The Universe is Probably Teaming with Life. (Hubble Reveals Deepest View Ever Of Night Sky)

reply to post by AmatuerSkyWatcher


as we have only ever seen 1 instance of the creation of DNA it is a unique event until proven otherwise.

Please feel free to proove otherwise..im sure all of science would love to see that

reply to post by PhoenixOD


You refuse to answer the question? I shall ask it one more time: What special circumstances has the Earth experienced, to start a chain of chemical reactions, which then formed animated chemical compounds, known as DNA.

I cannot give you an example of other DNA, as you well know. Do you contend the authenticity of special relativity, even though the theory cannot be proven outright?

I can however tell you, like I did before, that given the vast number of planets, plus the abundance of the 5 building blocks of life throughout the universe, the fact of zero evidence to suggest anything out of the ordinary in astronomical terms, has ever happened to the Earth, and it is in fact quite common planet, that it is highly unlikely that life either made from the same compounds that made our DNA or another DNA make-up completely, does NOT exist elsewhere in an infinite universe, where particles can appear and be created out of the fabric of space.

I need not look far.
Look its my cat, different from me, four legs! Its alien from the way I look.
Its a lifeform unknown to me. I probably run away if I found it on Mars.

When people saying we are alone in universe because there is still no evidence - I sort of facepalm, mentally.
When you see your palm daily, you forgot how beautiful it is. When you see grass daily, you forgot, its another life in universe.

Creator warning: Intelligence varies for every creation and life.

While certain forms of life are able to survive extreme conditions, they can do so because of incremental evolutionary steps. In a sense such organisms have been "trained" to survive such harsh environments.

Unfortunately, the fact that extremophiles exist doesn't mean that life can originate under unsuitable conditions - though admittedly it does make certain theories more viable (e.g. Panspermia).

We have some knowledge of what it might take for life to get started, but what does it take for life to end completely, with no hope of revival? I think that's an equally interesting question.

Life seems pretty tough to get rid of, so what's going in Mars, where life "may have" existed at some point, but is no longer there?

I wished that the controllers of Hubble would point the scope at different locations to see if they are filled with galaxies too. They added more view time to this one location is what I gather from the article? This is the Hubble "Deep field" made into a new "movie"?

Infinity is mind boggling. So if we were able to put a telescope like Hubble on the farthest object we can see in this picture and point it "away" from us, it would see that much farther and the view would be "full of stars and galaxies"?

What about light bending around objects? Can light bend all the way back around so that we are looking back at ourselves?

reply to post by AmatuerSkyWatcher


Your repeated question have no basis on what i was saying and neither does special relativity. I also never said earth was special in its makeup and this has no basis on what i was saying. So please refrain from using straw man arguments.

I said the process of the creation of DNA might just be such and insanely complex series of events over a long period of time that the likelihood of it happening again could be so small that given the finite number of planets in the universe it might just never happen again. You are obviously having a hard time grasping simple concepts.

I cannot give you an example of other DNA,

As you yourself said there are no other examples of DNA happening on our planet so you have answered your own question on whether life is potentially a unique event even under the best circumstances like what we have on our planet. Backed up by the evidence that all life comes from a single DNA strand.

Originally posted by PhoenixOD
reply to post by AmatuerSkyWatcher

 

Your repeated question have no basis on what i was saying ...

Yes it does. Your original post in this thread, countered the argument that the mathematical probability of life existing elsewhere in universe, was hinged upon the 'fact' that the Earth underwent a special circumstance, therefore the probability was wrong.

If you cannot give a good example of that 'special circumstance', the mathematical probability of life existing in the elsewhere in the universe stands. Do you comprehend?

reply to post by AmatuerSkyWatcher


Then you are obviously misunderstanding what i said. I said the process of the creation of DNA might just be such and insanely complex series of events over a long period of time that the likelihood of it happening again could be so small that given the finite number of planets in the universe it might just never happen again.

my original quote

It could be that the beginnings of life happened on our planet only through a very specific set of events that happened in a very specific order over millions of years and then over millions of more years another very specific sent of events coupled with very specific conditions caused life to start evolving.

As you have admitted there is no other example of it then you have confirmed it may just be a unique event.

You are obviously having a hard time grasping simple concepts.

Originally posted by PhoenixOD
reply to post by AmatuerSkyWatcher

 

Your repeated question have no basis on what i was saying and neither does special relativity. I also never said earth was special in its makeup and this has no basis on what i was saying.

I said the process of the creation of DNA might just be such and insanely complex series of events over a long period of time that the likelihood of it happening again could be so small that given the finite number of planets in the universe it might just never happen again. You are obviously having a hard time grasping simple concepts.

