# Moon of Jupiter prime candidate for alien life after water blast found



## mosaix (May 16, 2018)

_A Nasa probe that explored Jupiter’s moon Europa flew through a giant plume of water vapour that erupted from the icy surface and reached a hundred miles high, according to a fresh analysis of the spacecraft’s data.

The discovery has cemented the view among some scientists that the Jovian moon, one of four first spotted by the Italian astronomer Galileo Galilei in 1610, is the most promising place in the solar system to hunt for alien life._

Moon of Jupiter prime candidate for alien life after water blast found


----------



## Brian G Turner (May 17, 2018)

There's more commentary on the potential flyby here:
Did the Galileo spacecraft pass through a geyser plume over Europa? Maaaaaybe.


----------



## Alexa (May 17, 2018)

The problem with these candidates is that even if they have some kind of alien life, it may take thousands of years having the same lifeforms as the Earth has right now. Maybe we all alone in the Universe after all and our future generations will find a way to colonize the other planets.


----------



## night_wrtr (May 17, 2018)

Alexa said:


> Maybe we all alone in the Universe after all and our future generations will find a way to colonize the other planets.



My opinion of course, but there is no way we are alone in the universe. I don't even think we are alone in the Milk Way.

Prediction: In the somewhat near future we will locate life on another planet, moon, comet, etc, and in the distant future we will be able to trace back the evolution of life in the universe to a common origin, much like Charles Darwin did with animal species on this rock we call home.


----------



## Alexa (May 17, 2018)

night_wrtr said:


> My opinion of course, but there is no way we are alone in the universe. I don't even think we are alone in the Milk Way.
> 
> Prediction: In the somewhat near future we will locate life on another planet, moon, comet, etc, and in the distant future we will be able to trace back the evolution of life in the universe to a common origin, much like Charles Darwin did with animal species on this rock we call home.



And let all those hostile spaceships conquering Earth come true ?


----------



## LordOfWizards (May 18, 2018)

The Drake equation: *N = R* • fp • ne • fl • fi • fc • L* 
Where: *N* = The number of civilizations in the Milky Way galaxy whose electromagnetic emissions are detectable. 

The Drake Equation is used to estimate the number of communicating civilizations in the cosmos, or more simply put, the odds of finding intelligent life in the universe.
First proposed by radio astronomer Frank Drake in 1961, the equation calculates the number of communicating civilizations by multiplying several variables. It's usually written, according to the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI), as:
*N = R* • fp • ne • fl • fi • fc • L*​*N* = The number of civilizations in the Milky Way galaxy whose electromagnetic emissions are detectable.

*R** = The rate of formation of stars suitable for the development of intelligent life.
*fp* = The fraction of those stars with planetary systems.
*ne* = The number of planets, per solar system, with an environment suitable for life.
*fl* = The fraction of suitable planets on which life actually appears.
*fi* = The fraction of life bearing planets on which intelligent life emerges.
*fc* = The fraction of civilizations that develop a technology that releases detectable signs of their existence into space.
*L* = The length of time such civilizations release detectable signals into space


----------



## Venusian Broon (May 18, 2018)

LordOfWizards said:


> The Drake equation: *N = R* • fp • ne • fl • fi • fc • L*
> Where: *N* = The number of civilizations in the Milky Way galaxy whose electromagnetic emissions are detectable.
> 
> The Drake Equation is used to estimate the number of communicating civilizations in the cosmos, or more simply put, the odds of finding intelligent life in the universe.
> ...




I really, as a physicist, dislike the Drake equation. For an equation that's linked to serious science, it's ambiguous and completely untestable. 

You can get 'answers' that give you any number you want...from zero to every star system in the milky way, say.

But I will say, being positive, it _is_ useful as a framework for discussing 'how do we think intelligent life develops in our universe?'


----------



## Vertigo (May 18, 2018)

See the problem I have with the Drake equation is that I don't think any one of the parameters have even remotely verifiable values. It's basically just guesses. And that, to me, puts it in the realm of faith not science.


