Reflections (and questions) on Life in the Universe

[Kryten]

OK, then lets say we have evidence that unicorns on this planet "step into existence" where-ever they can, even in locations we thought unicorns are impossible due to hazardous environments. Hence the simplest conclusion is that; if this has happened on Earth, the chances are very high this has happened on other planets (and/or moons) as well.

This statement is logically equivalent to your own; it's got exactly as much binding in fact. See the issue now ?

[magnemoe]

Ummm. Care to elaborate, or define life for us all?

See my post, only place we have looked seriously is Mars, Mars don't have much life in any cases, if anything its microbes inside rocks who can be hard to recognize if very alien.

This is irrelevant for search in other solar systems where we need atmospheric changes, preferable O2 prove life.

[nuclearping]

OK, then lets say we have evidence that unicorns on this planet "step into existence" where-ever they can, even in locations we thought unicorns are impossible due to hazardous environments. Hence the simplest conclusion is that; if this has happened on Earth, the chances are very high this has happened on other planets (and/or moons) as well.

This statement is logically equivalent to your own; it's got exactly as much binding in fact. See the issue now ?

If that would be your belief, ideas and thoughts, then I wouldn't feel the slightest urge to disprove you or to discuss with you about if you're right or not, since I'm not in the position of an observer who has undoubtable knowledge about "unicorns".

And even if I would be, then it wouldn't be very humble or nice of me to force my "knowledge" upon you in any sort, without being asked to share it first.

See the issue now?

* EDIT *

Another example: You wouldn't go to a Star Trek convention and discuss with the Trekkis about how much "nonsense" all their SciFi stuff is, wouldn't you? "Warp drive", "Teleportation", "Phaser and Laser Guns" ... "You gotta be kidding me".

Edited September 19, 2014 by nuclearping

[Kryten]

So you just wanted to push out some completely ungrounded speculation, without anybody discussing it? Why bother even posting it to a forum then?

[nuclearping]

See edit above: You wouldn't go to a Star Trek convention and discuss with the Trekkis about how much "nonsense" all their SciFi stuff is, wouldn't you? "Warp drive", "Teleportation", "Phaser and Laser Guns" ... "You gotta be kidding me".

Also it is a difference if you try to have a constructive conversation or just being plain rude and negative. And you're the latter.

This thread is entitled "[sci Fi Theory]" and the OP invited us to share ideas, thoughts and insights. There was no word that anything you write must have been approved by scientific dogma first. So yes, you are invited to put some completely ungrounded speculation here and hopefully don't have some wisenheimer and know-it-all derailing the immersion of the thread since 2 pages.

[Kryten]

Then where's your constructive conversation about my unicorns? Don't try to force scientific dogma down my gullet.

[WestAir]

Given the size of the observable universe, two things are likely true:

1.) The real Universe is larger than the observable Universe.

2.) The observable universe is so large, life is nearly guaranteed to exist.

Additionally, a third point,

3.) The distances involved make it unlikely for two civilizations to meet.

[magnemoe]

Given the size of the observable universe, two things are likely true:

1.) The real Universe is larger than the observable Universe.

2.) The observable universe is so large, life is nearly guaranteed to exist.

Additionally, a third point,

3.) The distances involved make it unlikely for two civilizations to meet.

Now add another factor, an civilization with interstellar colonies is very unlikely to go extinct, they can loose a planet or more even solar systems and still survive.

[Vanamonde]

It's possible to disagree with each other without being angry or speaking dismissively. Please take a moment to cool your tempers before posting in the thread again, folks.

[KerikBalm]

The "intelligent conversation" thingy is getting odd at that point when you claim to know more than the other person, about things which are complete speculation and theory.

#1) Complete speculation != theory

They are worlds apart

#2) Its not complete speculation that there was 1 origin to all life on Earth

#3) Considering I nearly have my PhD in molecular biology, yes, I probably do know more on this subject than you.

Even here on Earth it is not clear how, when and where life began. And furthermore not even how it was able to evolve in that short period of time given the numerous mass extinctions.

#1) We've got some pretty good ideas, the exact details are still being worked out

#2) What numerous mass extinctions are you talking about that were also within a short period of time?

#3) Mass extinctions and evolutionary radiations are irrelevant for discussion how easy it is for life to start

Again, No mass extinction ever came close to snuffing out life on this planet. Sure, the impact zone at the end of the mesozoic was probably sterilized temporarily, but the oceans weren't, the rest of the land wasn't.