I cannot give you an example of other DNA,

As you yourself said there are no other examples of DNA happening on our planet so you have answered your own question on whether life is potentially a unique event even under the best circumstances like what we have on our planet. Backed up by the evidence that all life comes from a single DNA strand that as you said has been seen to be repeated.

edit on 28-9-2012 by PhoenixOD because: (no reason given)

Actually there are two examples of DNA found here on Earth. One is Carbon based DNA and another recently discovered is Arsenic based. Of course Arsenic is deadly to all other life forms on this Earth outside these little Arsenic DNA microbes but it does go to show that here we have two "types" of DNA on one planet. That in itself opens up all sorts of possibilities and if someone were to mention that a DNA strand could be formed by something that is deadly to all other life on Earth 20 years ago you would have been laughed at straight in the face, but here we are. Makes one wonder what other "types" of life are right under our nose on Earth, never mind the whole Universe.

Here we are, as humanity, getting our feet underneath us like toddlers and some are somehow thinking we are experienced marathon runners.

Personally I think life is infectious and once it starts somewhere it blooms into it's own tree. I am not buying the argument we can't "prove" it now because we cannot see it simply because we have not seen everything to begin with. It doesn't even necessarily need perfect conditions.

reply to post by Terminal1


Hi terminal1, i think the arsenic dna theory was updated after gizmodo printed it

Update: so it looks like I don’t need my awestruck hat. The bacteria appear to use arsenic as a building block of DNA when forced to – that is, when they are exposed to an arsenic-rich, phosphorus-depleted lab environment. But it’s not an obligate process. We have no evidence the DNA normally has an arsenic backbone. The bacteria thus don’t appear to be an arsenic-based lifeform in the sense that the Gizmodo article suggested.

source

I agree DNA blooms into all types of life. The big question is how likely is it to happen again?

reply to post by PhoenixOD


That doesn't matter. You asked for a different strain of DNA, and there it is. That DNA is altogether different than a DNA strain that incorporates Arsenic instead of Phosphorus.


I didn't know about this finding, so thank you to Terminal for highlighting it.

Originally posted by AmatuerSkyWatcher
reply to post by PhoenixOD

 

That doesn't matter. You asked for a different strain of DNA, and there it is. That DNA is altogether different than a DNA strain that incorporates Arsenic instead of Phosphorus.

I didn't know about this finding, so thank you to the poster that highlighted it.

No that's not a different strain of DNA as the article explains. Its still from the same family tree. So we still only have evidence of life happening spontaneously once. please read the article before jumping to the same ill conceived conclusions Gizmodo did.

From the article:

But the discovery certainly doesn’t mean we’ve proved extraterrestrial arsenic-based life exists, nor even that arsenic-based life exists on earth, outside the lab.

Cool, but not awestruck-hat cool.

Incidentally, the CJR suggests NASA and AAAS handled this badly, as a matter of science communications. Hyping up a discovery with an exobiology spin that’s a bit of a stretch, then gagging the professional journalists with an embargo so they can’t debunk runaway rumors, and finally disappointing the public with a story that – however cool to biologists – is not what they expected

Originally posted by PhoenixOD

Originally posted by AmatuerSkyWatcher
reply to post by PhoenixOD

 

That doesn't matter. You asked for a different strain of DNA, and there it is. That DNA is altogether different than a DNA strain that incorporates Arsenic instead of Phosphorus.

I didn't know about this finding, so thank you to the poster that highlighted it.

No that's not a different strain of DNA as the article explains. Its still from the same family tree. So we still only have evidence of life happening spontaneously once. please read the article before jumping to the same ill conceived conclusions Gizmodo did.

From the article:

Cool, but not awestruck-hat cool.

Incidentally, the CJR suggests NASA and AAAS handled this badly, as a matter of science communications. Hyping up a discovery with an exobiology spin that’s a bit of a stretch, then gagging the professional journalists with an embargo so they can’t debunk runaway rumors, and finally disappointing the public with a story that

edit on 28-9-2012 by PhoenixOD because: (no reason given)

That is besides the point. It shows that DNA can incorporate other elements in it's make-up, which means it is not solely bound to chemical reactions of the elements we knew it was made of. There are 6 elements very similar to Arsenic. They are Phosphorus, Nitrogen (we already know both of these are incorporated into DNA), Antimony, Bismuth and Ununpentium.

