Should DNA Complexity END the search for Intelligent Alien life?

If we eliminate all the guessing and hypothesis what we are left with is DNA.

Scientists can guess that life started as something simpler than DNA, The problem with this theory, their is 0 evidence. They hold onto it simply because Irreducible Complexity is hard to refute when it comes to DNA as the simplest form of self replicating life.

If self replicating life based on some design simpler than DNA was ever possible, wouldn't it still be around? Why do we find no evidence in nature that suggest ANY form of life can exist without DNA?

At this time we should assume that the simplest self replicating life forms on earth are based on DNA. Why? Because no other evidence exists to the contrary.

What does this mean to the availability of life on other planets?

Assuming the simplest form of life must be some sort of self replicating machine is the best place to start. Here on Earth that machine is DNA. However if life is spontaneous we should not expect the spontaneous machine to be exactly the same.

Surely the basic machine for self replicating life would be similar, but it couldn't possibly be exactly the same, lets call it ANA.

So on earth life is based on DNA, but on a distant planet somewhere, where self replicating life also happened spontaneously, life on that planet is based on ANA, a similar machine that has a similar function, but at least slightly different.

The probability of DNA being random is infinitely small, which scientists do not disagree with. The possibility of two random incidents occurring separatly and both creating the exact same machine, DNA, we should consider so statistically impossible that it can not happen.

Without a creator this is where we are left. All life, plant and animal, on this planet started from one single self replicating DNA. Out of this one cell, something that has happened only once on earth in 4.5 billion years all life came forth.

If spontaneous life is possible shouldn't we have found other machines such as ANA actually arising on earth? If life was random wouldn't you expect to see at least a few different types of machines?

Unless of course it's random but statistically very small.What does this say about the possibility of life on other planets?

First we can assume, based on what we actually see, that it only happened once on earth in 4.5 billion years, and took until recently for intelligent, dexterous life, capable of building communications and space travel devices to appear. And we haven't left the solar system.

Why should we believe this extremely random event that only happened once in perfect conditions has happened elsewhere? Even if it has, how could we possibly assume that out of chaos completely random forms of life startrd more than once and evolved into beings with human characteristics?

If their is no God in control than we should assume our chances of finding other intelligent life, capable of communication with us to be so close to impossible that we don't even look for it. We may consider in the vastness of space it exists somewhere, but unless we can greatly eclipse light speed, or the universe is much smaller than we currently think, we should assume we won't find it. We should assume we are only looking for planets to colonize, where the most we will find is simple life forms.

It is actually more likely we will find life if thier is a God, and who knows maybe all life everywhere is based on DNA. Isn't DNA similar to God's word? We need it to survive.

Is DNA so complex that we should stop looking for Aliens? Even if you believe Aliens seeded our planet, why would we be looking for them? Wouldn't they already be looking at us?

If their are aliens watching I imagine they learned the one lesson that humans have failed to learn. Don't get involved in other nations civil wars, it never solves anything and always creates one more enemy. So if the Aliens are out their they are waiting for world peace, so they never have to be our enemy.

a reply to: sacgamer25

6.8 billions years?

a reply to: sacgamer25

I read half your post but wanted to say. Technically RNA is thought of as the First one not DNA..

The problem as I see it is sort of like chicken and egg. Without the coding for proteins (RNA - DNA) you have no proteins.. Without proteins you have no RNA - DNA... Hmm?

Or Maybe even TNA was first?

My thing is I don't think it's random. I have my own idea about that. It's not the christian Idea either. I think we want to exist. Life wants to live. I think that want started before there was a physical way to express it.

The chances of making a cell from scratch are not something I would bet on taking billions of years even. It's funny of course the theory of life in Biology is Life is defined as any being with one or more cells, and that all cells come from other cells.. Then weird the first cells come from? Obviously that theory has a flaw there.. haha Why would a cell appear and then all the sudden start replicating?? That's a weird one. Unless it had a purpose.


I viewed your idea about life on other planets as a secondary point. I think there is life all over the place.