Based on the evidence, life evolved from a non-living precursor exactly once.

Also latest conclusions and theorys say that chances are high that either the basic components of life OR even more complex life already in forms of amoebas or bacteria have been brought by asteroids.

Basic components are all over the place. PAHs are likely out in space, but Benzene is not life, far from it. There is no evidence of comple life being brought in the form of amoebas or bacteria. There is speculation that it might have been, but its pure speculation. Please note the difference between speculation and a theory.

And so we are (finally) back at the original topic: If life was brought to Earth by Asteroids, then chances are high that this has happened somewhere else too.

Yes, within the solar system, but less common in the universe. It would also mean that life doesn't start so fast, and a life bearing rock blasted from... say Venus, arrived on Earth before any indigenous life arose that would out compete it (since it would be pre-adapted to Earth's conditions).

Whoever you refer to with "he", "criticizing logic" doesn't mean "he" is more right. As I said above, we are speaking about subjects which are just pure speculation and theory.

He, I believe was Kryten. And it was on the subject of what you said, which is not pure speculation and theory.

You made up a premise, and then drew conclusions from you made up premise. Its what he said you did. You claimed you didn't. He was clearly right.

I don't understand what "Russel's teapot" has to do with this. Thats nothing about Religion.

Its about the burden of proof, and that we shouldn't just accept a proposition because it can't be proven wrong.

Honestly mate, don't try so hard dragging this down to a personal level. If you can't stand my ideas and thoughts then this might not be the thread for you.

I'm just offering my thoughts and applying rational thought. I only mention you, because you tried to claim you didn't say something that you clearly said.

This thread is entitled "[sci Fi Theory]"

Please please please understand that theory is not speculation.

Edited September 19, 2014 by KerikBalm

[rtxoff]

Please please please understand that theory is not speculation.

Yes, but "SciFi Theory" is even worse then speculation. SciFi theory is a world where even pink unicorns have the right to exist.

[KerikBalm]

IMO (yes, I acknowledge its an opinion), the only true Sci-Fi is Hard-Sci Fi.

Things like star wars have no science in then, They are just Space-Fi. Basically, fantasy in space.

I'll say it again, and expand upon it: I do not consider Star Wars to be Sci Fi, and I don't consider most of Star Trek to be Sci-Fi (there are some redeeming episodes and elements).

Maybe I should explain Russel's Teapot in a way suited to this context:

Ok, then lets say we have evidence that complete tea sets are in orbit around our star, even in locations we could not have put them there. Hence the simplest conclusion is that advanced aliens did it a long time ago, the chances are very high this has happened on other Planets (and / or Moons) aswell, and aliens leaving orbiting teasets are widespread throughout the universe.

Because speculation is allowed... No one should criticize the above reasoning, correct?

[Aethon]

Ok Keric. Would you please use your college lernin' and explain to the rest of us, what makes something alive, and what makes something not alive- and please try to be respectful of your fellow astronauts, here on spaceship earth, who are earnestly questioning hidden truths, and the enormity of it all.

I'll check back after the pub. :^)

[mangekyou-sama]

Guys, I appreciate the discussion going on here but we don't need to get hostile. Last thing I need is having this thread locked. I think the Sci-Fi tag is causing some debate. Should I change it to Biology or Space just to clear things?

[KerikBalm]

Well, you asked for a "workable" definition

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life#Biology

Personally, I'd be less stringent, and eliminate the homeostasis part, and put in "or" conditions for 4 and 7 / 5 and 6

Its really sort of a philisophical question (on another thread, I was making arguments about how one might consider viruses alive*).

Likewise There's no precise definintion of what is moral or not, but we have many "workable" definitions.

When it comes to "Earth Life"/"Our form of life", we can be much much more precise. If we found life on Mars or Europa, we could easily tell if it was of the same origin as life on Earth, or if it was an independant genesis. We have really really good criteria for "our form of life". Biology really = Terrestrial biology. You can't do science on what you can't make observations and take data from. We know a lot about life on Earth. Enough to synthesisze entire genomes. Work on entirely synthetic cells proceeds. We can modify the genetic encoding of organisms (re-encode their D/RNA), we can propose plausible scenarios how it started (self catalytic RNA is looking very likely), and try to recreate it (we have made RNA directed RNA polymerase ribozymes, aka, RNA that copies other RNA sequences, we've made other self replicating RNA systems, they just need to be supplied with the building blocks, but we've alreayd shown those can be synthesized abiotically similar in concept to the famous Miller-Urey experiment)

*Personally, I am quite unconcerned with the question... when you get down to the molecular level, it makes not one whit of difference to me if you want to call a virus alive or not.