That makes the possibilities of life existing elsewhere even more greater.

reply to post by AmatuerSkyWatcher


Yes the one example of DNA we have found on our planet is versatile and can be modified in the lab. But we have known that for a long time.

reply to post by PhoenixOD


I take back my previous statement. www.livescience.com...

Further studies show, the micro organism does not incorporate Arsenic into it's DNA.

reply to post by PhoenixOD


I stand somewhat corrected on a complete Arsenic based DNA structure. Still think that it does show biodiversity even if these microbes cannot live without Phosphorus at all. I really haven't followed the developments of that outside of the original NASA claim of an Arsenic based life form so I have to claim a lot of ignorance on this.

I tend to think that it really doesn't take much to kick start life and the building blocks can be found even on comets. I do get what you are saying that it takes the right ingredients along with the right environment facing the right energy but I believe that the "band" in that spectrum of life is a bit broader than you believe. I am not suggesting that we will find life on every planet that has water in the Goldilocks zone but I do not think it is out of the question to happen either (and I don't think you believe that).

I do believe that life is common among Goldilocks planets with the right composition of the 6 essential elements. Intelligent life though is another matter and I believe it isn't as common as simple.

Originally posted by PhoenixOD
[...] the process of the creation of DNA might just be such and insanely complex series of events over a long period of time that the likelihood of it happening again could be so small that given the finite number of planets in the universe it might just never happen again.

This is a logic I can not follow at all. Let's keep it simple:

Since such an event (as complex it might be) DID happen on this of amongst billions of planets, we can "relatively confidently" assume that the event of DNA creation is not a special case.

It would (IN MY OPINION) be much more unlikely that it happened only on Earth and not in billions places elsewhere and to assume Earth is special.

Yes, even if we assume it's insanely complex and many perfectly tuned factors are needed so DNA is created there is no reason to believe the same thing couldn't happen elsewhere? "Odds" are not an issue seeing the crazy numbers of galaxies/stars/planets. If anything, the insane "odds" and the fact IT DID HAPPEN HERE should be reason to assume it's likely to happen elsewhere.

Don't get me wrong, I see your line of thought...just for me the theory of this extremely unique event happening only once is less plausible than the alternative.

reply to post by flexy123

Since such an event (as complex it might be) DID happen on this of amongst billions of planets, we can "relatively confidently" assume that the event of DNA creation is not a special case.

That logic does not add up. You can hope (and i do myself) that it might happen again and the process was not down to a whole bunch of freakish events, but so far there is no supporting evidence that gives us reason to believe that we can "confidently assume that the event of DNA creation is not a special case".

If we could find more than a single instance of DNA spontaneously happening on just this planet (where conditions for it are good) alone then we could "confidently assume" that its probably happening elsewhere. This has been a fundamental question for many years and scientists are constantly looking for evidence to solve the question. So far we haven't found any. So so far we just don't know how easy it is to create life by chance.

By definition something is a unique event until we find another example of it. You can not quantify the possibility of something happening without understanding at least how it happening in the first place and at best have another example of it..

Originally posted by PhoenixOD
That logic does not add up. You can hope (and i do myself) that it might happen again and the process was not down to a whole bunch of freakish events, but so far there is no supporting evidence that gives us reason to believe that we can "confidently assume that the event of DNA creation is not a special case".

What are these freakish events you keep mentioning? I am laughing.

There is no supporting evidence of any 'freakish events', in fact the contrary is true. The geological record of Earth, shows it was subject to the same conditions that many other planets have been exposed to, over the course of history, yet DNA happened on Earth.

If it happened on Earth (a relatively common planet, in Astronomical terms), there is no reason to think that it can't have happened on other planets too.

Originally posted by AmatuerSkyWatcher

Originally posted by PhoenixOD
That logic does not add up. You can hope (and i do myself) that it might happen again and the process was not down to a whole bunch of freakish events, but so far there is no supporting evidence that gives us reason to believe that we can "confidently assume that the event of DNA creation is not a special case".

What are these freakish events you keep mentioning? I am laughing.

There is no supporting evidence of any 'freakish events', in fact the contrary is true. The geological record of Earth, shows it was subject to the same conditions that many other planets have been exposed to, over the course of history, yet DNA happened on Earth.

If it happened on Earth (a relatively common planet, in Astronomical terms), there is no reason to think that it can't have happened on other planets too.

err the whole point of the argument is we dont know hat started DNA off. So you can laugh all you want but you are only laughing at yourself for not understanding simple concepts.

Im saying we dont know what started and cant quantify how likely it is to happen again it and you want me to tell you what we already know has no answer at this time?

Seriously your questions are just getting repetitive and pointless.