I view evolution as being our vehicle to get from there to here. Not as just natural selection. But as desire to be, sharpened by natural selection. Without both aspects I don't see it working out the way it has. Just a silly opinion of course.

The evidence is that the first lifeforms came from space, since the rate that genetic complexity has evolved actually exceeds the creation of the Earth.

There isn't going to be anything more simple than DNA, because that it is just random strings of amino acids. The first self-replicating life form would have been a coil of DNA that could scan through those random strings of DNA and snip out those bits of amino-acid that allowed it to duplicate itself.

Then everything from enzymes and RNA would evolve from those.

Humans need to believe in something.

Drakes equations can show us that there are millions of possibilities of civilizations, as it can show there are less than one. it all depends on the numbers you plug in to the equation, pessimistic or optimistic numbers, numbers which need a human or shall I say a believer or non believer.

So that equation to me is useless, it is a subjective tool to convince people that maybe.....just maybe. I like the Rare Earth hypothesis, because I believe we were created I think that the stage was meticulously set by an extraordinary force aka God.

I feel that you OP is winking at that. We have all the answers we just don't want to listen. Maybe it is the other way around.

originally posted by: PhotonEffect
a reply to: sacgamer25

6.8 billions years?

Honestly I have no idea where 6.8 came from, although any number is at best a semi-educated guess. Fixed, thank you.

Yeah there is something simplier than DNA it's called RNA. Which is like a small string of shapes that form into a protien.
DNA is made up of 2 strings of these RNA strands which become DNA because the protein has been assembled into a chronological order to have function within a cell internally inside the chromosoms.

As for something simple that RNA? Well that's kind of impossible because viruses cannot exist without RNA for orginzation.


Many people don't seem to realize this initially but the only difference between organic mass and non-organic mass is the way it is arranged.

So atoms from a living organism are always rearanged differently than how inanimate mass is. The difference is because of this rearangement causes different ways of expelling energy from the mass it has a different function than non-organized magnetically settled atoms in the external world. This means that the way energy and entropy is expressed by these arangments differ from one another because of how the charges are carried and how strings of this pattern persist.

Basically there is no difference from the atoms in our body from the atoms in the outside world, the only difference is how they are arranged. And we all know that slight changes in how molecules are arranged can give us a completely new substance.

Information guides the mass into accumilating mass for self preservation as well as reproduction but when you get to a complex organism such as ourselves who can comprehend how life can be created or altered simply by making slight changes in the codes pattern.

We start getting into some really weird concepts when we understand that code is intention.
So intention is in all reality the driving force in all life. We for the most part intend to live and that requires maintaining the body. It's no different for how our body maintains its code, Code is constantly being switched in and out in places that are non important. Much of the information in our body is used for cosmetic purposes, We are a very social race. So we need to have a comprehending mind in order to share new concepts that are only aditorial or visual. Such as a drawing or listening to someone speak. We are an advanced species tho, So we take this a step further. Animals do in fact have these qualities of comprehension, Humans however have the ability of Invention. Which is allowing us to debate such things without relying strickly on faith from something we can't see with the naked eye. Science can observe without the naked eye tho now using electric eyes and refined lenses.

In reality, Viruses are frozen in asteroids and rain down on us constantly. Same as other pathogens. Likewise mass is escaping from Earth that has been colonized by organisms and are flying through space at their own accord.

So when did life start in all the Universe? Such a question begs paradox. Because implying that life had a start in the Universe would be implying the Universe even had a begining. When i know for a fact the universe has always existed and always will.

Because the laws of entropy deny the existance of any theory of how the universe was created. Literally. Radiation is the trumping factor in all these these theories like the big bang or multi-verse theory because regardless. In a Universe that is not Eternal and with the existance of entropy, there is no viable theory because entropy always deminishes the mass 100% to 0.

