Life in the universe

reply to post by OccamsRazor04


Abiogenesis actually makes the most sense for the precursor of life. The problem is people want instant satisfaction, instead of allowing nature to unfold through 'generations'. What I mean is most early laboratory experiments to create life from minerals and conditions wanted to achieve RNA or whatever in single reactions, instead of multiple rehydration stages after dehydration stages, the structures with each new re-'generation' grew stronger and longer molecular bonds.

Here they got it to work.

Doesn't sound improbable. To me it sounds most likely.

So if 0.00001% of the structures built more robust chains, its all you need.

reply to post by Illustronic


I agree.

Science may not yet fully understand the processes required for abiogenesis to viable, but they do understand a lot, and what they do understand certainly hints that abiogenesis is plausible.

The Universe is understood to be 13.7 billion years old, this is from finding in the Hubble Ultra Deep Field.

In the HUDF there are suppose to be over 10,000 galaxies some tiny and other gargantuan and that is only in a small part of the sky that astronomers once believed was empty, how wrong they were.

www.wired.com...

Each of those galaxies are believed to be full of stars, billions even. The largest galaxy known to date IC 1101 is thought to have over 1 trillion stars in it, each with planets around it. I think the odds are against us being alone, even if we find something that isnt intelligent life it will still be a milestone a discovery that will change how we will look at the cosmos.

The Universe is 13.7 billion years old, it took life about 2 billion years to evolve to what it is today, take out about 600 million years for the Universe to settle after the Big Bang and for Stars and Galaxies to form. Earth was formed around 4.5 Billion years ago and our Sun is still very young compared to other stars found in the galaxy.

en.wikipedia.org...

I believe that we are not alone in the Universe again the odds are on our side I believe. But you have to take some things into account for the habitabilty of a planet and a star.

Take the age of the star the type of star and how hot it burns.
You also have to take into account where it lies in its host galaxy. Is it located near the supermassive blackhole at the center, how close is it located to Blazars, Quasars, Magantars, and Supernovea.
Is it located in a Globular Cluster
Is it located near an active Gamma Ray source

In our galaxy (the Milky Way), the GHZ is currently believed to be a slowly expanding region approximately 25,000 light years (8 kiloparsecs) from the galactic core and some 6,000 light years (2 kiloparsecs) in width, containing stars roughly 4 billion to 8 billion years old. Other galaxies differ in their compositions, and may have a larger or smaller GHZ – or none at all.

en.wikipedia.org...

Again I do not think we are alone in the Universe I believe one day we will hopefully find not only intelligent life but also life that was around during the time of the dinosaurs, I think that would be amazing.

The argument of whether life elsewhere is dependent on if it was created or is a natural process here is surely a non issue.

If life started naturally here then it most likely started naturally everywhere. If life here was created here why would this creator limit itself to one spec amongst billions?

Life not existing outside of this planet to me defies logic.

When we made first contact with isolated civilisations on this planet it usually devastated it. They died from our diseases and/or our greed’s. At the very least we changed their way of life and often for the worse. Any advanced visitors would be as aware of this as we are and probably have rules to control any first contact events.

I even wonder if our ego's tell us that an advanced race would be interested in us when in reality we would hold no more interest for them as you would have for an ants nest.

reply to post by colin42


I agree wholly with you. It is just the self centered human nature that we are above and beyon "the ones". Just think of how many other civilizations out there think the same of themselves. Look at human history from the earliest on the worshipped the sun and rain and anything else that sustained life. I can imagine that the same scenario has taken place a billion times on other planets. If we cou
D all just reach each other the perspective for the whole universe not just humanity would change. That's just my opinion.

I believe that more advanced civilisations are out there watching. We have had a satelite out there looking for habitable planets for a few years now and everyday they are finding more planets with that possibility, so law of averages says so. Imagine a civilisation a few hundred years more avdvanced, what they could detect or travel to. Only 100 years ago we could only fly for a few meters, now look at the distances we have achieved.

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
reply to post by BenTFH

 

Honestly, until I find a scientific explanation for abiogenesis (life coming from non life), I am stuck with us being the only life in the universe. So far the only scientific studies conducted I am aware of have further proved abiogenesis to be impossible.

There was a discussion two months ago on scientists that had taken a container of single celled organisms in water, daily removed the bottom centimetre and put into new container of water. There were multi celled organisms within 6 weeks.

Life happens

reply to post by swampcricket


Well we haven't seen any signs of life out there and since we can read the change in the spectrum of light from across the universe, and know the composition of things that are very very far away and still we have seen no signatures of any other civilization, then you have to wonder why that is.

