here on Earth is not the same as observing abiogenesis take place on Earth or anywhere else in the Universe. Observing life on Earth is observing biogenesis. This is not the same problem as geocentric astronomy where observations of the Sun indicated the Sun moved around the immovable Earth. Geocentric astronomy had observations from nature showing the Sun did indeed move relative to the belief the Earth was immovable and viewing the Sun from Earth's frame of reference. Abiogenesis converting non-living matter into life has not been observed operating in nature. My observation. Much of the article looks like a philosophy concerning the origin of life in search of becoming a *science*. My opinion.
Catastrophe
"Science begets knowledge, opinion ignorance.
Sorry, I got a bit carried away there. The article (current) is as follows:
How did life's ingredients arrive on Earth. Astronomy Now August 2021
Written by Colin Stuart.
Quote
We still don't know exactly how the first cells were formed . . . What we do know, is that it happened relatively quickly, within the first half billion years or so of the Earth's history [including the Moon formation etcetera] (It is suspected) that life had a head start (due to) the discovery of ethanolamine in interstellar space. Ethanolamine is an essential ingredient in the membranes that protect the genetic material inside the cells of humans and other living things.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
We needed impacts to bring us water and top-up our levels of important molecules like ethanolamine. Carbon rain was required to flood the infant Solar System with enough carbon to eventually fashion hearts, eyes and bones. That you're here to read this is a testament to what a little cosmic sharing can do.
Quote
Cat
How did life's ingredients arrive on Earth. Astronomy Now August 2021
Written by Colin Stuart.
Quote
We still don't know exactly how the first cells were formed . . . What we do know, is that it happened relatively quickly, within the first half billion years or so of the Earth's history [including the Moon formation etcetera] (It is suspected) that life had a head start (due to) the discovery of ethanolamine in interstellar space. Ethanolamine is an essential ingredient in the membranes that protect the genetic material inside the cells of humans and other living things.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
We needed impacts to bring us water and top-up our levels of important molecules like ethanolamine. Carbon rain was required to flood the infant Solar System with enough carbon to eventually fashion hearts, eyes and bones. That you're here to read this is a testament to what a little cosmic sharing can do.
Quote
Cat
Cat, in post #6, *We needed impacts to bring us water...* I already posted on the forums, how many impacts are needed to explain Earth's water supply. At least 11.1 trillion or more. I can assume such a number took place in the past that I did not see, but this does not make such an interpretation a fact in science, just a model interpretation that may be good or poorly defined and wrong too.
https://forums.space.com/threads/ci...earth-10-times-more-often-than-thought.39949/, shows the 11.1 trillion number for meteorite impacts.
https://forums.space.com/threads/ci...earth-10-times-more-often-than-thought.39949/, shows the 11.1 trillion number for meteorite impacts.
Catastrophe
"Science begets knowledge, opinion ignorance.
See the link in post #7, last comment.Rod, could you please point me towards this?
"I already posted on the forums, how many impacts are needed to explain Earth's water supply. At least 11.1 trillion or more"
Cat
Catastrophe
"Science begets knowledge, opinion ignorance.
Ooops, sorry, I missed that:
"We tend to focus on the Earth's interior and the evolution of life as controls on Earth's oxygen balance, but bombardment with rocks from space provides an intriguing alternative." My emphasis.
I will get back and read it thoroughly later. I just cannot (at this time) see that calculation as anything but wild guesswork, but I stand open to correction.
Cat
"We tend to focus on the Earth's interior and the evolution of life as controls on Earth's oxygen balance, but bombardment with rocks from space provides an intriguing alternative." My emphasis.
I will get back and read it thoroughly later. I just cannot (at this time) see that calculation as anything but wild guesswork, but I stand open to correction.
Cat
Ooops, sorry, I missed that:
"We tend to focus on the Earth's interior and the evolution of life as controls on Earth's oxygen balance, but bombardment with rocks from space provides an intriguing alternative." My emphasis.
