Intelligent life extremely rare, study claims

[Mr Walker]

3 minutes ago, astrobeing said:

So you believe, for some reason, that in our gigantic solar system a rock that just happened to contain radiation-resistant bacteria which evolved on a planet that we have not found any traces of life on, somehow took a direct flight to Earth instead of wondering around the solar system until being captured by Earth's puny gravitational field?

These papers don't contain data as evidence. They contain numbers that were selected by the authors to barely bring the theory into the remote realm of possibility, similar to the Drake Equation.

Do you believe in angels, Mr. Walker? Because when someone describes a series of miracles like this I expect them to attribute them to the work of angels.

And why do believe Mars is the same as Earth?

OK, you don't understand the process of abiogenesis so let me explain. We know life isn't caused by conditions alone. You cannot simply mix ingredients together and produce life. It is caused by a series of events which causes transitions from the simple ingredients of life to actual life. The paper that started this thread used Bayesian analysis to evaluate the likelihood of each event happening in the correct order and that's how they concluded the extreme improbability of it. Since you know how probabilities work then you know how a series of unlikely events produce a combination of events with astronomically low likelihood of ever happening again. Even in this vast universe things rarely happen the same way twice. In fact we have yet to even see it happen.

And you don't know anything about organic chemistry. If you did, you would know that carbon is a vastly unique element that has properties that are absolutely essential to life. In our universe you cannot simply substitute one element for another and get the same result. In fact carbon is so unique that you could describe chemistry as "carbon chemistry" and "all other chemistry".

And you still ignore the gaping holes in the Mars panspermia theory.

1. Why did life appear on Mars but not on Earth?
2. How did life evolve into bacteria on a planet with no magnetic field thus bombarded with lethal solar radiation?
3. How and why did the complicated radiation-resistant bacteria that came from Mars devolve into the simpler forms of life we see today?

I dont believe anything but i dont disbelieve it either.  I acknowledge that science says it is possible 

 

Um, i explained how evolution is a series of events 

Ps why use the word miracle? If something like the evolution of  life  happens, it is not a miracle. it is a random, chaotic roll of the dice, which produces a consequence through  a series of connected  chance events or conditions.

 However certain conditions create certain preconditions for certain events   

It is an ASSUMPTION that this series of events is improbable but, even if it were, it happened here and is thus not impossible 

Given that there are probably billions of earth similar planets in the galaxy then even if it were improbable, life would be quite common(if  perhaps far less than the  total number of planets)

Estimates of the number of planets inthe galaxy range form a low of 800 billion to a high of 15 TRILLION 

Lets just take the lowest number. If only one percent of those planets have life, that is  8 billion planets with life

Panspermia can work both ways.

Life could have originated on earth and travelled to mars or it could have gone the other way. It doesnt even have to be life which is transferred The transfer of some material or element might be all that  was needed for that  series of events to begin.  

I disagree that  all life must be carbon based. Carl sagan also disagreed but i will take advice from  experts 

The most likely suspect is silicon. It is one of the most common elements and 150  times more common than carbon in the earth's crust.   This is especially true since scientists found tha t silicon molecules can be bonded with carbon molecules 

I suspect this is again a denial of alternatives you are uncomfortable with.

 

[Abramelin]

For those interested in chemistry:

Bringing silicon to life

[Grim Reaper 6]

13 hours ago, astrobeing said:

I didn't see any that showed bacteria could have survived the millions upon millions of years of radiation in space that it would have taken in all likelihood. The two articles I saw was that bacteria can survive a handful of years in low Earth orbit, you know, where Earth's magnetic field protects life from the extremely lethal radiation of the solar wind. A few years in low Earth orbit is nothing like traveling for millions of years in interplanetary orbit.

The other article showed that bacteria can survive millions of years in ice (Kay Bidle 2007) but sitting in relatively warm ice is not like traveling in deep space. You can't combine the two findings because they are from extremely different conditions.

