| Author |
Message
|
| Theoryofrelativity |
 Posted: Sat Jun 14, 2008 10:48 am Post subject: The origin of life - won't be found here |
 |
|
Forum Professor
Joined: 24 Jul 2006
Posts: 1150
|
Why do the majority of scientists reject the idea that life originated elsewhere?
I find it quite short sighted (kind of like flat earth science) that science can't consider this as a realistic possibility. After all, while the universe is vast to us, it is tiny in the grand scheme of things. Kind of like how a fish bowl is the whole world to a goldfish yet it tiny compared to the windowsill it sits on.
Should a gold fish restrict looking for the answers to it's origin to that tiny goldfish bowl? How many hundreds of years should it restrict it's search to that goldfish bowl? How pathetic is that goldfish?
Is it blasphemy to suggest life originated elsewhere? I thought scientists weren't (on the whole) religious.
Meanwhile
Science IS looking outside of Earth for the origin of life, they just don't expect to find advanced or superior life, they still 'FEAR' that possibility.
http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=11919
Science has mainly restricted it's search for life to finding water elsewhere, but this is apparrently restrictive as it is now thought life could exist in different forms to that which we know it on Earth......progress!
Considering that life can exist in different forms certainly opens up the possibilities some what.
Energy beings, beings of pure light perhaps?
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/evolution/mg19726451.700-evolution-what-missing-link.html
_________________
'Time is the space between birth and death' by me.
Last edited by Theoryofrelativity on Tue Jun 17, 2008 4:38 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| KALSTER |
| Posted: Sat Jun 14, 2008 11:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Cosmic Wizard
Joined: 08 Sep 2007
Posts: 2060
Location: South Africa
|
| Quote: |
| Why do the majority of scientists reject the idea that life originated elsewhere? |
Well, it is not rejected. The possibility of life originating elsewhere is worthy of consideration, but the thing is that it merely changes the arena where life originated. The fact stands: it did originate out of non-life somewhere, but the study of how it did that is not limited by where it did. So from this I'd rather say that the study of how and the study of where mostly does not interfere with each other (maybe when the prevalent conditions of each case are considered). The study of abiogenesis has a number of quite viable theories that to me does not really post a problem as far as available time is concerned.
_________________
"Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| mitchellmckain |
| Posted: Sat Jun 14, 2008 12:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Professor
Joined: 06 Oct 2005
Posts: 1848
Location: Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
|
| KALSTER wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Why do the majority of scientists reject the idea that life originated elsewhere? |
Well, it is not rejected. The possibility of life originating elsewhere is worthy of consideration, but the thing is that it merely changes the arena where life originated. The fact stands: it did originate out of non-life somewhere, but the study of how it did that is not limited by where it did. So from this I'd rather say that the study of how and the study of where mostly does not interfere with each other (maybe when the prevalent conditions of each case are considered). The study of abiogenesis has a number of quite viable theories that to me does not really post a problem as far as available time is concerned. |
Your reaction is much kinder than mine would be. For my reaction to the OP is outrage at the statement "the origin of life eludes us presently" and fustration with the attitude that expects an immediate answer to all questions -- the immaturity implicit in this lack of patience with the process of investigation and discovery leaves me exasperated. Frankly this is all too reminiscent of the approach by the religious that prefer simple and quick explanations like "Goddidit" that require no effort of mind -- and thus it is MY FEELING that the "feeling" of this person is no different from the religious "feelings" of the fundamentalist YECs.