I will get back and read it thoroughly later. I just cannot (at this time) see that calculation as anything but wild guesswork, but I stand open to correction.
Cat
*wild guesswork* with references too
As I said in that post, the total number of meteorite impacts, asteroids, or comets needed to deliver Earth's abundant water supply measures in the many trillions when computed. This is not commonly reported to the public but should be in astronomy and astrobiology reports-my view.
Catastrophe
"Science begets knowledge, opinion ignorance.
"This is not commonly reported to the public"
Eeeek! That sounds like conspiracy theory - just my opinion.
Cat
*This is not commonly reported to the public* is my thinking based upon my readings from Scientific American, phys.org, astronomy.com, skyandtelescope, etc. Various papers I read at NASA ADS Abstract service do not commonly report the total number of these small objects needed to deliver the water to Earth and make the supply we see today. Perhaps such figures are provided but I do not see like an abstract or plain language summary, up front for all to see
Catastrophe
"Science begets knowledge, opinion ignorance.
Not even read it - but first that came up on Google - back to look for more.
www.abc.net.au
Cat
'Incredible implications': Scientists re-write the book on where Earth's water came from
According to textbooks, Earth was dry before it was bombarded by water-containing rocks from the icy outer solar system. But that's not what a new study has found.
www.abc.net.au
Cat
Not even read it - but first that came up on Google - back to look for more.
'Incredible implications': Scientists re-write the book on where Earth's water came from
According to textbooks, Earth was dry before it was bombarded by water-containing rocks from the icy outer solar system. But that's not what a new study has found.
Cat
I did read over. Meteorites are referenced in multiple places and if you use dust and gas, you need to make the rocks too. Again, there must be a calculated number to deliver water to Earth including what happens to any water on the proto-Earth when Theia shows up for a visit
Catastrophe
"Science begets knowledge, opinion ignorance.
Theia was very early on.
Anyway here is another thought:
en.wikipedia.org
"It was long thought that Earth’s water did not originate from the planet’s region of the protoplanetary disk. Instead, it was hypothesized water and other volatiles must have been delivered to Earth from the outer Solar System later in its history. Recent research, however, indicates that hydrogen inside the Earth played a role in the formation of the ocean.[3] The two ideas are not mutually exclusive, as there is also evidence water was delivered to Earth by impacts from icy planetesimals similar in composition to asteroids in the outer edges of the asteroid belt.[4"
Cat
Anyway here is another thought:
Origin of water on Earth - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
"It was long thought that Earth’s water did not originate from the planet’s region of the protoplanetary disk. Instead, it was hypothesized water and other volatiles must have been delivered to Earth from the outer Solar System later in its history. Recent research, however, indicates that hydrogen inside the Earth played a role in the formation of the ocean.[3] The two ideas are not mutually exclusive, as there is also evidence water was delivered to Earth by impacts from icy planetesimals similar in composition to asteroids in the outer edges of the asteroid belt.[4"
Cat
Theia was very early on.
Anyway here is another thought:
Origin of water on Earth - Wikipedia
"It was long thought that Earth’s water did not originate from the planet’s region of the protoplanetary disk. Instead, it was hypothesized water and other volatiles must have been delivered to Earth from the outer Solar System later in its history. Recent research, however, indicates that hydrogen inside the Earth played a role in the formation of the ocean.[3] The two ideas are not mutually exclusive, as there is also evidence water was delivered to Earth by impacts from icy planetesimals similar in composition to asteroids in the outer edges of the asteroid belt.[4"
Cat
Yes, still using impacts and not telling folks just how many may be needed or how much H was available when the proto-Earth evolved in the accretion disk or carbon abundance problem. The problem runs into how much earth masses is needed in the accretion disk between Mercury to Mars used in various computer simulations to make the planets Mercury to Mars (these are commonly planetary embryos, not full grown planets), Theia impact, etc. etc. These are interesting model interpretations in my opinion but not as secure as observations supporting the heliocentric solar system in use today in astronomy.