And where did this life emerge on Mars and why Mars and not Earth? Hey, that's awesome that Mars just may have as much water as Earth's smallest ocean but there was still several hundred times more water here on Earth and we know that it had much more favorable conditions than Mars for life. Did I mention Earth's magnetic field? Well, Mars has a very weak magnetic field which is why the planet has been pounded with lethal radiation from the sun which would kill life as we know it.

If you believe that this series of miracles is what happened then there must be a great number of other amazing things you believe happened. 

Yes, an extremely low probability close to zero. But if you're a fan of movies like Invasion of the Body Snatchers then it might seem more likely.

Honestly if you looked you would find Peer Reviewed Papers on all the subjects you are discussing, and I have access to many many more. Let me help you out here Tardigrades, can live in space, produce in space, and the next generation will live months longer the first. So if they can do this, Bacteria have no problem also doing so. In fact I posted a Peer Reviewed paper above that specifically talks about Bacteria's survival in deep space, you may want to read it! I also posted another Peer Reviewed paper on Panspermia, and the authors are world renown Astro Biologists.

Oh and by the way, what did you say your career field was???

Take Care Friend

[Grim Reaper 6]

On 12/11/2020 at 4:08 AM, astrobeing said:

Scientists disagree with you. You're not a scientist so believe whatever you want.

I have degrees in Chemistry and Biology, and I have a high IQ, so maybe you can explain it to me, I guaranty I can follow you around the world based on your comments so far.

Think about it and let me know my friend.

[Abramelin]

And I have been a chemical analyst in an Eastman-Kodak laboratory for 10 years. But that was ages ago...

[astrobeing]

13 hours ago, Abramelin said:

For those interested in chemistry:

Bringing silicon to life

For those who can actually read and understand, the paper is titled "Directed evolution of cytochrome c for carbon–silicon bond formation" and shows how silicon is useless as an element for life without carbon.

 

[astrobeing]

13 hours ago, Manwon Lender said:

Honestly if you looked you would find Peer Reviewed Papers on all the subjects you are discussing, and I have access to many many more. Let me help you out here Tardigrades, can live in space, produce in space, and the next generation will live months longer the first.

Now why don't you actually read an article about it? How about this one?

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14690-water-bears-are-first-animal-to-survive-space-vacuum/

As explained in this article, the Tardigrade experiment exposed them to space and ultraviolet light for a ten days. They were not exposed to deep space (where the lethal solar radiation exists) and they were only exposed for ten days. That's not a long time, not long enough for interplanetary travel.

In fact the longer they were exposed to UV radiation, the fewer survived. In fact only "a handful" survived the UV radiation. Extrapolation would indicate that the radiation would have eventually killed them all.

"The vacuum itself seemed to have little effect on the creatures. But ultraviolet radiation, which can damage cellular material and DNA, did take its toll."

The did not "produce in space". They were dehydrated and rehydrated after the experiment.

By the way, we don't capitalize "Peer Reviewed".

13 hours ago, Manwon Lender said:

Oh and by the way, what did you say your career field was???

In the last years I spent day after day reading dull papers written by scientists to make decisions in a hundred million dollar silicon fab.

What do you do, my friend???

[astrobeing]

13 hours ago, Manwon Lender said:

I have degrees in Chemistry and Biology, and I have a high IQ, so maybe you can explain it to me, I guaranty I can follow you around the world based on your comments so far.

Think about it and let me know my friend.

My friend my friend my friend!!!! Then you can explain abiogenesis to Abramelin so I don't have to waste my time!!!

Thank you my friend!!!

[astrobeing]

On 12/11/2020 at 5:11 PM, Mr Walker said:

Um, i explained how evolution is a series of events

No, you said that life simply required "ingredients" and since Mars once had water that it was a certainty that it once had life. After all, if there was no life on Mars then the whole panspermia theory collapses and we can't let that happen.

And you still ignore the other gaping holes in the Mars panspermia theory.

1. Why did life appear on Mars but not on Earth?
2. How did life evolve into bacteria on a planet with no magnetic field thus bombarded with lethal solar radiation?
3. How and why did the complicated radiation-resistant bacteria that came from Mars devolve into the simpler forms of life we see today?

Let me know when you have answers for these.

