What is a Potential Biosignature?

[Waspie_Dwarf]

What is a Potential Biosignature?

Related stories:

 

[zep73]

If I may speak my mind without being attacked by anyone... life makes absolutely no sense. None. It's the most illogical thing in the universe. Molecules working together and acting. It should not be possible. Nothing in physics even comes close to allowing that.
Don't get me wrong. I am a hardcore militant atheist, who detests religion, but I can't deny the physically oxymoronic possibility of life. It should not exist.

(This will probably get me in trouble with my fellow atheists...)

[Ell]

A potential biosignature is analogous to a ghost, which might imply that something died. (Or that the observer is delusional.)

It is analogous to a potential Bigfoot signature, such as a tuft of hair of unknown origin, which might imply that Bigfoot exists. (Or that the observer is delusional.)

In short: If something is potentional, it is reasonable to suppose that the researcher is delusional.

[Grim Reaper 6]

38 minutes ago, zep73 said:

If I may speak my mind without being attacked by anyone... life makes absolutely no sense. None. It's the most illogical thing in the universe. Molecules working together and acting. It should not be possible. Nothing in physics even comes close to allowing that.
Don't get me wrong. I am a hardcore militant atheist, who detests religion, but I can't deny the physically oxymoronic possibility of life. It should not exist.

(This will probably get me in trouble with my fellow atheists...)

Why should life not exist on Europa?

As far as Venus is concerned I agree with you, life as we know it should certainly not exist in a microbial form, on the planets surface or in the clouds.

Peace my friend

[Waspie_Dwarf]

22 minutes ago, Ell said:

A potential biosignature is analogous to a ghost, which might imply that something died. (Or that the observer is delusional.)

It is analogous to a potential Bigfoot signature, such as a tuft of hair of unknown origin, which might imply that Bigfoot exists. (Or that the observer is delusional.)

In short: If something is potentional, it is reasonable to suppose that the researcher is delusional.

Wow, that's an awful lot of word soup which establishes nothing except your lack of understanding of biosignatures, the meaning of the words, "delusional" and "potential", scientific methodology and, indeed, logic.

Your analogy is just nonsensical waffle about ghosts and bigfoot and is totally irrelevant.

A biosignature is really not all that difficult to understand. It is:

Quote

something, for example a gene, substance, or feature, that shows that a particular biological process or condition is present:

Source: Cambridge English Dictionary

The word potential is not that difficult to understand either:

Quote

possible when the necessary conditions exist:

Source: Cambridge English Dictionary

So a potential biosignature would be something which may be indicative of life but the full data necessary to make that conclusion is not yet available. What is delusional about that?

Delusional is best explained with an example: continuously making meaningless, knowledge free, irrational, illogical statements whilst believing yourself to know more than the experts, that would be delusional.

 

[zep73]

8 minutes ago, Grim Reaper 6 said:

Why should life not exist on Europa?

As far as Venus is concerned I agree with you, life as we know it should certainly not exist in a microbial form, on the planets surface or in the clouds.

Peace my friend

❤️

I've spent years pondering this. I've studied biochemestry. It's not just life on Europa that's a problem. It's life itself. It makes no sense. There's no physical justification for it.

Edited August 8 by zep73

[Waspie_Dwarf]

17 minutes ago, Grim Reaper 6 said:

As far as Venus is concerned I agree with you, life as we know it should certainly not exist in a microbial form, on the planets surface or in the clouds.

I don't think that isn't really what Zep was getting at. He is, I believe, invoking the idea of entropy, which states that a system becomes more disordered over time not more ordered. However that is a simplification as entropy refers to a system as a whole. The laws of physics do not forbid parts of the system becoming more ordered. They do not forbid molecules from becoming self-replicating, they do not forbid self replicating molecules from mutating, evolving and becoming alive. All this can happen whilst the universe becomes more disordered and so the laws of physics are not infringed.

As for Venus, who said there was potential life on the surface or in the clouds. Just as on Earth the higher into the atmosphere you go, the lower the temperatures. At high enough altitude the temperatures are Earth like. This is way above the level of the sulphuric acid clouds and so there is no reason that microbial life couldn't exist there.

[Waspie_Dwarf]

12 minutes ago, zep73 said:

❤️

I've spent years pondering this. I've studied biochemestry. It's not just life on Europa that's a problem. It's life itself. It makes no sense. There's no physical justification for it.

And yet here it is.

The fact that life DOES exist on Earth is conclusive proof that the fault lies with your argument since it is incontrovertible evidence that your logic is wrong. Given that it is wrong about Earth the same argument can not be used on other moon/planet/asteroid.

Edited to add:

As far as I can see the biggest issue with your logic is the belief that it needs to make sense to you. Just because it doesn't make sense to you doesn't mean that it doesn't make sense at all. Indeed the same holds true even if it makes sense to no one.

[Piney]

10 minutes ago, zep73 said:

❤️

I've spent years pondering this. I've studied biochemestry. It's not just life on Europa that's a problem. It's life itself. It makes no sense. There's no physical justification for it.

Increasing functional complexity doesn't just apply to biology and biochemistry. It applies to the growth of the universe itself and seems to head towards life.  

[Piney]

1 minute ago, Waspie_Dwarf said:

And yet here it is.

The fact that life DOES exist on Earth is conclusive proof that the fault lies with your argument since it is incontrovertible evidence that your logic is wrong. Given that it is wrong about Earth the same argument can not be used on other moon/planet/asteroid.

I think the growth of the universe is geared towards creating life.

[Ell]

Life is defined by homeostasis. No homeostasis = dead.

