The Universe is Probably Teaming with Life. (Hubble Reveals Deepest View Ever Of Night Sky)

i think for someone to say that there ISN'T other life forms out there is ignorant and illogical. but, i also think this is a common conclusion among those of us here on ATS.

Originally posted by Subterranean13
Yes true, the potential is all around us and there's no reason to currently believe there can't be any other life in the universe. The more important question is has it ever visited or made itself known to us. The answer of course being an un categorical no.

Ezekiel gives a very good description of alien visitors in his part of the Christian bible, I particularly l;ike the part at the end where he says 'they ascended to heaven on a pillar of fire' ring any bells??

Originally posted by PhoenixOD
No theres more probability of life existing out there than not if certain things are proved to be true in the future.

Until then numbers of planets do not equal a good chance of there being any life out there at all. As we have 0 evidence of life being able to happen other that the one example of DNA existing on our planet.

That's the hard facts and those are the numbers.

But if we assume that life didnt exist on Earth at some point - or that the Earth didnt even exist at some point for that matter - then all evidence points to the fact that life can happen on a planet. And more planets equal more chance.

What you say would only be hard facts if Earth has remained in a state of status quo since the birth of the universe - life has always been here.

Very nice. I think evidence is piling up that we have been visited by aliens. We are probably genetically altered by them and taught a thing or two given the fact that we seemed to make a huge leap in technology almost over night.

Originally posted by merka

Originally posted by PhoenixOD
No theres more probability of life existing out there than not if certain things are proved to be true in the future.

Until then numbers of planets do not equal a good chance of there being any life out there at all. As we have 0 evidence of life being able to happen other that the one example of DNA existing on our planet.

That's the hard facts and those are the numbers.

But if we assume that life didnt exist on Earth at some point - or that the Earth didnt even exist at some point for that matter - then all evidence points to the fact that life can happen on a planet. And more planets equal more chance.

What you say would only be hard facts if Earth has remained in a state of status quo since the birth of the universe - life has always been here.

No, Im not saying there is no chance of life happening again. What i am saying is that it is not a certainty based on numbers alone like many people seem to be claiming.

The events that led up to the creation of DNA on our planet might be unique as the number of planet out there is finite. Its obvious you can not just put Phosphate,Deoxyribose,Cytosine ,Thymine ,Guanine, Adenine in a test tube , shake it up and get self replicating DNA. DNA might have been created by may , many freak incidents that happened in a specific order over millions of years. So if this is true the chances of it happening again are way , way higher than just factoring in the number of planets that sit in the habital zone around a star that has water and the chemical needed to make up DNA.

We have all the right chemicals on our planet and its only ever happened once. We know this because all life on earth is related to one set of DNA. If it had happened twice then the chances of there being life out there would be much higher.

Your post seems to be very naive to me. Just having planets in a Goldilocks zone does not ensure life (and they are not uncountable because they are a finite number). There might have to be an exact balance of specific chemicals to even have the chance for life to exist. Then certain events might have to happen in an exact order for something as complex as DNA to form. The fact that all life on earth uses DNA shows us that with no DNA even our plant can not produce life. Life only happens in one way on our perfect planet. This put the odds of it happening elsewhere in exactly the same way into astronomical numbers.

reply to post by PhoenixOD



Ok...the chances of the exact balance of chemicals within the goldilocks zones are higher than you think, for example: the life forms that exist here on earth are so diverse many could not exist in another's environment, the desert, the rain forrest, the oceans and the polar ice caps are so different in their chemical makeup yet all sustain life that is different from one another......from -40c to +40c yet still can accommodate life . These environments contain chemicals that are toxic to some life forms yet some life thrives.
So please explain how you can't grasp the chances of many billions of goldilocks zones not holding any life at all, nieve at best ignorant at worst.
Also I might add, the reason the term "goldilocks zone" was coined was to give in laymans terms an understanding of where we may find life outside our own solar system

reply to post by PhoenixOD


What makes you think Earth and conditions that it has been under, are special? You have given lots of 'mights' and 'what if's', yet nothing concrete to suggest the Earth is special in Astronomical of Chemical terms (in fact evidence suggests that the Earth, in both Astronomical terms and Chemical make-up is far from special, but in fact quite common).

There are 3 planets in our Solar system, that in the last few billion years have at one stage had the same conditions the Earth had 3.5 billion years ago (when life is thought to have started on Earth), with a very similar chemical composition. So that's 3 out of 9 'planets', on 1 Sun, that have had the very conditions you claim are 'special'. 1 sun. I refer you back to my 1st post in this thread, that looks at the Milky Way (200 to 400 billion stars) only. The Milky Way, one of 127 billion Galaxies (estimated) that we can see from Earth or near Earth orbit. So we could be extremely conservative and say 100 billion Galaxies, multiplied by 100 billion stars, multiplied by 100 billion planets, in a universe that we think is 14 billion years old. You think the Earth is special?