[Mr Walker]

11 minutes ago, astrobeing said:

No, you said that life simply required "ingredients" and since Mars once had water that it was a certainty that it once had life. After all, if there was no life on Mars then the whole panspermia theory collapses and we can't let that happen.

And you still ignore the other gaping holes in the Mars panspermia theory.

1. Why did life appear on Mars but not on Earth?
2. How did life evolve into bacteria on a planet with no magnetic field thus bombarded with lethal solar radiation?
3. How and why did the complicated radiation-resistant bacteria that came from Mars devolve into the simpler forms of life we see today?

Let me know when you have answers for these.

Read my post and the words i requoted. Do NOT assume i said something i did not, or only said a part of what i actully said   

Idid not say it was certain tha t mars had life.

We dont know the answer to tha t yet.

I said that IF mars had the same conditions as earth then  it was likely and even probable tha t life evolved on both of them There is nothing miraculous or rare about life.

It comes into existence with the "right"  ingredients, the right circumstances, and the right chain of events. 

We can argue about how often this combination occurs around the galaxy but that is how life evolves  

My argument was not one or the other but either or being possible 

If life evolved without protection from  a magnetic field then it evolved under those circumstances  

However historiclly mars DID have a stronger magnetic field.  it has diminished considerably over time The magnetic field is a  a product of the internal dynamo of a planet  

quote 

Mars had a global magnetic field much earlier -- and much later -- in the planet's history than scientists have previously known.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/05/200501150611.htm#:~:text=Mars had a global magnetic,the Martian dynamo had ceased.

quote

“We see magnetized rocks on the Mars surface,” said Bruce Banerdt, the principal investigator of the InSight mission to Mars, which is set to launch in March. “And so we know Mars had a magnetic field at one time, but it doesn't today. We would like to know the history—when that magnetic field started, when it may have shut down.”

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2015/10/mars-magnetic-field-ocean/409021/

last question is simple.

evolution works both ways. it i s a response to changes in environment ,  so it can make an organism more complex or less complex.

[Grim Reaper 6]

11 minutes ago, astrobeing said:

My friend my friend my friend!!!! Then you can explain abiogenesis to Abramelin so I don't have to waste my time!!!

Thank you my friend!!!

I know your new on this forum, but treating people like they are ingnorant and below your level of intellect is rather rude. If you are unable to do anything else, why even post.  Becuase treating people like that will not win you any friends and others who read your comments will also avoid you like the plague. Now, I am not telling you what to do, only making a suggestion based upon my observations of your comments in this thread.

You see I live with a very simple outlook on intelligence, if someone is gifted by birth with superior intellect they should be thankful for that advantage, and they should share their gifts with others freely, not ridicule them. Again this is only my opinion, and you know what is best for yourself, but why join a Internet forum if you are willing to share what you know, and also be open enough to realize there are things you can learn from others. No matter how intelligent any of us are, everyone no matter their intellectual level can contribute.

You see .I was born in 1959, and I was speaking at 1 year old, and reading and writing before I was 2 years old. By the time .i reached kindergarten I was light years ahead of all my classmates. By the time I reached the 3rd grade my performance in school totally broke down. In those days if you did not Active participate and pay attention in class you where labeled as learning deficient. They did not have classes for advanced students in the 1960s, so either you went with the follow or like .I said above you were labeled.

By the time I reached the 10th grade I could no longer sit in class and listen to what was being taught, so .I dropped out school. In Missouri, at that time the GED tests was based upon a maximum score of 300 points and if I remember correctly any scores of 270 or above forced the school you droped out of to issue you a High Scool Deploma. Well, I immediately took the GED and then received my High School deploma from the school I dropped out of. After my experience with school I had no interest in furthering my education so I joined the US Army in 1978, which turned into a career that allowed To retired 2003. However, to get promoted to higher levels of rank in the military it is necessary to have college degrees which show that you have further your education. So, I took classes online and attended night classes at a number of colleges that had branches on military bases. One day, my biology professor asked me to stay after class, when everyone left he asked me if I had every taken a iQ test.