_________________
See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Theoryofrelativity |
| Posted: Sat Jun 14, 2008 12:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Professor
Joined: 24 Jul 2006
Posts: 1150
|
| mitchellmckain wrote: |
| KALSTER wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Why do the majority of scientists reject the idea that life originated elsewhere? |
Well, it is not rejected. The possibility of life originating elsewhere is worthy of consideration, but the thing is that it merely changes the arena where life originated. The fact stands: it did originate out of non-life somewhere, but the study of how it did that is not limited by where it did. So from this I'd rather say that the study of how and the study of where mostly does not interfere with each other (maybe when the prevalent conditions of each case are considered). The study of abiogenesis has a number of quite viable theories that to me does not really post a problem as far as available time is concerned. |
Your reaction is much kinder than mine would be. For my reaction to the OP is outrage at the statement "the origin of life eludes us presently" and fustration with the attitude that expects an immediate answer to all questions -- the immaturity implicit in this lack of patience with the process of investigation and discovery leaves me exasperated. Frankly this is all too reminiscent of the approach by the religious that prefer simple and quick explanations like "Goddidit" that require no effort of mind -- and thus it is MY FEELING that the "feeling" of this person is no different from the religious "feelings" of the fundamentalist YECs. |
Good, now you know how I feel when people are short sighted and reject the idea that life on this planet could have originated by 'design'.
I am looking beyond your limited field of vision. It is you who is limited in your thinking and it is YOUR belief system that holds you back. You are more like a religious fundamentalist than I. There is no limit to my thinking, it is not confined by the box you find yourself in.
Considering that a superior being may have teraformed the planet and be responsible for initiating the process of our evolution, observing us and randomly interfering is not short sighted.
Science is now finally getting round to not only investigating the possibility that life DID NOT infact originate here but is now broadening it's understanding of what might constitute 'life' elsewhere.
I have been waiting decades for science to get to this stage, and I no doubt will wait a few more decades before it gets to the next.
_________________
'Time is the space between birth and death' by me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| KALSTER |
| Posted: Sat Jun 14, 2008 12:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Cosmic Wizard
Joined: 08 Sep 2007
Posts: 2060
Location: South Africa
|
But ToR, even if those are possibilities, how are we supposed to investigate them? We don't have anything to go on. It is enough to say that there is a faint possibility that earth was terraformed, since what else is there to consider? How those aliens came to be you might say, but my first post takes care of that.
_________________
"Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Theoryofrelativity |
| Posted: Sat Jun 14, 2008 2:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Professor
Joined: 24 Jul 2006
Posts: 1150
|
| KALSTER wrote: |
| But ToR, even if those are possibilities, how are we supposed to investigate them? We don't have anything to go on. It is enough to say that there is a faint possibility that earth was terraformed, since what else is there to consider? How those aliens came to be you might say, but my first post takes care of that. |
How the aliens came to be may not be a big mystery on their planet. It might be blatantly obvious. Just because it's not clear here does not mean that is the case elsewhere. The reason it's not clear here is possibly simply because it did not start here.
Thus, the true origin of life, life from 'nothing' could be easily identifiable elsewhere.
With regards to studying these origins, accepting limitations is preferable to making it up as one goes along.
In other words, accept we may not ever know, just like the goldfish will NEVER know. They have neither the intelligence to comprehend or the means to observe, and so it could be for us and the alternate life forms that exist beyond our bubble.
No body can say with honesty that what I say is NOT possible, because simply they do not know. No one knows and know one can know. This is the beauty of our existance...it is strictly limited. We are limited. It is arrogant to assume otherwise, but I am all for trying. It makes things interesting.
_________________
'Time is the space between birth and death' by me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| mitchellmckain |
| Posted: Sun Jun 15, 2008 12:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Professor
Joined: 06 Oct 2005
Posts: 1848
Location: Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
|
| Theoryofrelativity wrote: |
| KALSTER wrote: |
| But ToR, even if those are possibilities, how are we supposed to investigate them? We don't have anything to go on. It is enough to say that there is a faint possibility that earth was terraformed, since what else is there to consider? How those aliens came to be you might say, but my first post takes care of that. |
How the aliens came to be may not be a big mystery on their planet. It might be blatantly obvious. Just because it's not clear here does not mean that is the case elsewhere. The reason it's not clear here is possibly simply because it did not start here.
Thus, the true origin of life, life from 'nothing' could be easily identifiable elsewhere.
|
But the origin of life IS as "blatantly obvious" on THIS planet as anyone has a right to expect and the only reasons for coming up with other theories (than evolution and abiogenesis) are choices to ignore what evidence we do have in order to go with half baked ideas that have absolutely no evidence to support them at all.
Granted that life had to start somewhere and that you cannot endlessly postpone the origin of life to other planets, let me ask you WHY you would think that the origin of life would be more obvious on a another planet?
