Evidence of alien life expected in next few decades

[RevDisk]

But in today's pop-science, life just grows spontaneously from every puddle of water.

Charby hit the nail on the head, "could".

It's obviously more complex. Miller–Urey experiment is a good example.  Water, methane, ammonia, and hydrogen are put in a flask, connected to another flask with water in it. Heat the water flask, add sparks. They ended up getting 20 amino acids. Could that evolve into intelligent life if given several billion years? Well, worked once. Might work elsewhere too.

[Jamisjockey]

Charby hit the nail on the head, "could".

It's obviously more complex. Miller–Urey experiment is a good example.  Water, methane, ammonia, and hydrogen are put in a flask, connected to another flask with water in it. Heat the water flask, add sparks. They ended up getting 20 amino acids. Could that evolve into intelligent life if given several billion years? Well, worked once. Might work elsewhere too.

The theory contradicts what fistful believes and I suspect that's what he was getting at.

[makattak]

I'm pretty sure they almost always say "could" not "does".

Yes, but:

Given the surprising number of oceans residing throughout our celestial home, they say "it's definitely not an if, it's a when."

That's a HUGE amount of faith.

Even if you hold to a belief in evolution, on what basis to you make the jump that "it happened here, so therefore, it must be a highly common event."

As noted by Regolith, we have a sample size of 1. To jump from that to the confidence these scientists have...

I have to say, I'm impressed by the depth of their faith.

[charby]

Yes, but:

That's a HUGE amount of faith.

Even if you hold to a belief in evolution, on what basis to you make the jump that "it happened here, so therefore, it must be a highly common event."

As noted by Regolith, we have a sample size of 1. To jump from that to the confidence these scientists have...

I have to say, I'm impressed by the depth of their faith.

Panspermia Theory is one that our common ancestor on earth, was extraterrestrial. It's just a theory, not fact but if you study plants like I do, it appears to be quite plausible.

[MechAg94]

Aren't there also theories that some seeds and/or spores can survive in space and might drift around?


And of course, we are using the term "theory" loosely here and not implying that anything is proven.

[charby]

Aren't there also theories that some seeds and/or spores can survive in space and might drift around?


And of course, we are using the term "theory" loosely here and not implying that anything is proven.

That is the Panspermia Theory

[TommyGunn]

I think it's mathematically ridiculous to think there isn't other life in the universe. If people want to make the argument that there are no Minbari out there, that's an easier argument. To say there aren't at the very least, some microbes somewhere, on some planet or planetoid or moon, in some galaxy in the known universe, well, the odds are astronomical on the "no life" bet.

Like Millcreek, I hope I'm still around to see positive proof, even if it is only microscopic. It would be neat though, if the first image is of a Europan fish swimming in front of the probe camera. 

"Minbari??"

Try VULCAN!   

[roo_ster]

I think it's mathematically ridiculous to think there isn't other life in the universe. If people want to make the argument that there are no Minbari out there, that's an easier argument. To say there aren't at the very least, some microbes somewhere, on some planet or planetoid or moon, in some galaxy in the known universe, well, the odds are astronomical on the "no life" bet.

Like Millcreek, I hope I'm still around to see positive proof, even if it is only microscopic. It would be neat though, if the first image is of a Europan fish swimming in front of the probe camera. 

Not so much.  The calculation is based on a raft of assumptions.  If any one of them are off by a significant amount or actually equal to zero, the math says "No dice."

And the theory of evolution on Earth gets worn thin the more it is examined...by scientists.  There is a disconnect between those who calculate the time required to evolve life and those who date the age of the Earth.  Put simply, we can not even use the fairy dust of magical time to enable evolution from non-living materials because our best estimates of the time required require more time than the Earth has existed.

And one has to love the multiple secularist creation myths crafted to account for the rather gaping holes in the TENS theory.  "It is turtles assumptions all the way down."  Don't forget, "Big Bang" started as a term of derision by the secular folks used to batter theist folk who claimed that the universe had a beginning point.  Back when the secularist consensus was in favor of an eternal universe.

There is an awful lot of faith-based reasoning on all the multiple sides of this issue.

[Perd Hapley]

The theory contradicts what fistful believes and I suspect that's what he was getting at.

Nope. We have NASA scientists telling us that the presence of water pretty much guarantees life. Can't we all agree that's just dumb? I presume this has a lot more to do with NASA plumping for more money, than any scientific realities or theories.