Do people even realize what they are saying when they spout those theories about everything appearing from a bang?
News flash. Mass times velocity squared always has deminishing returns. ALWAYS. You cannot shine a light from one side of the room to the other and feel the same intensity of lumins. Peposterious. So making such claims like the universe expands and contracts all at once is like saying i can shine this like from one end of the universe to the other. Impossible.
Why is it impossible? Because hubble is scoping out some galaxies that are faint little dot right now. If such physical of mass velocity existed then the deminishing returns would put the blast radius to 1 localized zone. And only one.

Is the universe 1 galaxy? Obviously not. So how many blast zones are there? Well using logic, It would mean that every galaxy itself is a blast zone. Now if these galaxies are just bubbles chaining off the main blast. That means we would be a dot on a much larger blast zone like ascale up from galaxy. All of these objects would to exist within each other tho. The problem with this is it pans forwards or backwards. Which means if any of the chains of *galaxies* ahead of ours detonates then we all go out with it, Even if our own collection of galaxies didnt go out with it either.
This also applies to the simulation theory. If the universe is being simulated then that means there is an infinite ammount of simulations occuring at exactly the same time, With the probability of infinity that one of the universes simulating a universe that is simulating our universe within the simulation program within the infite chain of simulations that one of these simulations will be on a computer. With a probability of infinity the chain would self destruct and would not exist. So we shouldn't exist because such an arrangement of existance is simply false.

Anyways without existance replenishing itself then all life and everything else would burn out to nothing because of decay.

So it really does not matter how many simulations or big bangs you have because it will always burn out to nothing. Which is a paradox. All of those are paradoxs. And the universe is not a paradox.
It is anti-paradox and that means that all matter in existance is replaced. Replaced with what? If matter decays what replaces decayed matter? Nothing in the scientific method now has an answer to this problem. But i know the answer.
It's black holes.

originally posted by: bitsforbytes
Humans need to believe in something.

Personally I believe in creation and adaptation. I dont believe in speciation as the Darwinian model suggests.

I posted this for 2 reasons really.

I want to show how amazingly oversimplified saying Intelligent Aliens must exist is. Statistically it remains possible we are the only intelligent life and we may never find anything humanoid.

If we look to space as pure scientists without God I think looking for ET is a waste of resources and we should focus soley on colonization.

If we allow spirituality to guide us then the search takes on a spiritual meaning, and i would agree to continue to fund such a search.

The second was to put a small dent in the evil alien conspiracy. Looking at humans I don't think any being could get out of its solar system while in a state of perpetual civil wars. As long as we are building bigger bombs to kill each other, we will never have the time to build a space program together.

Simply put unless a planet full of intelligent beings can come together in unity, it's impossible to conceive that they could achieve something as complex as a true space program.

We have failed to come together and as long as we are building bigger bombs to kill each other we will never develope any type of long term space program. Why should we think any non-peaceful humanoid would succeed where we failed.

If their are Aliens, they must be peaceful and they wait for us to come to the same conclusion.

a reply to: sacgamer25

If self replicating life based on some design simpler than DNA was ever possible, wouldn't it still be around?

No, because evolutionarily more viable DNA-based life-forms would eat it.

Why do we find no evidence in nature that suggest ANY form of life can exist without DNA?

RNA

The probability of DNA being random is infinitely small, which scientists do not disagree with.

It almost certainly wasn't 'random'; it evolved from simpler precursor molecules that shared its capacity for replication, though perhaps not to the same degree. RNA World

Why should we believe this extremely random event that only happened once in perfect conditions has happened elsewhere?

It is probable that replicators evolved many times, under varying environmental conditions. The Search for the First Replicator

The possibility of two random incidents occurring separatly and both creating the exact same machine, DNA, we should consider so statistically impossible that it can not happen.

Irrelevant, I'm afraid.

As to your overarching premise, I see it differently. It has taken only 4.5bn years for life to evolve from simple replicators to complex spacefaring organisms on one planet. The evolution of 'life' — broadly defined — is probably inevitable due to thermodynamics. There are billions, probably trillions of planets, so life is almost certainly widespread in the universe, and quite possibly ubiquitous.