Why should anything be obvious? Was it obvious that nothing can go faster than the speed of light? Was it obvious that the sky is filled with galaxies? Was it obvious that light is both a wave and particles? These are things which are not simply historical events but part of the fundamental nature of the reality we live in. And so if these are not obvious then why should the nature of an event that happened long before the beginning of human history be obvious?
_________________
See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Theoryofrelativity |
| Posted: Sun Jun 15, 2008 12:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Professor
Joined: 24 Jul 2006
Posts: 1150
|
| mitchellmckain wrote: |
But the origin of life IS as "blatantly obvious" on THIS planet as anyone has a right to expect and the only reasons for coming up with other theories (than evolution and abiogenesis) are choices to ignore what evidence we do have
|
There is no 'evidence' if you think there is, present it here.
Meanwhile do forward this opinion to the leaders in the field and the world leaders who are pouring billions into seeking the answers to the origin of life on other planets and in space. 
_________________
'Time is the space between birth and death' by me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| KALSTER |
| Posted: Sun Jun 15, 2008 12:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Cosmic Wizard
Joined: 08 Sep 2007
Posts: 2060
Location: South Africa
|
| Theoryofrelativity wrote: |
| mitchellmckain wrote: |
But the origin of life IS as "blatantly obvious" on THIS planet as anyone has a right to expect and the only reasons for coming up with other theories (than evolution and abiogenesis) are choices to ignore what evidence we do have
|
There is no 'evidence' if you think there is, present it here.
Meanwhile do forward this opinion to the leaders in the field and the world leaders who are pouring billions into seeking the answers to the origin of life on other planets and in space. |
Ah, the penny drops! The search for life on other planets is distinct from the search for he origin of life on earth. If we found life, or the remains of, on other planets it would not significantly add to the possibility that life on earth originated elsewhere. Also, the search for life on other planets is one for actual physical life or the remains of, while the search for the origin of life on this planet is one of hypotheticals, how it could have originated. They are distinct from each other.
_________________
"Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Pong |
| Posted: Sun Jun 15, 2008 1:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Professor
Joined: 08 Apr 2008
Posts: 1124
|
| Theoryofrelativity wrote: |
| How the aliens came to be may not be a big mystery on their planet... the true origin of life, life from 'nothing' could be easily identifiable elsewhere. |
| KALSTER wrote: |
| The fact stands: it did originate out of non-life somewhere |
| mitchellmckain wrote: |
| Granted that life had to start somewhere |
Evidence? Any of you three?
'Else we may as well imagine anything about this universe must have "started somewhere" i.e. originated in some specific space and time (even space and time). More fruitful, in my underqualified opinion, to consider life a constant, e.g. when we try to sum up and suspect we've missed something or the universe pulled a lot of stunts to get to how it is today. Life is banal, or the universe is fantastic. 
I'm not asserting panspermia in Earth's case, nor denying a big bang... not here. The question is more fundamental than local. I question how any system but divine creationism can exempt life as apart from this universe and ultimately physics. On what grounds exclude it? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| mitchellmckain |
| Posted: Sun Jun 15, 2008 2:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Professor
Joined: 06 Oct 2005
Posts: 1848
Location: Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
|
| Pong wrote: |
Evidence? Any of you three?
|
The evidence is so overwhelming that for anyone not to see it requires a willful refusal to see it. Just consider the obvious expectations.
If life designed by a perfect designer then you would not expect mistakes. And yet not only are genetic flaws abundant but we see in the fossil record evidence of species that no longer exist. Thus it is apparent that if life is designed then it is the product of trial and error and learning by a creator over a long period of time -- much like the history of planes or automobiles.
If life came from elsewhere then we would expect evidence of life everywhere in the universe around us, but we hear only silence. If life arrived from elsewhere then we would expect more such arrivals of life from elsewhere, but there is none.
If life evolved from nonlife then we would expect to see a fossil record of a progression from simpler to more complex life forms over a very long period of time. This is exactly what we see. If life evolved from nonlife then we would find evidence that the environment of the earth at some time in the past was in a state that would be more conducive to abiogenesis. This is what the evidence supports.