----------



## Venusian Broon (May 18, 2018)

Vertigo said:


> See the problem I have with the Drake equation is that I don't think any one of the parameters have even remotely verifiable values. It's basically just guesses. And that, to me, puts it in the realm of faith not science.



The problem, I feel, that muddies the waters somewhat, is that some of the factors involved are finding some traction in being 'better fleshed out' - the first three. But there is a massive gap of our understanding afterwards.


----------



## Stephen Palmer (May 18, 2018)

Venusian Broon said:


> I really, as a physicist, dislike the Drake equation. For an equation that's linked to serious science, it's ambiguous and completely untestable.



This excellent book (The Rare Earth Hypothesis) may be of interest to those contributing to this thread.


----------



## Vertigo (May 18, 2018)

Stephen Palmer said:


> This excellent book (The Rare Earth Hypothesis) may be of interest to those contributing to this thread.


Nick Lane left me with the feeling that simple life is likely to be common but that complex life is likely rare and that was just based on the biochemistry without bringing the influence of plate tectonics, Jupiter, the moon, magnetosphere etc. etc. As I loved The Vital Question on your suggestion, I have just ordered a second hand copy of this one!


----------



## J Riff (May 18, 2018)

1955 and counting...


----------



## RJM Corbet (May 18, 2018)

Guys, you know what's coming: Liquid water on another world does not by a factor of, like, 10 to the power 200, guarantee definite life origination on that world.

With all the hugely controlled and directed knowledge and apparatus available we're still  impossibly distant from being able to originate the spark of life for even the most basic microbe -- and hundreds of zeros further from the hugely complicated life contained within a single dandelion seed. So how's 'life' hoping to just pop up everywhere there's liquid water? Imo


----------



## Alexa (May 19, 2018)

It may pop up if it travels with what we send into space.


----------



## Stephen Palmer (May 19, 2018)

RJM Corbet said:


> With all the hugely controlled and directed knowledge and apparatus available we're still  impossibly distant from being able to originate the spark of life for even the most basic microbe -- and hundreds of zeros further from the hugely complicated life contained within a single dandelion seed. So how's 'life' hoping to just pop up everywhere there's liquid water? Imo



So what you're saying is, because human beings are "impossibly distant" from creating life, evolution and basic chemistry can't?
Wow - that's solipsist!


----------



## RJM Corbet (May 19, 2018)

Stephen Palmer said:


> So what you're saying is, because human beings are "impossibly distant" from creating life, evolution and basic chemistry can't?
> Wow - that's solipsist!


Well, yes. We now have complete knowledge of the ingredients, perfectly controlled conditions in which to combine them, but somehow can't get them to come to 'life'. Yet it's expected to happen purely by chance everywhere there's liquid water, even in the most inhospitable environment. I'm not talking about the progression of simple life to higher life forms, but about origination. The spark that got Frankenstein's creation to stand up off the table.


----------



## Ursa major (May 19, 2018)

RJM Corbet said:


> Yet it's expected to happen purely by chance


Are you properly factoring in the huge scale available, in terms of space (volume) and time available?

If something can take but a moment to happen, but is very unlikley to happen at any given moment and at a given (tiny) location, the availability of an unimaginably large number of moments, and an unimaginably large number of locations, can make it much more likely to happen.


----------



## RJM Corbet (May 19, 2018)

Ursa major said:


> Are you properly factoring in the huge scale available, in terms of space (volume) and time available?
> 
> If something can take but a moment to happen, but is very unlikley to happen at any given moment and at a given (tiny) location, the availability of an unimaginably large number of moments, and an unimaginably large number of locations, can make it much more likely to happen.


Yes, I am factoring it in: billions upon billions of trials happening simultaneously and continually. Billions of monkeys on billions of typewriters, hoping to come out with Hamlet.

Our phones each contain upward a billion transistors; if each of the information 'pits' on a DVD disc were magnified to pinhead size, the disc would be 300km in diameter filled with pinhead sized dots, etc. We can isolate a single photon of light, or 'dope' a single atom of silicon or germanium, or send a probe to Europa. We're pretty smart at doing stuff with the right equipment and knowledge, under minutely controlled conditions.

