Is there life elsewhere in the Universe??

Forums › Off topic › Is there life elsewhere in the Universe??

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | ... | 16

2385 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#996398 28-Feb-2014 14:00

ubergeeknz:
Klipspringer:
Fred99:
TwoSeven:
Klipspringer:
joker97:

No new matter can be formed

You wrong there. Matter is formed all the time. If this was not the case the universe would not be expanding.

No-one has proved that the universe is expanding

Direct observation says it is.

Is something in an infinite amount of space really expanding?

If particles are demonstrably increasing their distance from an epicentre, what else would you call it?

I suppose it also depends what your source of measurement is. But yes it is expanding outwards. Was just throwing the thought out there ..

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#996403 28-Feb-2014 14:09

KiwiTim:

You can get some measure of the size of the probability required by looking at the size and number of the protein molecules required for self replication. ...<snip>
So far abiogenesis is science fiction.

No you can't get any reasonable measure of probability. There are many hypothesis for the mechanism of biogenesis, there's no "standard model". The environment in which it may have happened is also wide open in scale, random reactions in one tiny hot pool, or in trillions of tonnes of primordial soup.

According to your definition, "science fiction" should be used to dismiss all hypothesis not supported by observational evidence (or replication in a laboratory).

IMO, in order of probability, life on earth can only have three possible origins:
1) abiogenesis on Earth
2) panspermia - following abiogenesis elsewhere
3) The Hand of God (IOW "Magic")

Klipspringer

2385 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#996410 28-Feb-2014 14:15

KiwiTim:
Some aspects of Neo-Darwinism are crystal clear (like the theory of common descent), but I wouldn't say all of it is a proven fact. Natural selection is a powerful force to direct evolution, but it is not clear that this can account for all change we see in the tree of life. There is still a great deal that we do not have the answers for. There are a lot people that accept all of Neo-Darwinism by faith rather that by logical fact; this has more in common with religion than science.

KiwiTim. I'm impressed with your knowledge on this subject. I think your post has answered a lot of my questions on this subject. Thanks for taking the time to put this one together.

I especially enjoyed your closing comment :-)

Batman

Mad Scientist
29768 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#996414 28-Feb-2014 14:24

Klipspringer:
KiwiTim:
Some aspects of Neo-Darwinism are crystal clear (like the theory of common descent), but I wouldn't say all of it is a proven fact. Natural selection is a powerful force to direct evolution, but it is not clear that this can account for all change we see in the tree of life. There is still a great deal that we do not have the answers for. There are a lot people that accept all of Neo-Darwinism by faith rather that by logical fact; this has more in common with religion than science.

KiwiTim. I'm impressed with your knowledge on this subject. I think your post has answered a lot of my questions on this subject. Thanks for taking the time to put this one together.

I especially enjoyed your closing comment :-)

try saying that to richard dawkins and his disciples

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#996418 28-Feb-2014 14:27

Klipspringer:
KiwiTim:
Some aspects of Neo-Darwinism are crystal clear (like the theory of common descent), but I wouldn't say all of it is a proven fact. Natural selection is a powerful force to direct evolution, but it is not clear that this can account for all change we see in the tree of life. There is still a great deal that we do not have the answers for. There are a lot people that accept all of Neo-Darwinism by faith rather that by logical fact; this has more in common with religion than science.

KiwiTim. I'm impressed with your knowledge on this subject. I think your post has answered a lot of my questions on this subject. Thanks for taking the time to put this one together.

I especially enjoyed your closing comment :-)

I clearly don't enjoy that closing comment, as it implies that for those things which we do not have an answer for, there is a commonality with science, thus "excusing" irrational religious dogma (aka - belief in magic or the supernatural).
It is a common argument made by the "Intelligent Design" movement - most of whom believe in the Invisible Man in the Sky - and have an agenda outside of science.

KiwiTim

376 posts

Ultimate Geek

#996424 28-Feb-2014 14:36

I'm a former NASA Earth-System Science Fellow and had the pleasure of hearing Richard Dawkins speak at the University of Hawaii several years ago. I have been to many lectures and talks by eminent evolutionary biologists, many of whom I respect greatly, but Richard Dawkins is not one of them.

He seems to be driven by a hatred for any one who pokes a hole in Neo-Darwinism. He shows very little respect for any person who disagrees with him, regardless of their education and achievements.

He is not a good example of a neutral and honest biologist. He has an axe to grind and he does that very well.

Batman

Mad Scientist
29768 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#996425 28-Feb-2014 14:36

good to know

Quic Broadband

Move to New Zealand's best fibre broadband service (affiliate link). Free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE. Note that to use Quic Broadband you must be comfortable with configuring your own router.

KiwiTim

376 posts

Ultimate Geek

#996435 28-Feb-2014 14:42

Klipspringer:
KiwiTim:
Some aspects of Neo-Darwinism are crystal clear (like the theory of common descent), but I wouldn't say all of it is a proven fact. Natural selection is a powerful force to direct evolution, but it is not clear that this can account for all change we see in the tree of life. There is still a great deal that we do not have the answers for. There are a lot people that accept all of Neo-Darwinism by faith rather that by logical fact; this has more in common with religion than science.