[Ell]

Quote

delusion (countable and uncountable, plural delusions)

A false belief that is resistant to confrontation with actual facts.

The state of being deluded or misled, or process of deluding somebody.

It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.

That which is falsely or delusively believed or propagated; false belief; error in belief. quotations ▼

A fixed, false belief, that will not change, despite evidence to the contrary.

Wiktionary

 

Edited August 8 by Ell

[Waspie_Dwarf]

5 minutes ago, Piney said:

Increasing functional complexity doesn't just apply to biology and biochemistry. It applies to the growth of the universe itself and seems to head towards life.  

But ultimately the universe will die. Elements will decay, stars will go cold, the universe go dark and life will become impossible. The universe will exist for trillions of years but will eventually end up a cold, dead soup of particles. Life can exist for billions of years but in the immense life of the universe as a whole that is just a blink of the eye.

 

Still, you've got to laugh haven't you. 😁

[zep73]

9 minutes ago, Waspie_Dwarf said:

And yet here it is.

The fact that life DOES exist on Earth is conclusive proof that the fault lies with your argument since it is incontrovertible evidence that your logic is wrong. Given that it is wrong about Earth the same argument can not be used on other moon/planet/asteroid.

Edited to add:

As far as I can see the biggest issue with your logic is the belief that it needs to make sense to you. Just because it doesn't make sense to you doesn't mean that it doesn't make sense at all. Indeed the same holds true even if it makes sense to no one.

I knew I'd get in trouble. Should have kept my mouth shut. Not even gonna try to defend it. The world is not ready, probably never will be.

[Waspie_Dwarf]

5 minutes ago, Ell said:

Life is defined by homeostasis. No homeostasis = dead.

How is that relevant to detecting biosignatures?

[Piney]

2 minutes ago, Waspie_Dwarf said:

But ultimately the universe will die. Elements will decay, stars will go cold, the universe go dark and life will become impossible. The universe will exist for trillions of years but will eventually end up a cold, dead soup of particles. Life can exist for billions of years but in the immense life of the universe as a whole that is just a blink of the eye.

 

Still, you've got to laugh haven't you. 😁

I'm a believer in a cyclical universe. 

[zep73]

11 minutes ago, Piney said:

Increasing functional complexity doesn't just apply to biology and biochemistry. It applies to the growth of the universe itself and seems to head towards life.  

I agree. The point where the chain jumps off if when it comes to intelligence, decission. But let's leave it at that.

[Piney]

Just now, zep73 said:

I agree. The point where the chain jumps off if when it comes to intelligence, decission. But let's leave it at that.

I think technological life is scarce to the point of maybe just us. There's too many factors involved. 

[Tatetopa]

5 minutes ago, zep73 said:

I knew I'd get in trouble. Should have kept my mouth shut. Not even gonna try to defend it. The world is not ready, probably never will be.

You are not in trouble.  You are still our buddy. 

[Waspie_Dwarf]

1 minute ago, zep73 said:

I knew I'd get in trouble. Should have kept my mouth shut. Not even gonna try to defend it. The world is not ready, probably never will be.

Not in trouble, it's just that the fact that life exists rather destroys your argument that it can't.

If it makes you feel better I have the same issue with the existence of the universe. Without invoking a deity (because the same issues still apply) there are two options.

1. The universe was created from nothing.
2. The universe has always existed without a moment of creation.

You can't create something from nothing but, on the other hand, anything that exists must have been created. Therefore the universe is impossible... except it exists. Therefore the only logical conclusion is that my logic is at fault and there is something I am missing in coming to my incorrect conclusion. It is the same for your argument, the fault HAS to lie with your logic.

[zep73]

2 minutes ago, Waspie_Dwarf said:

Not in trouble, it's just that the fact that life exists rather destroys your argument that it can't.

If it makes you feel better I have the same issue with the existence of the universe. Without invoking a deity (because the same issues still apply) there are two options.

1. The universe was created from nothing.
2. The universe has always existed without a moment of creation.

You can't create something from nothing but, on the other hand, anything that exists must have been created. Therefore the universe is impossible... except it exists. Therefore the only logical conclusion is that my logic is at fault and there is something I am missing in coming to my incorrect conclusion. It is the same for your argument, the fault HAS to lie with your logic.

What if the universe is fake?

Would that not cancel your statements?

Just for the sake of argument.

[Ell]

11 minutes ago, Waspie_Dwarf said:

How is that relevant to detecting biosignatures?

There is no life on Venus, therefore there is no homeostasis on Venus. Therefore there are no biosignatures; just signatures. Biosignatures on Venus are delusional.

[Waspie_Dwarf]

9 minutes ago, Piney said:

I'm a believer in a cyclical universe. 

All the current evidence points towards an increasingly rapid expansion of the universe, but even if it is cyclical, at some point entropy will win, the universe as we know it will be destroyed and all life will be extinguished. What ever model of the universe you choose to believe in entropy wins in the end. Sure, in a cyclical model, a new universe will be created, but from the moment of its creation its ultimate fate is sealed.

[Ell]

8 minutes ago, Waspie_Dwarf said:

the only logical conclusion is that my logic is at fault and there is something I am missing in coming to my incorrect conclusion. 

That is correct.

[Waspie_Dwarf]

5 minutes ago, zep73 said:

What if the universe is fake?

Would that not cancel your statements?

Just for the sake of argument.

Even if the universe, as we perceive it is a simulation then something has to be simulating it, therefore the argument still stands, whatever is simulating the universe has to have either always existed or have emerged from nothing.

If the universe is a simulation, however, there is the missing piece of your argument, life makes sense because the simulation is programmed for it to exist.