Well you may not believe me but i am an alien witness.
The species i interact with are skinwalkers, they fly around in saucers and are made of energy.
The crafts are solid tho.

They are out there and they are here already.

Just a lot of the instruments we sent into space suck and were made in the 70s and 80s when pong was popular on computers.

Can't say we are scouting outside the solar system with effenciency when the probs we are using were made decades ago before laptops and cellsphones (Smart phones) and HD cameras even existed.

But i guess everyone's an expert in the feild of Alien worlds local solar systems.

originally posted by: AnuTyr
Well you may not believe me but i am an alien witness.
The species i interact with are skinwalkers, they fly around in saucers and are made of energy.
The crafts are solid tho.

They are out there and they are here already.

Just a lot of the instruments we sent into space suck and were made in the 70s and 80s when pong was popular on computers.

Can't say we are scouting outside the solar system with effenciency when the probs we are using were made decades ago before laptops and cellsphones (Smart phones) and HD cameras even existed.

But i guess everyone's an expert in the feild of Alien worlds local solar systems.

Well the first statement that did not have my eyes rolling into the back of my head lol... I hope to hear more about these aliens. How do they make contact. Can you see them etc. What other aliens do they talk about. Are they helpers or haters. So many questions, need your own thread.

The Bot

a reply to: sacgamer25

If anyone thinks sending out a few satellites to the WHOPPING edge of our solar system is searching for intelligent alien life then they also probably take sides in partisan politics & think the human Ego is the greatest end all be all of existence.

I hope when intelligent life finds us they put us out of our miserable existence.

Hercolubus inbound.

Also, if anyone wants to share what some of the furthest satellites that have been sent out are, I'm sure we could all use a few laughs about the glories of human space exploration.

a reply to: Astyanax

Self-replicating RNA life is a guess not a fact. Their is no evidence for self-replicating RNA independent of DNA. If it could happen it should still be happening and lower lifeforms should still be evolving, but we see none of this. No self replicating RNA and no evolution happening even at the cellular level.

You can't say we imagine it could happen this way and base any foundation on "it could have". Nothing is scientifically possible until it is scientifically proven. That is the beauty of true science.

A pure scientists is ok with here is the facts and the rest I don't know. Today's scientists are inflated ego driven fools. They take unproven theory and accept them as facts, and base other theories off these unproven yet accepted facts.

This is the foundation for science today, if it sounds possible and it fits the scientific agenda we will call it a fact, without ever having to provide proof. If it doesn't fit we will throw it out, or find some scientific sounding way to make it fit.

Then when laymen point out that sounds more like faith than science, scientists will just tell them you just aren't smart enough to understand and hope the laymen go stick thier heads back in the sand.

Self-replicating RNA is science fiction. Someday it might be fact but until then the fact is DNA is the simplest form of self replicating life.

Let us stick to science, the kind backed by the often overlooked scientific method.

When did scientific method get replaced by agenda driven science fiction anyway?

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: sacgamer25 There are billions, probably trillions of planets, so life is almost certainly widespread in the universe, and quite possibly ubiquitous.

There's approximately 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 planets. That number is simply mind-mindbogglingly big. When people like Op talk about "statistically impossible" without offering up any math to support it I have to laugh because such statements are meaningless when dealing with such astronomically large numbers.

Reply to sacgamer25

Self-replicating RNA life is a guess not a fact.

RNA replication

A pure scientists is ok with here is the facts and the rest I don't know. Today's scientists are inflated ego driven fools. They take unproven theory and accept them as facts, and base other theories off these unproven yet accepted facts.

Another nonscientist who thinks he knows how science 'should' be done.

Let us stick to science, the kind backed by the often overlooked scientific method.

Let's. So go, learn some science and come back. Then we can continue this discussion.

originally posted by: Astyanax
Reply to sacgamer25

Self-replicating RNA life is a guess not a fact.

RNA replication

A pure scientists is ok with here is the facts and the rest I don't know. Today's scientists are inflated ego driven fools. They take unproven theory and accept them as facts, and base other theories off these unproven yet accepted facts.