KiwiTim. I'm impressed with your knowledge on this subject. I think your post has answered a lot of my questions on this subject. Thanks for taking the time to put this one together.

I especially enjoyed your closing comment :-)

Your welcome. I love talking about science and biology. It's great when people can get together and have a honest and frank exchange of ideas, even when there is strong disagreement. Science is all about challenging what we currently know and accept. Its very healthy to disagree!

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#996438 28-Feb-2014 14:45

Until we have all the answers there is no room for mocking or disdain that Dawkins is said to show. When and only when the answers are indisputable that debate can be closed but ridicule denied. True science should allow
all theories and all thought until that time, if not, then we would not have Darwins, Galileos, Einsteins thoughts and theories.

Klipspringer

2385 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#996440 28-Feb-2014 14:49

KiwiNZ: Until we have all the answers there is no room for mocking or disdain that Dawkins is said to show. When and only when the answers are indisputable that debate can be closed but ridicule denied. True science should allow
all theories and all thought until that time, if not, then we would not have Darwins, Galileos, Einsteins thoughts and theories.

Speaking about thought ...

"Supposing there was no intelligence behind the universe, no creative mind. In that case, nobody designed my brain for the purpose of thinking. It is merely that when the atoms inside my skull happen, for physical or chemical reasons, to arrange themselves in a certain way, this gives me, as a by-product, the sensation I call thought. But, if so, how can I trust my own thinking to be true? It's like upsetting a milk jug and hoping that the way it splashes itself will give you a map of London. But if I can't trust my own thinking, of course I can't trust the arguments leading to Atheism, and therefore have no reason to be an Atheist, or anything else. Unless I believe in God, I cannot believe in thought: so I can never use thought to disbelieve in God."

Thats a quote from CJ Lewis, the author of Chronicles of Nadia. A has been atheist. :-)

JayTaicho

294 posts

Ultimate Geek

#996441 28-Feb-2014 14:55

Apologies if this video has been posted already. I love this explanation.

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#996446 28-Feb-2014 15:02

Klipspringer:
KiwiNZ: Until we have all the answers there is no room for mocking or disdain that Dawkins is said to show. When and only when the answers are indisputable that debate can be closed but ridicule denied. True science should allow
all theories and all thought until that time, if not, then we would not have Darwins, Galileos, Einsteins thoughts and theories.

Speaking about thought ...

"Supposing there was no intelligence behind the universe, no creative mind. In that case, nobody designed my brain for the purpose of thinking. It is merely that when the atoms inside my skull happen, for physical or chemical reasons, to arrange themselves in a certain way, this gives me, as a by-product, the sensation I call thought. But, if so, how can I trust my own thinking to be true? It's like upsetting a milk jug and hoping that the way it splashes itself will give you a map of London. But if I can't trust my own thinking, of course I can't trust the arguments leading to Atheism, and therefore have no reason to be an Atheist, or anything else. Unless I believe in God, I cannot believe in thought: so I can never use thought to disbelieve in God."

Thats a quote from CJ Lewis, the author of Chronicles of Nadia. A has been atheist. :-)

As current theories have not been proven they are what they are... theories. The ideas of folks like C J Lewis are their thoughts and they are entitled to them.

As science progresses ideas and beliefs change, after all it was an established fact that the Earth was flat and at the centre of our stellar system for hundreds of years.

bazzer

3438 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#996447 28-Feb-2014 15:05

KiwiTim: However, the problem starts when you go back to the point of origin; the first self-replicating cell. Any biologist will tell you that there is a huge amount of molecular machinery working in concert involved in self-replication. Without the ability to self-replicate there can be no natural selection, there can be no evolution. The ability to self-replicate had to be there at the start. That the complex molecular machinery required for self-replication could form 'de novo' by chance occurrence is a probability, but in real terms the size of this probability is quite absurd, and of little value in the real world ( a larger probability might be that there is a planet in the universe with seas of lemonade and continents made of toffee; we all know this is quite absurd) . So we are left with a big question mark. Did this first self-replicating cell form by some natural process that we currently know nothing of, or did something with intelligence make it? Since modern humans are yet to create life in the lab via random processes ( Craig Venter has reconstructed life, but he used information from living organisms and human intelligence to do it ), it is highly unlikely that life started spontaneously without some kind of directing intelligence (this is quite uncomfortable for some human ears, but from what we can see of this world it is more probable than life forming 'de novo').

This argument is a fallacy. Just if the probability of an event occurring is zero that does not mean that event can not or will not occur. When we're talking about the (infinite or near enough?) universe, it almost certainly would happen.

There probably is a planet with seas of lemonade and continents of toffee. Why is that so absurd?

Klipspringer

2385 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#996449 28-Feb-2014 15:08

bazzer:

There probably is a planet with seas of lemonade and continents of toffee. Why is that so absurd?

And you believe that by faith or fact?

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#996450 28-Feb-2014 15:08

What stops many from accepting there maybe life out there in infinity and beyond?

The belief that we are still the centre of the universe.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | ... | 16