EDIT: it's not impossible, but it's very highly unlikely life will just spontaneously occur somewhere like Europa, simply because there's liquid water there?


----------



## RJM Corbet (May 19, 2018)

I think the universe is probably filled with life, but in forms we cannot perceive with our particular carbon based senses and vision.


----------



## Ursa major (May 19, 2018)

In terms of the scale of the solar system (both in terms of size and time), let alone the galaxy and the universe, mere billions don't really amount to much at all.


----------



## Harpo (May 19, 2018)

Don't forget, those billions of typing monkeys are also producing "Don Quixote" and "The Complete Goon Show Scripts" and "Where's My Cow?" and all our Christmas shopping lists, in the original Klingon.


----------



## RJM Corbet (May 19, 2018)

Ursa major said:


> In terms of the scale of the solar system (both in terms of scale and time), let alone the galaxy and the universe, mere billions don't really amount to much at all.



I quite understand. Although most estimates of spontaneous abiogenesis are of the order of one to several times all the atoms in the universe. It's obviously not impossible for a chocolate cake to make and bake itself. But it's much more likely to happen to an intelligent chef who has studied and assembles the ingredients, in perfect baking conditions?

The point is that whatever the circumstances and coincidences, carbon based life isn't really LIKELY anywhere? Let alone virtually inevitable? Especially some place like Europa?


----------



## RJM Corbet (May 19, 2018)

Well, I've been waiting for someone to correct me: that the spontaneous abiogenesis of life didnt happen all at once, in a single flash, but evolved in stages: from self-replicating inorganic polymer via 'protocell' to eventual bacteria. Because I've been waiting to counter that the 'protocell' is just a proposition -- like the extra dimensions string-theory depends upon. There's no evidence of such, although it's a handy theoretical fix. For the explanation of an absolute minimum 4.25 X 10 to the power 40 unliklihood, that's really a bit of a stretch?


----------



## Stephen Palmer (May 20, 2018)

RJM, I think you'd enjoy reading this: The Vital Question.


----------



## Stephen Palmer (May 20, 2018)

RJM Corbet said:


> It's obviously not impossible for a chocolate cake to make and bake itself. But it's much more likely to happen to an intelligent chef who has studied and assembles the ingredients, in perfect baking conditions?



So what you're saying is - god did it? I ask out of curiosity, as that's what I take from your reply.


----------



## Vertigo (May 20, 2018)

RJM Corbet said:


> Well, I've been waiting for someone to correct me: that the spontaneous abiogenesis of life didnt happen all at once, in a single flash, but evolved in stages: from self-replicating inorganic polymer via 'protocell' to eventual bacteria. Because I've been waiting to counter that the 'protocell' is just a proposition -- like the extra dimensions string-theory depends upon. There's no evidence of such, although it's a handy theoretical fix. For the explanation of an absolute minimum 4.25 X 10 to the power 40 unliklihood, that's really a bit of a stretch?





Stephen Palmer said:


> RJM, I think you'd enjoy reading this: The Vital Question.


I'd second that recommendation!


----------



## Venusian Broon (May 20, 2018)

You are clearly strawmanning hard here in this discussion 



RJM Corbet said:


> Well, yes. We now have complete knowledge of the ingredients,.



No we don't. No scientist would say that. As you point out a bit later, it's clear that DNA-bacteria world was not near the start of abiogenesis. Most of the _many _hypothesises posit some sort of precursor world or even multi-stage precursors that eventually lead to the formation of the first life that we would recognise.

Problem is that the arrival of Prokaryotes effectively wiped out this precursor world as they would use the material floating about in their own ways and they directly changed the environment.

The only evidence we have of what this precursor may have been is now trying to find rocks from the precursor time period and analysing the chemical composition. Perhaps then we can possibly make inferences. Unfortunately in geological terms this period of time is tiny - Prokaryotes arrived pretty quickly in Earth's history. It is possible that we may never have enough evidence to correctly ascertain this.




RJM Corbet said:


> perfectly controlled conditions in which to combine them, but somehow can't get them to come to 'life'.



Irrelevant as we have little idea of what the actual conditions were of Earth at the time, nor do we have any idea of the precursor pathway that was taken. There's a lot of interesting theories, whether it's hydrothermal vents, radioactive beaches, via clay, on a comet etc...