[freakazoid]

There is also a pretty sound theory that all over earth's water is extraterrestrial.

What?

Panspermia Theory is one that our common ancestor on earth, was extraterrestrial. It's just a theory, not fact but if you study plants like I do, it appears to be quite plausible.

What about plants?

[charby]

What about plants?

Just how they evolved. Gymnosperms and Angiosperms, dicots and monocots.

extraterrestrial water theory

Water arrived on the earth during the period of bombardment in earth history. Basically water was carried here in asteroids and comets.

[RevDisk]

Everything is just hydrogen and time. And overwhelming still is. 


http://www.haystack.mit.edu/edu/pcr/Astrochemistry/3%20-%20MATTER/nuclear%20synthesis.pdf

[AJ Dual]

Just how they evolved. Gymnosperms and Angiosperms, dicots and monocots.

extraterrestrial water theory

Water arrived on the earth during the period of bombardment in earth history. Basically water was carried here in asteroids and comets.

The isotope ratios of Deuterium vs. regular Hydrogen in comet water as compared to Earth's water is making the "Comets brought the water" theory looking less and less likely. Granted, we haven't visited a TON of comets, but the ones we have, like Rosetta is doing right now, are not making it look good.

That said, the evocative, but inconclusive "Martian fossil microbes" found in AH84001, and now some other meteoroids, who's isotope ratios indicate a very high probability they are indeed chunks of Mars, that some limited panspermia has happened at least in the local Solar System is a distinct possibility.

It would also make sense since Mars was smaller, it would have cooled faster than Earth, the Thea collision that formed the Moon withstanding or not, and would have had liquid surface water and a benign climate much sooner than Earth did.

[MechAg94]

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2015/04/07/aliens-are-likely-huge-says-scientist/

The aliens would be really big also. 

[charby]

The isotope ratios of Deuterium vs. regular Hydrogen in comet water as compared to Earth's water is making the "Comets brought the water" theory looking less and less likely. Granted, we haven't visited a TON of comets, but the ones we have, like Rosetta is doing right now, are not making it look good.

but they have found H2O on asteroids.

[Ron]

So science posits life came from an "other" outside of our solar system (panspermia) or that sentient beings might be able to create an optimum environment where life just happens; based on the Miller–Urey experiment that actually shows no such thing.

Science!

[birdman]

The isotope ratios of Deuterium vs. regular Hydrogen in comet water as compared to Earth's water is making the "Comets brought the water" theory looking less and less likely. Granted, we haven't visited a TON of comets, but the ones we have, like Rosetta is doing right now, are not making it look good.

That said, the evocative, but inconclusive "Martian fossil microbes" found in AH84001, and now some other meteoroids, who's isotope ratios indicate a very high probability they are indeed chunks of Mars, that some limited panspermia has happened at least in the local Solar System is a distinct possibility.

It would also make sense since Mars was smaller, it would have cooled faster than Earth, the Thea collision that formed the Moon withstanding or not, and would have had liquid surface water and a benign climate much sooner than Earth did.

No surprising, and not indicative of a negative.  In the early solar system, elements and isotopes did fractionate w.r.t. Orbital radius, (one reason why inner planets are rocky, outer are less so), so it's not that weird that isotopic differences between hydrogen isotopes and thus water (especially given the relative mass differences) on inner planets (regardless of being deposited by cometary bodies during accretion or not) would be different than cometary bodies on higher semi major axis orbits (like what are seen today).

Also, it's a matter of time in how one phrases the argument, as cometary impacts during accretion is simply part of accretion, (and thus the basis of the non-extraterrestrial water theory) while others regard the extraterrestrial water to occur after the main body solidified.  Two sides of the same coin.
Since any ice-ball is properly termed a comet, regardless of what side you agree with, any water on earth was likely frozen out, condensed, accreted into ice-balls, and then deposited in the growing or already formed planet...so "water from comets" is (while ambiguous in terms of time) pretty much accurate.

The other argument is that earth now, and even more so during formation is unable to gravitationally capture hydrogen on a long term basis (net loss is greater than net gain), so accreating hydrogen and then reacting it with a created oxygen to form water over time doesn't pass muster.  In fact, due to charged particle impacts and UV disassociation of water, we actually continually lose hydrogen even now.
(And helium as well, which is why it's so important to recycle it/not vent it...once vented, it's gone).

[charby]

(And helium as well, which is why it's so important to recycle it/not vent it...once vented, it's gone).

