Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Are we 100% "alone" in the Universe?


pallidin
 Share

Recommended Posts

On 7/29/2022 at 10:09 PM, pallidin said:

A very old topic, I'm sure, but any more thoughts???

Billions and billions of galaxies, yet some say that the human race is entirely alone in this incredibly vast universe.

Your thoughts?

Certainly there's something else, we are puny and irrelevant in the universe and our inflated ego is just there to bury our sorrow about this situation.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
On 8/6/2022 at 3:00 AM, Portre said:

Life only uses left-handed amino acids and only right-handed carbohydrates

Nah 

You have a poor understanding of an older naming convention. A lot of people do. 

The reference you are using is used for living systems. Living systems that make proteins are designed to connect amino acids together. There are two different possible shapes for the amino acids and won’t both fit the same spot, so one type defaulted to a universal fit that all organisms use. Nucleic acids are similar in that they get attached together so one type of "connection" is easier. Basically, one “hand” wins out. They actually exist as both but only one "fits". 

it's not intelligent design, it's evolution. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, psyche101 said:

Nah 

You have a poor understanding of an older naming convention. A lot of people do. 

The reference you are using is used for living systems. Living systems that make proteins are designed to connect amino acids together. There are two different possible shapes for the amino acids and won’t both fit the same spot, so one type defaulted to a universal fit that all organisms use. Nucleic acids are similar in that they get attached together so one type of "connection" is easier. Basically, one “hand” wins out. They actually exist as both but only one "fits". 

it's not intelligent design, it's evolution. 

You are so wrong.  It's like you're in an alternate universe.

Physicists, biologists and chemists still use the term left- and right-handedness

NASA 2012

Smithsonian magazine 2016

Science Daily 2019

Where are your references?  Put up or shut up!

Of course, we're talking about living systems.  It is possible to synthesize right- and left-handed amino acids, but you won't find right-handed amino acids in nature.  Even the amino acids found in meteorites are only left-handed.

And no, scientists don't have an answer to the matter-antimatter paradox.

And who the h### said anything about intelligent design? Panda's thumb? Koala's pouch? Two kidneys and one bladder.  There's no intelligence in those designs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
11 hours ago, Portre said:

You are so wrong.  It's like you're in an alternate universe.

This is what you get when you try and help posters.

And people wonder why there is animosity in the forum? You're not a pleasent person are you. 

11 hours ago, Portre said:

Physicists, biologists and chemists still use the term left- and right-handedness

NASA 2012

Smithsonian magazine 2016

Science Daily 2019

Where are your references?  Put up or shut up!

How about your link? 

Smithsonian link:

This phenomenon of biological shape selection is called “chirality”—from the Greek for handedness.

Your NASA link:

Just as the 26 letters of the alphabet are arranged in limitless combinations to make words, life uses 20 different amino acids in a huge variety of arrangements to build millions of different proteins. Amino acid molecules can be built in two ways that are mirror images of each other, like your hands. Although life based on right-handed amino acids would presumably work fine, they can't be mixed. "Synthetic proteins created using a mix of left- and right-handed amino acids just don't work,"

 

Reference detailing the usage of lefthandedness as a term to describe two mirrored images, not orientation. 

Further backed up by your SD link:

Many organic molecules are produced in two versions that have the same chemical formula and connectivity between the atoms but are structurally each other's mirror image. During evolution, the left-handed version (L) has been selected for some molecules, whereas for others the mirror image (D) is used. This is a problem in the manufacturing of drugs, where sometimes only one version is effective and the other version could cause serious side effects.

 

For your further reading:

https://www.chirality.org/

 Chirality is what I'm referring to. The chemical description of the process that you are ascribing to left and right handedness is as I explained a fitting sequence. Left and right handedness should not be used because it confuses simple folk such as yourself who think it's a literal term.

Quite clearly, it's not, and the accurate term is Chirality. Your post is a great example why the older terms aren't the right terms to use.

11 hours ago, Portre said:

Of course, we're talking about living systems.  It is possible to synthesize right- and left-handed amino acids, but you won't find right-handed amino acids in nature.  Even the amino acids found in meteorites are only left-handed.

Back to your Smithsonian link (you should have read it)

Just like your right hand mirrors your left but will never fit comfortably into a left-handed glove, amino acids and sugars come in both right and left versions. This phenomenon of biological shape selection is called “chirality”—from the Greek for handedness.

They certainly both exist in nature but both aren't compatible.

Also, your meteorite example is incorrect. We find both.

Although most amino acids can exist in both left and right handed forms, Life on Earth is made of left handed amino acids, almost exlusively. No one knows why this is the case. However, Drs. John Cronin and Sandra Pizzarello have shown that some of the amino acids that fall to earth from space are more left than right. Thus, the fact that we are made of L amino acids may be because of amino acids from space.

https://www.vanderbilt.edu/AnS/physics/astrocourses/ast201/aastruct.html

 

11 hours ago, Portre said:

And no, scientists don't have an answer to the matter-antimatter paradox.

Actually they do. As per your link. It's a hypothesis yet a proposed answer nonetheless.

The mechanism that allows more matter is the hidden element. 

11 hours ago, Portre said:

And who the h### said anything about intelligent design? Panda's thumb? Koala's pouch? Two kidneys and one bladder.  There's no intelligence in those designs.

You did.

Intelligent design is a creationist idea that bastardises scientific terms to reach a predetermined conclusion. It is a claim proposed and vigorously pursed by the Discovery Institute, a creationist venture.

 

The Discovery Institute (DI) is a politically conservative[4][5][6] non-profit think tank based in Seattle, Washington, that advocates the pseudoscientific concept[7][8][9] of intelligent design (ID). It was founded in 1990 as a non-profit offshoot of the Hudson Institute.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_Institute

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design

https://www.britannica.com/topic/intelligent-design

 

IMHO, you owe me an apology.

Edited by psyche101
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Frankly, we do not know.  Odds are that there is other life out there.  Intelligent life is probably out the somewhere but the odds are much less.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think we have to actively search for signs of life in our galaxy, if we effectively search atleast 50% of our galaxy and find no life we can pretty much say that we are alone in the galaxy, regarding universe that answer is very hard

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Grim Reaper 6 @psyche101

 

There's something that bothers me about what I said in a post to you. It came out wrong. It seemed right at the moment, but after some consideration, it's wrong.

It's this one

On 8/3/2022 at 6:18 PM, zep73 said:

Put your loyalty to science aside for a moment

What I really meant was: Put your loyalty to scientific consensus aside for a moment.

Not having English as one's native language sometimes has unwanted effects.

I just wanted to clear this up, coz it bothered me, not restart the discussion.

Have a nice day!

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, zep73 said:

@Grim Reaper 6 @psyche101

 

There's something that bothers me about what I said in a post to you. It came out wrong. It seemed right at the moment, but after some consideration, it's wrong.

It's this one

What I really meant was: Put your loyalty to scientific consensus aside for a moment.

Not having English as one's native language sometimes has unwanted effects.

I just wanted to clear this up, coz it bothered me, not restart the discussion.

Have a nice day!

Cheers acknowledged.

I forget english isn't your first language sometimes. You're quite good with it.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.