Another nonscientist who thinks he knows how science 'should' be done.

Let us stick to science, the kind backed by the often overlooked scientific method.

Let's. So go, learn some science and come back. Then we can continue this discussion.

Do you think that DNA has intelligent language written in it?

a reply to: Astyanax

Allow me to be scientifically accurate for you.

RNA-replication cannot occur outside of a Cell containing DNA. What you show points more to RNA viruses being mutations rather than precursors to DNA life, since they cannot independently reproduce. If they existed prior to DNA based life then we should still find them with the ability to independently self-replicate.

I dont think I know how science should be done. Science tells us how it should be done.

Science should be considered theory until proven by scientific method researched independently to achieve the same results.

No additional theory should be perpetrated on top of currently unprovable science. The further one builds on a unprovable foundation the further they usually are from the truth.

Self-replicating RNA independent of the requirement of a cell containing DNA is still a guess.

So like I already stated DNA is the simplest form of self-replicating life that currently exits. RNA viruses are most likely mutations that maintained enough genetic material to survive and have the ability to replicate only inside of a living DNA based cell.

Until you can provide a link that proves that any living organism can self replicate outside of a cell containing DNA, DNA remains the simplest form of life that we can base science fact on.

If you want to believe that self replicating RNA used to exist but somehow disappeared without a trace and without the ability to happen again you can hold on to scientific faith/theory.

a reply to: sacgamer25

RNA-replication cannot occur outside of a Cell containing DNA.

Changed our tune now, have we?

Earlier it was 'RNA cannot replicate without using DNA.'

Now it's 'RNA cannot replicate outside of a cell containing DNA'.

Next time you shift the goalpoasts, put them over there.

Another clueless creationist who doesn't understand evolution. Go away.

originally posted by: sacgamer25
The probability of DNA being random is infinitely small, which scientists do not disagree with. The possibility of two random incidents occurring separatly and both creating the exact same machine, DNA, we should consider so statistically impossible that it can not happen.

Probability doesn't work that way. The only way something is statistically impossible is if the chances are 0%. DNA exists, so therefore there is a chance that DNA could develop twice independently from each other. Just because a chance is ridiculously close to 0, doesn't mean we can pretend that the odds are 0. There is a BIG difference between impossible and slightly possible.

Without a creator this is where we are left. All life, plant and animal, on this planet started from one single self replicating DNA. Out of this one cell, something that has happened only once on earth in 4.5 billion years all life came forth.

If spontaneous life is possible shouldn't we have found other machines such as ANA actually arising on earth? If life was random wouldn't you expect to see at least a few different types of machines?

Why is that? Random doesn't imply common.

Unless of course it's random but statistically very small.What does this say about the possibility of life on other planets?

It's small.

First we can assume, based on what we actually see, that it only happened once on earth in 4.5 billion years, and took until recently for intelligent, dexterous life, capable of building communications and space travel devices to appear. And we haven't left the solar system.

Maybe. For all we know, it developed in space once then seeded the galaxy/universe and developed from there. We don't know what the conditions for Abiogenesis are completely. So maybe those conditions were reached in space and not on earth. That would make both the Panspermia and Abiogenesis hypothesis correct.

Why should we believe this extremely random event that only happened once in perfect conditions has happened elsewhere? Even if it has, how could we possibly assume that out of chaos completely random forms of life startrd more than once and evolved into beings with human characteristics?

What does "extremely random" mean? Something is either random or its not. Abiogenesis is chemistry and therefore once the right attributes are reached, it suggests that life springs forth.

Though we can't make the assumption that life exists elsewhere in the universe. We haven't found it yet, but probability ACTUALLY suggests that it is highly likely. The universe is VERY old and VERY large. You nor I know what the exact conditions are for Abiogenesis to occur, but clearly they've been reached in the past in the universe, so it reasons that they can be reached again.