The conditions that we might prefer in the lab, or what we imagine were there, may be nothing like what actually happened.

Also I'd take Ursa's point about time and space. What if it was a process that needed a reasonably specific set of circumstances - perhaps it needed a large hydrothermal vent to provide catalysers, with the right ingredients and a good 1000 years to 'cook'. Ever tried to get a grant for an experiment, that needs a thousand years? 



RJM Corbet said:


> Yet it's expected to happen purely by chance everywhere there's liquid water, even in the most inhospitable environment.



I can't really speak for the scientific community that look at these topics, but I've not seen anyone make such a comment.

What is clear is that for carbon based life to survive and thrive it requires liquid water. Hence, as the articles states, the detection of water increases the _potential_ for Europa to have life.

We do not know what the chances are of abiogenesis are - having a look at Europa will hopefully give us a better answer at this front. Perhaps it's barren, perhaps there are interesting new life forms in its ocean. That will, no matter what is discovered, tell us something about our own abiogenesis.

As for 'inhospitable environments'. Any environment that has liquid water is, by definition, pretty hospitable for carbon based life. In fact the more we discover on earth of extremophiles the more we see how life can adapt to very varied and conditions once deemed 'inhospitable'. We have bacteria about 2km in the Earth's crust that rely solely on radioactive decay for their energy, we have bacteria that thrive (slowly!) in ice and are perpetually below freezing, we have others in almost boiling water and very toxic environments. (at least toxic to virtually all other plants and animals). If Europa does have a large underground ocean of liquid water, a deep thermal vent would be a lovely hospitable place for some bacteria.

As for my beliefs, as someone who is very comfortable with the Copernican principle and therefore our place in the universe that entails, I would be much happier if they did indeed find life deep in the Europian ocean, just to show us that, yep, in the grand scheme of things we're not that special.


----------



## Stephen Palmer (May 20, 2018)

now _that's_ a reply.


----------



## Alexa (May 20, 2018)

Stephen Palmer said:


> now _that's_ a reply.



Yeah, he scared me too. Let's watch for the reply !


----------



## RJM Corbet (May 20, 2018)

Please delete. Repeat posting ...


----------



## RJM Corbet (May 20, 2018)

Stephen Palmer said:


> RJM, I think you'd enjoy reading this: The Vital Question.



Thank you.



Stephen Palmer said:


> So what you're saying is - god did it? I ask out of curiosity, as that's what I take from your reply.



No I didn't. I meant that, while 'establishment' biology is so certain of its abiogenesis and anthropic principles, that still a 21st century biology facility, with all the available resources and computer equipment etc, can't get close to even the first most basic parts of the assembly -- yet dictates with 'divine authority' to lesser mortals how 'life' is almost certain to just happen by chance -- hugely remote chance -- everywhere there's water?

Life may have been seeded, etc. There are other alternative throries to the dogma of abiogenesis on Earth. And it IS just a theory. Will that do?

However if anyone did rashly suggest that in all these considerations perhaps even the tiniest and most remote possibility that the influence of some as yet unproveable higher intelligence might be included as also a consideration, they would be burned at the stake of the new inquisition?

EDIT: I do apologise for all the edits to this post. Let's go with this as final version, lol ...


Vertigo said:


> I'd second that recommendation!



I'll look it up, bro.


Venusian Broon said:


> You are clearly strawmanning hard here in this discussion
> 
> 
> 
> ...



As with all your highly perceptive and knowledgeable responses, I will need to read this through several times and think about it for some time,  before rushing in (or not) with a response, VB ...

EDIT: however at this stage I have to comment that the tenacity of life on Earth in extreme conditions isn't at all relevant to its origination elsewhere under extreme conditions?


----------



## RJM Corbet (May 20, 2018)

Venusian Broon said:


> ...Irrelevant as we have little idea of what the actual conditions were of Earth at the time, nor do we have any idea of the precursor pathway that was taken. There's a lot of interesting theories, whether it's hydrothermal vents, radioactive beaches, via clay, on a comet etc...
> 
> The conditions that we might prefer in the lab, or what we imagine were there, may be nothing like what actually happened.
> 
> Also I'd take Ursa's point about time and space. What if it was a process that needed a reasonably specific set of circumstances - perhaps it needed a large hydrothermal vent to provide catalysers, with the right ingredients and a good 1000 years to 'cook'. Ever tried to get a grant for an experiment, that needs a thousand years?  ...



Ok, thanks VB. So all said we have string-theorists proposing hidden dimensions and super-symmetry to prop-up up their idea. And we have abiogenesists proposing protobionts and mega hydrothermal vents to prop-up up theirs? It's all feasible. It's of course attractive. But it could just as easilly be quite wrong? I don't know what's more to say?

Perhaps we'll live long enough to find extra-terrestrial carbon-based abiogenetically (!) generated life. It's as good a reason as any for new scientific exploration and progress ...


----------



## Vertigo (May 20, 2018)

Here's a thought for the panspermia advocates (leaving out the fact that panspermia merely pushes the mystery back one (or more) steps):

Supposing for the moment that abiogenesis is actually very rare, in such a scenario and assuming when I say very rare I mean _seriously_ very rare, then what if life on Earth was the first (at least in our arm of the Milky Way) and that since then volcanic eruptions have been blasting spores/microbes out of our atmosphere where the solar wind blows them off into interstellar space. After all 4 billion plus years is an awful long time....


----------



## RJM Corbet (May 20, 2018)

Vertigo said:


> Here's a thought for the panspermia advocates (leaving out the fact that panspermia merely pushes the mystery back one (or more) steps):
> 
> Supposing for the moment that abiogenesis is actually very rare, in such a scenario and assuming when I say very rare I mean _seriously_ very rare, then what if life on Earth was the first (at least in our arm of the Milky Way) and that since then volcanic eruptions have been blasting spores/microbes out of our atmosphere where the solar wind blows them off into interstellar space. After all 4 billion plus years is an awful long time....


THAT'S a thought!


----------



## RJM Corbet (May 20, 2018)

Stephen Palmer said:


> RJM, I think you'd enjoy reading this: The Vital Question.




(... alkaline hydrothermal vents which create geological formations full of microscopically tiny pores. He then shows how these inorganic volumes, if in the presence of warm water (energy), carbon dioxide, hydrogen and naturally occurring catalysts – essentially compounds of iron and sulphur – can easily and inevitably create proton gradients across membranes. From these first principles all the later inventions of prokaryotic life can be deduced: the use of hydrogen/sodium antiporters (essentially chemical ion movers that actively work across phospholipid membranes); the use of lipid membranes; energy requirements, motion away from the pores, and so on ...)

From your review, because I obviously haven't read the book yet, lol.

I'm really sorry to labour the point, but if all this is so easy and obvious and actually 'inevitable' why can no part of it be recreated and tested under laboratory conditions? Or at least the first two sentences? What am I missing, here?


----------



## Vertigo (May 20, 2018)

RJM Corbet said:


> (... alkaline hydrothermal vents which create geological formations full of microscopically tiny pores. He then shows how these inorganic volumes, if in the presence of warm water (energy), carbon dioxide, hydrogen and naturally occurring catalysts – essentially compounds of iron and sulphur – can easily and inevitably create proton gradients across membranes. From these first principles all the later inventions of prokaryotic life can be deduced: the use of hydrogen/sodium antiporters (essentially chemical ion movers that actively work across phospholipid membranes); the use of lipid membranes; energy requirements, motion away from the pores, and so on ...)
> 
> From your review, because I obviously haven't read the book yet, lol.
> 
> I'm really sorry to labour the point, but if all this is so easy and obvious and actually 'inevitable' why can no part of it be recreated and tested under laboratory conditions? Or at least the first two sentences? What am I missing, here?


Easy is a relative term. I'd recommend reading the book; he talks in it about just how much has been done experimentally and how much hasn't and addresses many of the different theories out there. I think one of the problems is the first stages of life don't happen on the sort of timescales we are used to seeing life grow in. Even Lichens, which grow pretty darn slowly, are cheetahs compared to the time spans required for what he is describing. Those vents have to cook for a long long time before those early molecules can evolve sufficiently to be able to move away from the vents. As Simon says even if it is inevitable it can still take longer than any reasonable contemporary experiment is likely to last.


----------



## Onyx (May 20, 2018)

RJM Corbet said:


> I'm really sorry to labour the point, but if all this is so easy and obvious and actually 'inevitable' why can no part of it be recreated and tested under laboratory conditions? Or at least the first two sentences? What am I missing, here?


It's not what you are missing, it is what you prefer to ignore. Several people have pointed out to you that no amount of laboratory work can come close to the scale of running the "life experiment" in 1.3 billion cubic kilometers of water for 500 million years. If abiogenesis is truly the result of trillions of trillions of random "dice rolls", how could a laboratory even begin to run an experiment on that scale?


Regardless of the likelihood of life given certain conditions over a useful time period, one thing the Drake Equation doesn't take into account is the survivability of life. The stuff might be popping up all the time, only to be wiped out by the next eruption, solar flair, poisoning in its own waste matter. Life may have started and died off millions of times on earth before the stuff we're related to stuck around. Early 'us' probably ate several other kinds of life - some of which might have had much better qualities for eventually producing intelligence, but were bad at being single cell Pac-men.

Overall, we judge life to be likely because there is so much water in the universe running very similar experiments to earth on roughly the same time and volume scale. So if it isn't happening anywhere, there needs to be an X factor that we are completely unaware of that is preventing life.


----------



## Venusian Broon (May 20, 2018)

RJM Corbet said:


> Ok, thanks VB. So all said we have string-theorists proposing hidden dimensions and super-symmetry to prop-up up their idea. And we have abiogenesists proposing protobionts and mega hydrothermal vents to prop-up up theirs? It's all feasible. It's of course attractive. But it could just as easilly be quite wrong? I don't know what's more to say?
> 
> Perhaps we'll live long enough to find extra-terrestrial carbon-based abiogenetically (!) generated life. It's as good a reason as any for new scientific exploration and progress ...



I think we might actually live long enough as a species to find evidence of other abiogenesis' occurring...whereas I am less certain there is enough time left in the universe for us to prove anything to do with string theory  (And I say that as a physicist!) 

At least we have other habitats in the neighbourhood that actually stand out as candidates, that with a bit of effort we can actually reach and explore. As you say, a very worthy goal of scientific exploration.  

[Note - perhaps we find something on Europa, and something still alive deep buried in Mars...but perhaps there was a form of panspermia within the planets of this solar system. That it did originate on one place and was transported by large meteorite impact throughout the system??? We'll only know if we get there and take some samples...]

I think the difference in our views is that I think you believe abiogenesis is highly implausible and improbable. Whereas_ I_ _just don't know_. Your position might be true. Perhaps, even, there was some sort of 'higher being' that was involved in seeding life on a barren, just cooling, Earth. (Although saying something like that, with no evidence, is 'propping' up your theory even worse than the abiogenists who at least can do some biochemical experiments...but, hey,  that's my own opinion!) 

But we have hypothesis and theories - and let's try them out by looking for fossils on mars, clouds of bacteria on Venus or ocean dwellers on Europa. At least these are reachable goals.


----------



## RJM Corbet (May 20, 2018)

Onyx said:


> It's not what you are missing, it is what you prefer to ignore. Several people have pointed out to you that no amount of laboratory work can come close to the scale of running the "life experiment" in 1.3 billion cubic kilometers of water for 500 million years. If abiogenesis is truly the result of trillions of trillions of random "dice rolls", how could a laboratory even begin to run an experiment on that scale?
> 
> [Quoted text deleted by a Moderator]
> 
> ...


I'm not going to get into discussing what I'm deliberately missing. You're not smarter than me just because you are a physicist. Perhaps it's you missing the point: it took the universe billions of years to create salt. But now we know what it is, we can reproduce it. So if you're going to be so all knowing about 'life' why are you avoiding the obvious: if it's so simple, why is it so impossibly difficult? I'm not continuing with this discussion.

EDIT: Why should I have to accept it just because you and a bunch of other prople say it? Where's your EVIDENCE? 

Goodbye


----------



## Onyx (May 20, 2018)

RJM Corbet said:


> I'm not going to get into discussing what I'm deliberately missing. You're not smarter than me just because you are a physicist. Perhaps it's you missing the point: it took the universe billions of years to create salt. But now we know what it is, we can reproduce it. So if you're going to be so all knowing about 'life' why are you avoiding the obvious: if it's so simple, why is it so impossibly difficult. I'm not continuing with this discussion. Goodbye


What you are missing is that making salt out of chlorine and sodium is like factoring the product of two digit primes - something you could do in your head in a few minutes. Duplicating the chemical evolution of life is more complex - like factoring the product of two 128 digit primes. A supercomputer doing the same math you did in your head would take 1 billion years to factor the product of two 128 bit numbers, despite us understanding all the math.

Given what a supercomputer can't do fast with pure math, why do you believe a laboratory can recreate millions of years of parallel chemical processing in a few years?


----------



## RJM Corbet (May 20, 2018)

Venusian Broon said:


> I think we might actually live long enough as a species to find evidence of other abiogenesis' occurring...whereas I am less certain there is enough time left in the universe for us to prove anything to do with string theory  (And I say that as a physicist!)
> 
> At least we have other habitats in the neighbourhood that actually stand out as candidates, that with a bit of effort we can actually reach and explore. As you say, a very worthy goal of scientific exploration.
> 
> ...


No. I'm saying it's quite possible there's a higher intelligence than quantum physicists and molecular biologists somewhere out there. Judging by the blinkered materialistic viewpoint of some comments in these threads (not yours) its far more definite than abiogenesis. Ok?


----------



## RJM Corbet (May 20, 2018)

Onyx said:


> What you are missing is that making salt out of chlorine and sodium is like factoring the product of two digit primes - something you could do in your head in a few minutes. Duplicating the chemical evolution of life is more complex - like factoring the product of two 128 digit primes. A supercomputer doing the same math you did in your head would take 1 billion years to factor the product of two 128 bit numbers, despite us understanding all the math.
> 
> Given what a supercomputer can't do fast with pure math, why do you believe a laboratory can recreate millions of years of parallel chemical processing in a few years?


Ok, I'll play. A Mercedes Ben took since the big bang to evolve, through human intelligence, to become what it is. But now it's there, you can take it apart and analyze it, then reproduce it. However it's obvious you haven't a CLUE about what life is, yet you have to invent excuses to justify your total refusal to consider the possibility of a higher intelligence than your own at work. I'm really nor going to respond to any more of your posts; Onyx.


----------



## Onyx (May 20, 2018)

RJM Corbet said:


> No. I'm saying it's quite possible there's a higher intelligence than quantum physicists and molecular biologists somewhere out there. Judging by the blinkered materialistic viewpoint of some comments in these threads (not yours) its far more definite than abiogenesis. Ok?


'Blinkered materialism' has nothing to do with how long it takes for complexity to arise from random interactions.

You can't disprove a hypothesis by making only the minimal effort before you give up and declare it "impossible".


----------



## RJM Corbet (May 20, 2018)

Onyx said:


> 'Blinkered materialism' has nothing to do with how long it takes for complexity to arise from random interactions.
> 
> You can't disprove a hypothesis by making only the minimal effort before you give up and declare it "impossible".


I didn't say impossible. Stop quoting me saying what I didn't say. Life arose from random actions, therefore because life created it, so did the Mercedes Benz.


----------



## Onyx (May 20, 2018)

RJM Corbet said:


> Ok, I'll play. A Mercedes Ben took since the big bang to evolve, through human intelligence, to become what it is. But now it's there, you can take it apart and analyze it, then reproduce it. However it's obvious you haven't a CLUE about what life is, yet you have to invent excuses to justify your total refusal to consider the possibility of a higher intelligence than your own at work. I'm really nor going to respond to any more of your posts; Onyx.


You're confusing me with a scientist. I'm not.

And I have not rejected anything other than your insistence that sufficient experimental time has passed to declare lab life impossible. 

You seem to be confused about what is even being debated.


----------



## Onyx (May 20, 2018)

RJM Corbet said:


> I didn't say impossible. Stop quoting me saying what I didn't say. Life arose from random actions, therefore because life created it, so did the Mercedes Benz.


Sorry. You seem to be saying the abiogenesis is "completely unlikely" because life hasn't spontaneously arisen in extremely limited lab conditions.  

Better?


----------



## Onyx (May 20, 2018)

RJM Corbet said:


> Thank you.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


This post appears to posit "science" as some sort of centralized authority that is able to punish or otherwise silence any theory or viewpoint that has arisen outside of it's methods.

But it does not have those powers. Science isn't even an organization or viewpoint. It is just a method for proposing and testing questions.


----------



## Brian G Turner (May 21, 2018)

RJM Corbet said:


> But it could just as easilly be quite wrong? I don't know what's more to say?



That's science. 

Ideas are put forward, tested, changed, discarded, renewed, etc. On fundamental questions where so much remains unanswered, it is impossible to properly test such theories.

However, moving back to the original topic - it does seem a little sensationalist for the original headline to reference life, when the evidence for the probe passing through a water geyser remains circumstantial - plus the changed in charged particles says nothing about the prospects for life on Europa.


----------



## RJM Corbet (May 21, 2018)

Onyx said:


> This post appears to posit "science" as some sort of centralized authority that is able to punish or otherwise silence any theory or viewpoint that has arisen outside of it's methods.
> 
> But it does not have those powers. Science isn't even an organization or viewpoint. It is just a method for proposing and testing questions.



Again you are assuming things and reading things into my comments that are not there. Which is why it's impossible to have a reasonable conversation with you.


Brian G Turner said:


> That's science.
> 
> Ideas are put forward, tested, changed, discarded, renewed, etc. On fundamental questions where so much remains unanswered, it is impossible to properly test such theories.
> 
> However, moving back to the original topic - it does seem a little sensationalist for the original headline to reference life, when the evidence for the probe passing through a water geyser remains circumstantial - plus the changed in charged particles says nothing about the prospects for life on Europa.



I completely agree and I am reasonsbly educated as to how the science ethic operates. I learn a lot from these discussions. But I can only repeat that science also demands experimental evidence. Reasonsble explanations can be made as to why such evidence is not yet available, but the fact remains that until it is -- what anyone conjectures about the origin of life on Earth it's just a belief, and in many cases an article of faith.

Life isn't like salt or like electrons. Electrons are mysterious enough. Energy remains a mystery. LIFE is far more of a mystery. 'Science' does not yet have the answer. Its still an open question? Imo. In spite of what some arrogant best selling author molecular biologists would like lesser mortals to believe.


----------



## Onyx (May 21, 2018)

RJM Corbet said:


> Again you are assuming things and reading things into my comments that are not there. Which is why it's impossible to have a reasonable conversation with you.
> 
> 
> I completely agree and understand how 'science' works. I learn a lot from these discussions. But I can only repeat that science also demands experimental evidence. Until then what anyone conjectures about the origin of life on Earth it's just a belief.
> ...


Saying that you understand science and then talking about how it seeks to burn people at the stake, is full of "belief" and comes up with ideas without experimental evidence suggests that you don't.

I would like to see you support any of the claims you've made about "science" with examples instead of more hyperbole.


A "conversation" is an exchange of ideas, where you acknowledge what the other person is saying and respond to it on its merits.


----------



## RJM Corbet (May 21, 2018)

Onyx said:


> Saying that you understand science and then talking about how it seeks to burn people at the stake, is full of "belief" and comes up with ideas without experimental evidence suggests that you don't.
> 
> I would like to see you support any of the claims you've made about "science" with examples instead of more hyperbole.
> 
> ...


Onyx: what I SAID was that science demands that ideas are confirmed by experiment. The LHC Atlas facility is failing to find supersymmetry, for instance. This really is my last response to you.


----------



## Brian G Turner (May 21, 2018)

And with that I'm closing the thread, as members seem to be critiquing each other rather than discussing the original topic.


----------