They also quite clearly have a common origin with organisms that satisfy the more common working definition for life.

Edited September 19, 2014 by KerikBalm

[rtxoff]

Maybe I should explain Russel's Teapot in a way suited to this context:

Ok, then lets say we have evidence that complete tea sets are in orbit around our star, even in locations we could not have put them there. Hence the simplest conclusion is that advanced aliens did it a long time ago, the chances are very high this has happened on other Planets (and / or Moons) aswell, and aliens leaving orbiting teasets are widespread throughout the universe.

Because speculation is allowed... No one should criticize the above reasoning, correct?

It's one thing to speculate about life we know and have scientific data about it manifesting on other planets and a totally different thing speculating about flying teapots/unicorns in space which are entirely someone's fantasy. Honestly i can't see any logic or sense in comparing this two cases. I think it is very safe to assume that life like we know has a very high chance to be found on other planets if the conditions for it are met. It's maybe entirely speculated but judging from everything we know about life we would be fools believing otherwise. Life finds a way.

[KerikBalm]

Perhaps you missed the part I was paraphrasing.

Ok, then lets say we have evidence that life on this planet "steps into existence" whereever it can, even in locations we thought life is impossible due to hazardous environments. Hence the simplest conclusion is that if this has happened on Earth, the chances are very high this has happened on other Planets (and / or Moons) aswell.

Kryten replied:

You can't draw conclusions from a premise that you just made up. Conditions that life can adapt to and conditions that life can arise in can't just arbitrarily decided to be the same.

Nuclearping doesn't seem to want to acknowledge that he did just that, and wants to deflect criticism by handwaving about "speculation and theory".

To reiterate, we have ZERO evidence that life "steps into existence whereever it can"

We have evidence of life coming into existence exactly once, when conditions were quite favorable.

I'm not saying there isn't other life out there. If you go back to page 2, its really a debate over whether there is a significant difference between where life can exist, vs where life can start.

We can propose any number of plausible scenarios where life would never start, but it is really easy for life to exist, if you wish I could make up such scenarios.

"Life finds a way." - Yes, once established, life is highly adaptable, but there must be viable intermediates along the whole way - often these come in unexpected forms, but also life often doesn't make the leap for a long long long time until the right conditions result in a viable intermediate.

There is nothing foolish about doubting that life will start where ever life could possibly exist. We have no evidence for that. You might as well believe in Unicorns and orbiting teasets.

[Creature]

I think it is very safe to assume that life like we know has a very high chance to be found on other planets if the conditions for it are met. It's maybe entirely speculated but judging from everything we know about life we would be fools believing otherwise. Life finds a way.

That phrase is a bit misleading. Life that we have now here on Earth is very tough and capable of adapting to incredibly harsh conditions. I'm pretty sure that places like Europa could probably sustain some of our lifeforms at least after a few modifications. However it says zero about how life can come into existense or how probable or improbable it is. It's like saying you can drive on top any cliff with a Humvee so obviously a Humvee can be built on top of every cliff.

I don't know how plausible it is to happen in reality but there's all kinds of fun things we can do with DNA and keep it functional. Like you can use different base pairs other than G-C and T-A or you can use a different backbone structure. For example peptides can be used instead of the sugar-phosphate structure and it's actually more stable but as a consequence also less adaptable and complex but in a very speculative case something like that could at least carry information and be replicated.

[KerikBalm]

IMO, given how hard it is to attract funding, I'm a bit annoyed some of these "PNA" studies and such get funding while other things don't.

Sure, they can add other bases to DNA... but... what is the point? the organism still lacks the tRNA to decode it, and the enzymes to synthesize these bases. We already have 64 codons for only 20 amino acids, so its not like we need to add another if we want to expand the amino acid repertoire.

As far as studies for hypothetical life precursors... PNAs and such look pretty unlikely. There is nothing to suggest that they played a role... its just mental Master*****n.