A good excuse for more uranium fusion! Moar power to power the hippy electric scooter and more helium for balloons. :)

[roo_ster]

A good excuse for more uranium fusion! Moar power to power the hippy electric scooter and more helium for balloons. :)

I'll vote for that!  Balloons & scooters!

[charby]

I'll vote for that!  Balloons & scooters!

Just trying to make the hippies and the little children happy.

[AJ Dual]

No surprising, and not indicative of a negative.  In the early solar system, elements and isotopes did fractionate w.r.t. Orbital radius, (one reason why inner planets are rocky, outer are less so), so it's not that weird that isotopic differences between hydrogen isotopes and thus water (especially given the relative mass differences) on inner planets (regardless of being deposited by cometary bodies during accretion or not) would be different than cometary bodies on higher semi major axis orbits (like what are seen today).

Also, it's a matter of time in how one phrases the argument, as cometary impacts during accretion is simply part of accretion, (and thus the basis of the non-extraterrestrial water theory) while others regard the extraterrestrial water to occur after the main body solidified.  Two sides of the same coin.
Since any ice-ball is properly termed a comet, regardless of what side you agree with, any water on earth was likely frozen out, condensed, accreted into ice-balls, and then deposited in the growing or already formed planet...so "water from comets" is (while ambiguous in terms of time) pretty much accurate.

The other argument is that earth now, and even more so during formation is unable to gravitationally capture hydrogen on a long term basis (net loss is greater than net gain), so accreating hydrogen and then reacting it with a created oxygen to form water over time doesn't pass muster.  In fact, due to charged particle impacts and UV disassociation of water, we actually continually lose hydrogen even now.
(And helium as well, which is why it's so important to recycle it/not vent it...once vented, it's gone).

Yes, that's a good point, it's an argument of "water during accretion" or from "later cometary bombardment".  It's all "stuff from space". And saying "from space" is an oxymoron, as we're in "space" right now.  We're part of "space".

It does infect your thinking though, subconsciously, you sort of draw a line down the mental blackboard or map of "stuff concepts and places" we have, and the bottom half is "Earth" and the top half is "Space", dividing it kind of 50/50. When of course, "Earth" is a bit of chalk dust you can't even see on the blackboard. It's that way even if you are a big fan of space exploration, astronomy, science etc. Hell, for all I know it infects your thinking even if you're a professional in these fields, unless you're actually in orbit or higher looking at the Earth through a window...

[brimic]

Charby hit the nail on the head, "could".

It's obviously more complex. Miller–Urey experiment is a good example.  Water, methane, ammonia, and hydrogen are put in a flask, connected to another flask with water in it. Heat the water flask, add sparks. They ended up getting 20 amino acids. Could that evolve into intelligent life if given several billion years? Well, worked once. Might work elsewhere too.

I attended a seminar today on therapeutic drugs targeting microRNA (miRNA) as it is very relevant to the work I do.
The mechanisms for gene regulation are so complex that we are only scratching the surface of understanding how it all works.Its not as simple as DNA-->mRNA-->tRNA+nucleic acid=protein- that's only the 50,000 ft view of the central dogma. Getting a few simple amino acids from a bag of snot and some electricity is one thing, but bringing all of the complex proteins/genetic material (and don't forget lipids- you don't have cell membranes without them) perfectly and having them interact perfectly to create an organism that can not only live, but reproduce  is simply beyond probability.

 

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

I think it's mathematically ridiculous to think there isn't other life in the universe. If people want to make the argument that there are no Minbari out there, that's an easier argument. To say there aren't at the very least, some microbes somewhere, on some planet or planetoid or moon, in some galaxy in the known universe, well, the odds are astronomical on the "no life" bet.

Like Millcreek, I hope I'm still around to see positive proof, even if it is only microscopic. It would be neat though, if the first image is of a Europan fish swimming in front of the probe camera.  

It's the Fermi paradox.  If life is a probabilistic event, given the infiniteness of the universe there should be innumerable intelligent lifeforms out there.  So where is everyone?

Not so much.  The calculation is based on a raft of assumptions.  If any one of them are off by a significant amount or actually equal to zero, the math says "No dice."

Not really.  At its core it's based on just 2 simple assumptions: infinity and probability.  Mathematically, even unlikely events will occur many times given infinite chances.

[lee n. field]

we don't have infinity

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

The jury is still out on that.  

Not that it matters in any practical sense.  Even the smallest estimates of a finite universe are still colossally humongously huge, which doesn't change the argument in any meaningful way.