So the expectations of which explanation are found in the observations of the earth? Not a design by a perfect creator. Not an arrival or planting of life by some alien agency. It is the expectations of evolution and abiogenesis that are seen in our observations of the earth.
These other theories require bending over backwards in some way. Creation by design requires supposing that someone planted all this false evidence to mislead us so that we have demons running around everywhere planting fake fossiles and genetic defects everywhere. The fossil record means that if life came from elsewhere then it arrived in a very primitive form. And if there is primitive life capable of surviving in space then we should find it everywhere in our explorations of the moon and mars.
| Pong wrote: |
'Else we may as well imagine anything about this universe must have "started somewhere" i.e. originated in some specific space and time (even space and time). More fruitful, in my underqualified opinion, to consider life a constant, e.g. when we try to sum up and suspect we've missed something or the universe pulled a lot of stunts to get to how it is today. Life is banal, or the universe is fantastic.
|
You are very hard to comprehend here. The universe is fantastic. Life is fantastic. But what the evidence suggest is anything but the idea that life is constant - neither unchanging or omnipresent. We find life nowhere but here on this planet and the evidence that life has a history of tremendous changes.
| Pong wrote: |
I'm not asserting panspermia in Earth's case, nor denying a big bang... not here. The question is more fundamental than local. I question how any system but divine creationism can exempt life as apart from this universe and ultimately physics. On what grounds exclude it?
|
Cannot make heads or tails of this. What do you mean by "exempt life as apart from this universe and ultimately physics". Why should we do anything like that? And what are you talking about excluding?
_________________
See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Theoryofrelativity |
| Posted: Sun Jun 15, 2008 4:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Professor
Joined: 24 Jul 2006
Posts: 1150
|
| Pong wrote: |
| Theoryofrelativity wrote: |
| How the aliens came to be may not be a big mystery on their planet... the true origin of life, life from 'nothing' could be easily identifiable elsewhere. |
| KALSTER wrote: |
| The fact stands: it did originate out of non-life somewhere |
| mitchellmckain wrote: |
| Granted that life had to start somewhere |
Evidence? Any of you three?
' |
mmmm
maybe you need to refer to a dictionary with regard to the meaning of 'evidence'
Our comments are NOT evidence that life originated on this planet which YOU claimed existed.
_________________
'Time is the space between birth and death' by me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Theoryofrelativity |
| Posted: Sun Jun 15, 2008 4:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Professor
Joined: 24 Jul 2006
Posts: 1150
|
| mitchellmckain wrote: |
| Pong wrote: |
Evidence? Any of you three?
|
The evidence is so overwhelming that for anyone not to see it requires a willful refusal to see it. Just consider the obvious expectations.
If life designed by a perfect designer then you would not expect mistakes. |
Herein the problem lies
WHO said the designer was 'PERFECT'?
Why are you assuming an alien race is PERFECT, impervious to mistakes?
Also a fossil record doesn't prove the first life form wasn't from out of space.
When I plant a seed in my garden, I am not responsible for what happens to it after that. I see it grow, develop (I can interfere if I wish) it will reproduce, spread, die and so on. The fact the flowers offspring exist and exist in different forms is not evidence I never planted that first seed or that I bought it from a shop, or from where that shop got that seed.
Where the seed came from is the subject of this thread not what happened to it afterwards.
Meanwhile, name the scientific source which cites the evidence of HOW life originated on this planet. Your claim that it exists is insufficient, you are NOT qualified to make this claim. I don't think world leaders will drop their research based on the strength of your unsupported opinion, do you?
_________________
'Time is the space between birth and death' by me.
Last edited by Theoryofrelativity on Sun Jun 15, 2008 4:37 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Theoryofrelativity |
| Posted: Sun Jun 15, 2008 4:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Professor
Joined: 24 Jul 2006
Posts: 1150
|
| mitchellmckain wrote: |
If life came from elsewhere then we would expect evidence of life everywhere in the universe around us, but we hear only silence. If life arrived from elsewhere then we would expect more such arrivals of life from elsewhere, but there is none.
|
Not if our scope of observation doesn't reach far enough. Consider again the goldfish in the gold fish bowl. It might be able to see the room the bowl is in at a push but there is no way in hell it will ever see into space. Do not assume Humans can see everything that exists or as far as it exists.