If their is no God in control than we should assume our chances of finding other intelligent life, capable of communication with us to be so close to impossible that we don't even look for it. We may consider in the vastness of space it exists somewhere, but unless we can greatly eclipse light speed, or the universe is much smaller than we currently think, we should assume we won't find it. We should assume we are only looking for planets to colonize, where the most we will find is simple life forms.

This is more or less correct. But keep in mind, just because it seems impossible now, doesn't mean that future technology can't unlock these mysteries for us. Also, as long as the odds aren't 0, there should never be a reason not to attempt to study something. How else are you going to understand its properties?

It is actually more likely we will find life if thier is a God, and who knows maybe all life everywhere is based on DNA. Isn't DNA similar to God's word? We need it to survive.

Is DNA so complex that we should stop looking for Aliens? Even if you believe Aliens seeded our planet, why would we be looking for them? Wouldn't they already be looking at us?

Why shouldn't we look for them?

If their are aliens watching I imagine they learned the one lesson that humans have failed to learn. Don't get involved in other nations civil wars, it never solves anything and always creates one more enemy. So if the Aliens are out their they are waiting for world peace, so they never have to be our enemy.

Who knows? I'm of the mentality that just because a race surpasses the space barrier and contact barriers, doesn't necessarily mean that they are peaceful and unified like the movies like to portray races. I'd imagine that they are just as fractured as we are, if not more so.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: sacgamer25

RNA-replication cannot occur outside of a Cell containing DNA.

Changed our tune now, have we?

Earlier it was 'RNA cannot replicate without using DNA.'

Now it's 'RNA cannot replicate outside of a cell containing DNA'.

Next time you shift the goalpoasts, put them over there.

Another clueless creationist who doesn't understand evolution. Go away.

Another clueless evolutionits who has great faith in things that are unproven. Why do scientists claim thier faith of the unproven is more valid than mine? Why do they assume they have more intellect? Why can an intelligent person not refuse science theory until a time that it can be proven?

Scientists are proven wrong over and over again. To believe in unproven science is faith in men with educated guesses.

I have no reason to put faith in educated guesses, no matter how fine sounding they are. The how everything was created means very little to me. In that I am probably more of a pure scientist than most.

Currently we have no known RNA that can replicate independent of a cell containing DNA.

Occums Razor

A. RNA Viruses are proof of life that existed prior to DNA although no self replicating RNA exists today, independent of the need for a cell containing DNA?

B. Because their are no known forms of self replicating RNA independent of DNA we should assume viruses are mutations that remain dependant on a cell containing DNA to replicate?

The fact that mainstream scientists continue to push A, when according to all the facts, the best answer is B. Viruses are mutations, since they cant recreate we cannot call them an evolutionary step

Apart from science faith/fiction that is.

Some more science fiction for you

Accuracy of carbon dating
Age of the earth
Age of the Universe
Distance of the Universe

You have to have faith in unprovable observational guesses to believe all of these things as facts. If you don't believe in these scientific guesses as facts you usually end up getting slandered for being an idiot.

I believe in both science and religion. Religion has found a way to move out of the way of science, so that we can find the FACTS.

Science has become the new religion. If you don't believe in our unprovable guesses (what can't be proven) then your an idiot. Doesn't religion say if you don't believe in what can't be proven your an idiot?

I believe in things that can be proven. Until science can prove something I assume nothing. Assumptions do not make for good science.

I believe in a creator, if science can ever prove a how that is simpler for life than DNA that would be great, but the fact is they have not. And they are blinded by faith.

It should be obvious that viruses are mutations not simpler forms of life but they refuse the simplest explanation because the one that requires faith without facts pushes the agenda better. To assume viruses are mutations assumes very little. To assumes they once survived independent of DNA based cells is science faith.

I believe in things that are real and can be proven. And I have faith only in God. Man must prove himself with sound science before he should claim he knows something about the way life was created.

How things happened can never explain the WHY. I believe in the concept of why, therefore I accept that I was created to contemplate both the HOW and the WHY. Science will always be limited to answering the how. Only the light that shines within all men can answer the why.