I told him know no and I explained my bad experiences with education. He explained that according to the work in his class and in other classes I was taking that my other professor's along with him agreed that .I should take an IQ test. At first .I was resistant, but I relented and they set up a IQ test for me with one of the leading testing organizations in the world. Well, it turns out that I scored in the low 170s. That is when I first realized that all the years I thought I was deficient concerning  my ability to learn in my past, wasn't me that was deficient at all, it was actually the educational institutions that existed at that time.

 So, please give some though to what I said above, it all comes down to one thing treat others how you would want to be treated if the tables were turned.

Take Care my friend and please at least consider my comments.

[Abramelin]

3 hours ago, astrobeing said:

For those who can actually read and understand, the paper is titled "Directed evolution of cytochrome c for carbon–silicon bond formation" and shows how silicon is useless as an element for life without carbon.

 

And this comes at the end of the paper:

"These in vitro and in vivo examples of carbon–silicon bond formation using an enzyme and Earth-abundant iron affirm the notion that nature’s protein repertoire is highly evolvable and poised for adaptation: With only a few mutations, existing proteins can be repurposed to efficiently forge chemical bonds not found in biology and grant access to areas of chemical space that living systems have not explored."

 

Did I say anything about life without carbon?

[Abramelin]

3 hours ago, astrobeing said:

My friend my friend my friend!!!! Then you can explain abiogenesis to Abramelin so I don't have to waste my time!!!

Thank you my friend!!!

https://www.britannica.com/science/abiogenesis

As anyone can read, scientists only come up with socalled 'educated guesses'.

They don't really know.

NO evidence.

[Abramelin]

4 hours ago, astrobeing said:

No, you said that life simply required "ingredients" and since Mars once had water that it was a certainty that it once had life. After all, if there was no life on Mars then the whole panspermia theory collapses and we can't let that happen.

And you still ignore the other gaping holes in the Mars panspermia theory.

1. Why did life appear on Mars but not on Earth?
2. How did life evolve into bacteria on a planet with no magnetic field thus bombarded with lethal solar radiation?
3. How and why did the complicated radiation-resistant bacteria that came from Mars devolve into the simpler forms of life we see today?

Let me know when you have answers for these.

Using my meager intelligence, I will give it a try.

1. Mars is an older planet than Earth? And therefor life evolved there before it did on Earth?

2. Your beloved scientists say that Mars did have a magnetic field, billions of years ago.

3. Why do you think those 'bacteria' as you call them, had to 'devolve'?

From what I have read, the simpler the life form, the better it can tackle radiation hazzards.

 

I really do hope I did not waste your time again.

 

[Jon the frog]

Extremely rare in combination with an extremely huge universe means there's a lot of organised life out there...

Edited December 14, 2020 by Jon the frog

[astrobeing]

9 hours ago, Jon the frog said:

Extremely rare in combination with an extremely huge universe means there's a lot of organised life out there...

But if "extremely rare" is trillions of times more than the number planets in the huge universe means there's not much life of any form out there...

[astrobeing]

On 12/12/2020 at 9:44 PM, Abramelin said:

Using my meager intelligence, I will give it a try.

1. Mars is an older planet than Earth? And therefor life evolved there before it did on Earth?

Mars is not an older planet.

On 12/12/2020 at 9:44 PM, Abramelin said:

2. Your beloved scientists say that Mars did have a magnetic field, billions of years ago.

Which means it didn't have much time for life to evolve. Another planet did. It's called Earth.

On 12/12/2020 at 9:44 PM, Abramelin said:

3. Why do you think those 'bacteria' as you call them, had to 'devolve'

Because Earth has simpler life forms than the bacteria that would survive an interplanetary journey. Mycoplasma doesn't even have cell walls.

On 12/12/2020 at 9:44 PM, Abramelin said:

From what I have read, the simpler the life form, the better it can tackle radiation hazzards.

Actually complex life forms can survive radiation better because they can heal cellular damage and their skin can stop some forms of radiation (like alpha particles) from damaging vital organs. When radiation hits a single-cell creature, it attacks everything that is keeping the cell alive and it can't heal itself.