I think its because most civilizations do not live on the surface of a planet. Thats suicide.

You have to live inside planets in terraformed spaces.

You see the universe is very old, and so it may have had a universal civilization before that lived on the surface of planets but then as soon as war breaks out they are gone. All it takes is to steer an asteroid at the planet and it wipes out all life on it. Simple as that. One shot and the war is over and you don't even need to be within firing range to do it.
So if you are sitting on the surface of a planet shouting hey everyone, here we are!
You are a sitting duck.

The universe is populated but people don't live on the surface of planets. They live inside moonships.

Ours has several rings and so in total it has something like 5 times the habitable land mass of the earth.

Originally it was a battle cruiser that was refitted into a colonization ship.

The reason we are here is there was a mutiny, and people had to abandon ship 2 million years ago.

And they landed in Peru. Believe it or not.

www.theforbiddenknowledge.com...

reply to post by swampcricket


I'm not too inclined to side with some of your statements...but often I've wondered if we are the leading edge of colonizing the universe...but this doggone planet keeps having mass extinction events that put us behind schedule so to speak.

Originally posted by type0civ
reply to post by swampcricket

 

I'm not too inclined to side with some of your statements...but often I've wondered if we are the leading edge of colonizing the universe...but this doggone planet keeps having mass extinction events that put us behind schedule so to speak.

What if what you said is universal. Other planets could and probably have faced the same scenarios as we have here on earth. Maybe it's meant to be that way so they can live and stay in their neighborhood and we can stay in ours. Maybe we aren't supposed to co-mingle. Just a thought.

reply to post by Illustronic


That is a far cry from abiogenesis. What that shows is a bunch of maybes and what ifs for an insignifigantly small part of what is needed for abiogenesis to occur. It's like me showing you flour and you saying it's cake.

reply to post by swampcricket


Then with our current understanding of star life cycles..we are doomed to extinction. But I think we are the odd ones here..we are defenseless against everything on this planet. Maybe the dinosaurs were removed for our arrival because we can't compete with them. I think we are supposed to mingle and one day we will know the purpose of the other planets and use them to our advantage.

reply to post by Peter Brake


I'm interested in this research, show me the research or the topic on ATS. Do you mean the one dealing with yeast? If so I disagree. If not, I'd love to look at it.

reply to post by OccamsRazor04


Hey razor it seems to me that you are the one fixated on abiogenesis so how about you show the rest of us some research and why you are at it show me some evidence that there is no life elsewhere in the universe. Just like I can't prove that there is life elsewhere you can not prove that there isn't. Let's not be close minded here buddy.

Originally posted by swampcricket
reply to post by OccamsRazor04

 

Hey razor it seems to me that you are the one fixated on abiogenesis so how about you show the rest of us some research and why you are at it show me some evidence that there is no life elsewhere in the universe. Just like I can't prove that there is life elsewhere you can not prove that there isn't. Let's not be close minded here buddy.

So then you can't back up your statement? Ok great, how about you look up the fact that equal amounts of left handed and right handed molecules are produced when natural, random chance, is used. Life must be 100% left or 100% right handed. Let's take a look at my "close mindedness". On a side note, those who use the term close minded tend to be the most close minded people I know.

Actually we know two things. Abiogenis does not occur naturally, and we have life on Earth. This points to an unnatural explanation for our existence. This means that life elsewhere would have to have an unnatural explanation.

Science can not explain our existence, as our existence contradicts what science currently knows. Looking to science to explain life elsewhere, when science can not explain life here, is foolish.

Until such time as science can explain how we are here, I will use the only explanation I have, one of faith, which does not help me in determining if life is elsewhere. My personal belief is that it is not, I am open to the facts as they may unfold.

Vastness does not matter, if you have a 6 sided die and roll it an infinite amount of times you will never get a 7. Something that can not occur will not occur, regardless of how many 0's you add.

My statement is that abiogenis does not happen, ever, according to current scientific knowledge. When science explains that I will gladly believe life evolved elsewhere. I stated I am basing my beliefs on current scientific knowledge and will integrate any new findings and new knowledge into my beliefs. So where am I being close minded? That's right, I'm not, you are.

Now how about you explain to me how abiogenesis does not factor into life being on other planets.

reply to post by swampcricket


Hopefully we will all be dead and gone by the time they intercept the first episodes of "I Love Lucy" emanating outwardly from the Earth at the speed of light, however faintly.