RNA on the other hand... I highly support those studies trying to make ever more complex (and also ever simpler) replicating RNAs.

The first self replicating molecule, in addition to being able to "store information" had to be able to carry out enzymatic activity at the same time - which we have clear evidence for in RNA, but not PNAs.

Btw, have you seen these:

http://www.eco-sphere.com/care.html

Its a completely self contain ecosystem (just needs light and an environment within certain temperature ranges). However, if you were to take the same ingredients, leaving out the life, and leave it sitting at the same temperature and lighting conditions, there is no plausible way life would ever start inside it - even though the conditions are obviously ideal for life.

[Creature]

IMO, given how hard it is to attract funding, I'm a bit annoyed some of these "PNA" studies and such get funding while other things don't.

Sure, they can add other bases to DNA... but... what is the point? the organism still lacks the tRNA to decode it, and the enzymes to synthesize these bases. We already have 64 codons for only 20 amino acids, so its not like we need to add another if we want to expand the amino acid repertoire.

As far as studies for hypothetical life precursors... PNAs and such look pretty unlikely. There is nothing to suggest that they played a role... its just mental Master*****n.

I did say in a "very speculative case something like that could at least carry information and be replicated" which I did mean as being extremely unlikely to have been a precursor to anything but there's no hard proof to say they weren't either. So yeah for the purposes of life origins I wouldn't support PNAs unless we find an actual life form that uses them. I was merely pointing out for the sake of argument that in case of alien life emerging there are other possibilities if you wish to speculate every imaginable scenario. I'd imagine many people reading these forums were not aware that changing the way DNA is built is pretty easy to do and every day business in a bio lab.

But anyway that's not why PNAs are studied. They have some very useful properties when designing diagnostic assays for example. They have similar~ish binding properties than DNA or RNA aptamers but they're much more thermostable which can be a huge advantage in an actual application. There's also the fact that they're almost impervious the DNAse and RNAse which can be a real pain if you try to use a natural sample matrix and include synthetic DNA oligomers. Plus you can conjugate the peptide backbone easily with other molecules like imaging labels. That's harder to do with natural DNA.

As for unnatural bases, I don't really know what they've done with them so far but given how ribozymes seem to have an insane amount of possibilities for different functions, I wouldn't dismiss alternative structures as a waste of funding. I'm just throwing this off the top of my head but if they can make a host carry six bases in a plasmid, then create a system to synthesize a protein based on that system we could in theory make the vector a lot shorter and then possibly generate bigger and more complex proteins in simpler production organisms.

And if they can make this system to work and show that an organism can indeed function with six bases just as well, then couldn't it exist in an alien life form? Let's say if we find out that six bases has more redundancy then could it be favoured in a harsher environment as a basis for life?

Also I can symphatize for the funding issue, but show me a field of science that doesn't suffer from this and I'll consider changing my major

[magnemoe]

IMO, given how hard it is to attract funding, I'm a bit annoyed some of these "PNA" studies and such get funding while other things don't.

Sure, they can add other bases to DNA... but... what is the point? the organism still lacks the tRNA to decode it, and the enzymes to synthesize these bases. We already have 64 codons for only 20 amino acids, so its not like we need to add another if we want to expand the amino acid repertoire.

As far as studies for hypothetical life precursors... PNAs and such look pretty unlikely. There is nothing to suggest that they played a role... its just mental Master*****n.

RNA on the other hand... I highly support those studies trying to make ever more complex (and also ever simpler) replicating RNAs.

The first self replicating molecule, in addition to being able to "store information" had to be able to carry out enzymatic activity at the same time - which we have clear evidence for in RNA, but not PNAs.

Btw, have you seen these:

http://www.eco-sphere.com/product-info/xl-Sphere.jpg

http://www.eco-sphere.com/care.html

Its a completely self contain ecosystem (just needs light and an environment within certain temperature ranges). However, if you were to take the same ingredients, leaving out the life, and leave it sitting at the same temperature and lighting conditions, there is no plausible way life would ever start inside it - even though the conditions are obviously ideal for life.

However, if the sphere was the size of an planet, had far more variation and you waited millions of years your chances are significantly higher.

Its all about chance, if you used an million dollar every week and played for 100 year you would probably win the lottery.

We will probably never be able to do this as an experiment, we just know that pretty complex hydrocarbons are common, also the first primitive life lost out for more advanced without leaving any traces, The first was probably stuff who might challenge our definition of life as it was so primitive.

Rolls back to my original point, life on earth started early, this leaves two options either life is created easy or we was lucky, if the average time for life to start is 10 billion years or longer life would still be pretty common, this would put Earth as a lucky 1% who got life early. occam's razor cuts down this path pretty easy.

[nuclearping]

Nuclearping doesn't seem to want to acknowledge that he did just that, and wants to deflect criticism by handwaving about "speculation and theory".

I honestly have no idea what both your (and Krytens) problem is, making you go crazy and being insultive like 3-4 pages. I guess you both just missunderstood my "steps into existence wherever it can" phrase.

I didn't mean that we have evidence of life ORIGINATING from "nothing" whereever it could. What I meant was that you can find life here on Earth in the most hostile places, even places we thought life could definately not exist some years ago. So thats what I originally meant with "steps into existence". Nothing else. There is basically no single place on Earth where some sort life does not exist.

So my conclusion is that if life is so persistent, resistent and versatile chances are quite high that this happened on other planets and / or moons aswell.

I wouldn't necessarily put a bet on us finding other sorts of life here in our Solar system, but still I think there are high chances for Europa and maybe Titan.

You happy now?

----

You cannot be sure what I meant or assumed based on interwebz text-conversation, since it basically is the worst medium to discuss things. It lacks emotion, emphasis, sound of voice, etc. So missunderstandings and communication faults are to be expected and thus you shouldn't assume the worst of a person you don't know. So if something sounds terribly wrong and unlogic for you, you probably missunderstood something in the process. The last thing you should do at that point is drawing conclusions and getting violent and losing respect.

And even if this was my unicorn-belief, that life "steps into existence wherever it can" in the sense of how you understood it first, you have no right in the world to get down on me and proof me wrong, even if you are 100% sure that I'm wrong - unless I ask you to. If you force yourself and your "knowledge of truth" upon someone else without being asked to, then this is nothing better than what the Church did in medieval times. And no, I don't mean that you are not allowed for "constructive discussion" - You see how easy it is to get something wrong?

Edited September 20, 2014 by nuclearping

[Creature]

And even if this was my unicorn-belief, that life "steps into existence wherever it can" in the sense of how you understood it first, you have no right in the world to get down on me and proof me wrong, even if you are 100% sure that I'm wrong - unless I ask you to. If you force yourself and your "knowledge of truth" upon someone else without being asked to, then this is nothing better than what the Church did in medieval times.

"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts."

If you go around claiming the Earth is flat - people will prove you wrong.

If you're about to dunk your head in a barrel of hydrochloric acid based on your firm belief that it's good for your complexion - people will (hopefullly) stop you because you're wrong.

You have every right to your own opinions no matter what they're based on. You have every right to express those opinions. You don't have the right to moderate what people say to you if you voice your opinions. They have the freedom of speech just like you do.

[nuclearping]

You don't have the right to moderate what people say to you if you voice your opinions. They have the freedom of speech just like you do.

Thats true. Everyone can say what he thinks. But even "facts" are not the truth. "Facts" are subject to change aswell, as soon as you get another point of view or another insight into something. Thats common history. "Facts" 500 years ago were completely different from "facts" today. And "facts" 500 years in the future are probably also completely different from today. And in a discussion, if someone has no "facts" anymore, it doesn't mean you are right. It just means you didn't met the person yet able to take away all so called "facts" from you aswell.

And even further - given this example - it is not my fault if I believe in unicorns or Earth is flat, even if it is so damn wrong. It is the fault of the person reading this and going mad about it. Why? Because he lacks of empathy, sympathy and humbleness to "allow me" this belief just for his own purposes: He cannot bear it and therefore takes actions just so that he feels better, more safe or just supreme above someone else. Thats how we ("intelligent human species") are and how "truth" in our society is perceived: The more people agree, the more it must be right. Thats our monkey-business.

[rtxoff]

We have evidence of life coming into existence exactly once, when conditions were quite favorable.

Exactly, what happened here on earth could easily happen everywhere under the right conditions.

There is nothing foolish about doubting that life will start where ever life could possibly exist. We have no evidence for that. You might as well believe in Unicorns and orbiting teasets.

No i might not. Unicorns and orbiting teasets are fantasy, i can't speculate about it or believe in it, maybe someone else, not me.