With regard to an influx of alien life, that alien life may exist ina form we can neither see, sense or comprehend. In other words, you wouldn't know it if you saw it. Also, if their sense of time is different to ours, a thousand years to us could be but a day to them.
You are limiting your thinking to what we know which is NOT everything there is to know.
_________________
'Time is the space between birth and death' by me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Pong |
| Posted: Sun Jun 15, 2008 2:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Professor
Joined: 08 Apr 2008
Posts: 1124
|
| Theoryofrelativity wrote: |
| Pong wrote: |
Evidence? Any of you three?
|
refer to a dictionary with regard to the meaning of 'evidence'
Our comments are NOT evidence that life originated on this planet which YOU claimed existed. Rolling Eyes |
OK I overreacted to those statements "life must have started somewhere". The impression given is like "music must have started somewhere". Sure music is unusual, but that doesn't mean all music in this universe must trace to a common place and time i.e. a first musician from whom all music is inspired. So I asked for evidence supporting "the fact" that "it did originate out of non-life somewhere".
If you folks mean "today's life on Earth must have origins" that is self-evident and thrusts no assumptions into the question.
| mitchellmckain wrote: |
| If life came from elsewhere then we would expect evidence of life everywhere in the universe around us, but we hear only silence. |
Well, can you see any diamonds or snowflakes, right now, from where you are? And if you do, is it rational to assume these pretty inevitables grow in jeweler's shops or in the air above your head only?
| mitchellmckain wrote: |
| abiogenesis |
Seems a likely explanation for our Earth life, among others.
| mitchellmckain wrote: |
| Pong wrote: |
'Else we may as well imagine anything about this universe must have "started somewhere" i.e. originated in some specific space and time (even space and time). More fruitful, in my underqualified opinion, to consider life a constant, e.g. when we try to sum up and suspect we've missed something or the universe pulled a lot of stunts to get to how it is today. Life is banal, or the universe is fantastic.
|
You are very hard to comprehend here. The universe is fantastic. Life is fantastic. But what the evidence suggest is anything but the idea that life is constant - neither unchanging or omnipresent. |
Yeah, that was sloppy. What I mean is:
1) We have no grounds to assume life - life in general - does not "just exist" as an integral part of our universe's mechanics. Kinda like crystalline hexagonal snowflakes "just exist" in this universe, though they must be rare indeed.
2) Given life as an integral feature of the universe (like crystals), we can say the universe just wouldn't work the same without it. Now consider the implications, especially if we grant (reasonably I think) that life is not confined to any particular frame (e.g. it may act on scales and timeframes totally intangible to our own). Life is then a constant force, essentially the force of pattern vs. chaos, we can try against the problem of entropy for example. That physics is out of my league but it seems to me life has not been taken into account, and it should be.
3) I can't accept a fantastic universe. It must be far simpler than our present model.
| mitchellmckain wrote: |
| Pong wrote: |
I'm not asserting panspermia in Earth's case, nor denying a big bang... not here. The question is more fundamental than local. I question how any system but divine creationism can exempt life as apart from this universe and ultimately physics. On what grounds exclude it?
|
Cannot make heads or tails of this. What do you mean by "exempt life as apart from this universe and ultimately physics". Why should we do anything like that? And what are you talking about excluding? |
I'm talking about life in general, not life on Earth today; and the universe in general, not our infinitely local frames. In this context "life must have originated somewhere" is meaningless: Suppose you are an ancient blacksmith playing with some shards of magnet passed down by your father. You might develop a good theory of magnetism, while assuming magnetism limited to those special bits of iron in your palm. Of course we now know "magnetism" is far broader. You should not assume "magnetism must have originated somewhere" because it you only note it in particulars.
So "life" can mean different things. In this thread, are we talking about Earth life, or life in general? It seems to me Theoryofrelativity is pushing the latter, as explaining the former. We're talking about both.
ToR's line of thinking seems very near my own. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