[Abramelin]

11 hours ago, astrobeing said:

1- Mars is not an older planet.

2- Which means it didn't have much time for life to evolve. Another planet did. It's called Earth.

3- Because Earth has simpler life forms than the bacteria that would survive an interplanetary journey. Mycoplasma doesn't even have cell walls.

4- Actually complex life forms can survive radiation better because they can heal cellular damage and their skin can stop some forms of radiation (like alpha particles) from damaging vital organs. When radiation hits a single-cell creature, it attacks everything that is keeping the cell alive and it can't heal itself.

1- According to this theory, Mars stopped 'growing' by accretion earlier than did Earth:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/brucedorminey/2018/04/22/why-mars-turned-into-a-planetary-runt/?sh=31b16ebf3e41

2- No one has an idea how much time is needed for life to evolve.

3- Good point. I will think about it.

4- A single cell would not survive, but several layers of them could prevent the ones insude the cluster from dying of radiation.

And then there are those that live deep inside rock, and are anaerobic.

[thelion318]

On 12/6/2020 at 1:49 PM, astrobeing said:

Here's a fact of the universe: most events only happen once, and the more complicated the event, the more unlikely that it will happen twice. Life is the most complicated thing in the universe. There is nothing in chemistry or physics that would suggest that life is an natural product of them. Everything we know about them tells us life actually goes counter to what they generally do. What do they generally do, you ask? Look at all the other planets in our solar system. That's what usually happens.

We know that life on Earth was a series of extremely unlikely events that happened in an extremely unlikely order in extremely unlikely conditions that somehow stayed in these extremely unlikely conditions for a extremely unlikely amount of time. If you know how statistics work then you know that when you multiply all factors you get an extremely unlikely probability. This number can easily be larger than the largest possible number of planets in our galaxy and lucky Earth was the only planet to hit the life jackpot.

If you honestly think life is as simple as a chicken dinner then you don't even understand the fundamentals of abiogenesis.

Well that's true I don't know the fundamentals of abiogenesis but the point I'm making is that it is much more probable that there is life everywhere because it is here and made of the same stuff we see everywhere (elements, systems, and even Earth like planets--you should look they found a bunch) than the 1-to-100 quadrillion or more chance that you are giving it. Its more believable to me. Also, you don't know the fundamentals of abiogenesis on other planets or moons either so can't exactly use that as an argument. Your argument is that since you haven't seen it elsewhere here in our own solar system (yet) that there's no way it's anywhere else amongst the trillions of other stars out there and that seems highly unlikely to me. Lastly, chicken dinner may have short list of ingredients but can be prepared in millions of ways.   

[astrobeing]

On 1/9/2021 at 3:54 AM, thelion318 said:

Well that's true I don't know the fundamentals of abiogenesis but the point I'm making is that it is much more probable that there is life everywhere because it is here and made of the same stuff we see everywhere (elements, systems, and even Earth like planets--you should look they found a bunch) than the 1-to-100 quadrillion or more chance that you are giving it.

Unfortunately it takes a lot more than "stuff" to make life. It takes extremely rare conditions, a long series of extremely improbable events, and most importantly continuously rare conditions for an extremely long time to prevent that life from being destroyed. That fact that life has already nearly destroyed itself here on Earth once shows that even when life emerges in the best imaginable conditions it can easily be wiped out forever.

On 1/9/2021 at 3:54 AM, thelion318 said:

Also, you don't know the fundamentals of abiogenesis on other planets or moons either so can't exactly use that as an argument. Your argument is that since you haven't seen it elsewhere here in our own solar system (yet) that there's no way it's anywhere else amongst the trillions of other stars out there and that seems highly unlikely to me.

You mean I shouldn't use our knowledge and understanding of life here on Earth and what we know about our own solar system to speculate on what life might be on other planets? What should I use? Reruns of Star Trek?

On 1/9/2021 at 3:54 AM, thelion318 said:

 Lastly, chicken dinner may have short list of ingredients but can be prepared in millions of ways.  

If you equate life to a "chicken dinner" then you don't not yet understand the immense complexity of life.