Personally I think there may be room for both schools of thought about how life came to be in our universe. A prime mover using intelligent design (definition - tbd) of some sort may have set the stage for abiogenesis. The prime mover knocks over the first domino (Big Bang) to start the process. Abiogenesis is part of said process and, therefore, inevitable.
Catastrophe
"Science begets knowledge, opinion ignorance.
I think my heliocentric comparison was quite valid - just at different stages.
As far as water is concerned, it seems that it is not either or but both, and maybe more contributions. Any, I shall keep looking, as it is important.
Well we have strayed off topic: The search for alien life
Well, not that far, as water seems considered an essential factor.
Cat
As far as water is concerned, it seems that it is not either or but both, and maybe more contributions. Any, I shall keep looking, as it is important.
Well we have strayed off topic: The search for alien life
Well, not that far, as water seems considered an essential factor.
Cat
Catastrophe
"Science begets knowledge, opinion ignorance.
KCS, sorry = both schools of thought?
Not "This article is about a specific pseudoscientific form of creationism. For generic arguments from "intelligent design", see Teleological argument. For the movement, see Intelligent design movement. For other uses of the phrase, see Intelligent design (disambiguation)." ??
IF SO please see post #4.
Cat
Not "This article is about a specific pseudoscientific form of creationism. For generic arguments from "intelligent design", see Teleological argument. For the movement, see Intelligent design movement. For other uses of the phrase, see Intelligent design (disambiguation)." ??
IF SO please see post #4.
Cat
Cat,
Thank you for the links. I don't wish to get bogged down in such debate, so I will try again. To me the development of the universe looks like a process, and one of the process steps is Abiogenesis.
Thank you for the links. I don't wish to get bogged down in such debate, so I will try again. To me the development of the universe looks like a process, and one of the process steps is Abiogenesis.
Catastrophe
"Science begets knowledge, opinion ignorance.
KCS, that's fine. We are here only interested in science and scientific models (as opposed to theories) - horses for courses.
One idea you may encounter is that the development of the Universe took a long time. Life (abiogenesis) took place comparatively quickly. One sees 'arguments' about the chances of life. What they omit are the facts concerning the availability of essential organics - these became available quite quickly. They 'speeded up' the odds and gave a 'flying start'. Anyway, let's hear (consistent with #4) what you think about abiogenesis and development of the Universe.
Please remember, if you go to an English - French swap-learning group, please don't try to convince the group they really should change to German- French.
They (we) want to discuss space/cosmology/astronomy/etcetera matters which is why we are here, and not somewhere else.
Cat
One idea you may encounter is that the development of the Universe took a long time. Life (abiogenesis) took place comparatively quickly. One sees 'arguments' about the chances of life. What they omit are the facts concerning the availability of essential organics - these became available quite quickly. They 'speeded up' the odds and gave a 'flying start'. Anyway, let's hear (consistent with #4) what you think about abiogenesis and development of the Universe.
Please remember, if you go to an English - French swap-learning group, please don't try to convince the group they really should change to German- French.
They (we) want to discuss space/cosmology/astronomy/etcetera matters which is why we are here, and not somewhere else.
Cat
By the way, in my opinion, the process is too elegant to have "just happened" I tend to believe the process was created and set into motion in an independent manner. Falsifiable? No.
Catastrophe
"Science begets knowledge, opinion ignorance.
"Falsifiable? No."
Beyond reasonable doubt, by far the best believable model.
chacun à son goût .
Cat
Beyond reasonable doubt, by far the best believable model.
chacun à son goût .
Cat
Similar threads
TRENDING THREADS
-
NASA's Voyager 1 spacecraft finally phones home after 5 months of no contact
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 2
-
-
-
A video made by me about space and the loneliness in the universe- Started by drakotol
- Replies: 54
-
-
Cosmic fountain is polluting intergalactic space with 50 million suns' worth of material
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 1
-
Pluto's heart-shaped scar may offer clues to the frozen world's history
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 0
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
This is a possible explanation for why ‘c’ interaction is independent of our speed, maybe
- Latest: Classical Motion
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram