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

[RJM Corbet]

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.

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]

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]

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]

'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]

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]

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]

Thank you.



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 ...


I'll look it up, bro.


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?

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.

Life isn't like salt or like electrons. 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.

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]

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.

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]

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