Life that we KNOW of, is made up of 5 essential elements (possibly 4), as the 'building blocks' of life. Hydrogen, Oxygen and Carbon, make up 3 of the 4 most common elements in the universe, Nitrogen comes in at 7 and Phosphorus comes in at 18. It's debatable whether Phosphorous is essential, but it's presence in lifeforms, means we cannot discount it.


So in conclusion, I put it to you, that given the vast number of planets and the 5 building blocks of life (as we know it) are in the top 20 most common elements in the universe, it is extremely unlikely that the Earth is 'special' in any way.

Originally posted by PhoenixOD


We have all the right chemicals on our planet and its only ever happened once. We KNOW this because all life on earth is related to one set of DNA. If it had happened twice then the chances of there being life out there would be much higher.

edit on 27-9-2012 by PhoenixOD because: (no reason given)

That is simply untrue. We do not know. Neither do we know if 'new' lifeforms are coming into existence or not either.

reply to post by AmatuerSkyWatcher


You are quite correct in what you say except Earth is probably the only one of three planets that has been habitable. You see the planet has to have a dense iron core to be habitable as we know it as without the magnetic core there is not a strong enough magnetic field to protect the planet's atmosphere from being erroded by the solar winds. Hence the reason Mars has a very thin atmosphere.

reply to post by michael1983l


On the contrary. It is thought that both Mars and Venus were both habitable for a period of time in their respective histories. It is for two very different reasons why they are not habitable now (possibly). One being a runaway 'greenhouse' effect, the other being a lack of atmosphere.

There could be, however, places on both planets, that although unlikely, that are inhabited by some form of life.

reply to post by AmatuerSkyWatcher


I do believe we will find evidence of life or indeed life itself on Mars but I doubt it ever got more complex than bacteria et al. I don't think there was ever a long enough window for complex lifeforms to evolve. I would be delighted if I am proven wrong though, I hope one day we get to excavate areas of Mars, because just maybe underneath that orange grit, there might be some evidence of previous life waiting for us.

Originally posted by AmatuerSkyWatcher

Originally posted by PhoenixOD


We have all the right chemicals on our planet and its only ever happened once. We KNOW this because all life on earth is related to one set of DNA. If it had happened twice then the chances of there being life out there would be much higher.

edit on 27-9-2012 by PhoenixOD because: (no reason given)

That is simply untrue. We do not know. Neither do we know if 'new' lifeforms are coming into existence or not either.

There is nothing or no reason to suggest there are either. All life on the planet we have ever observed came from the same DNA including samples taken from insects from the age of dinosaurs. As far as science is concerned all evidence points to the fact that DNA has only ever happened once and this is on a world were the right chemicals exist and the conditions are good.

Originally posted by zerozero00

Your post seems to be very naive to me. Just having planets in a Goldilocks zone does not ensure life (and they are not uncountable because they are a finite number). There might have to be an exact balance of specific chemicals to even have the chance for life to exist. Then certain events might have to happen in an exact order for something as complex as DNA to form. The fact that all life on earth uses DNA shows us that with no DNA even our plant can not produce life. Life only happens in one way on our perfect planet. This put the odds of it happening elsewhere in exactly the same way into astronomical numbers.

reply to post by PhoenixOD

 

Ok...the chances of the exact balance of chemicals within the goldilocks zones are higher than you think, for example: the life forms that exist here on earth are so diverse many could not exist in another's environment, the desert, the rain forrest, the oceans and the polar ice caps are so different in their chemical makeup yet all sustain life that is different from one another......from -40c to +40c yet still can accommodate life . These environments contain chemicals that are toxic to some life forms yet some life thrives.
So please explain how you can't grasp the chances of many billions of goldilocks zones not holding any life at all, nieve at best ignorant at worst.
Also I might add, the reason the term "goldilocks zone" was coined was to give in laymans terms an understanding of where we may find life outside our own solar system

If your calling my expiation naive please explain how to make replicating DNA from a few chemicals by chance. Then go and tell the scientific world how its done as they have been trying to work it out for a long time. You should really stop slinging words round like ignorance unless you have the answers.

Originally posted by RiverRunsFree

The Universe is Probably Teaming with Life

Take out 'probably'.

There is no doubt the universe is teaming with life, the real question that needs to be answered is how intelligent this life is.

edit on 27-9-2012 by RiverRunsFree because: (no reason given)

There is only one logical answer:

Some are more intelligent than we, some less. There might be super-civilizations so advanced we cannot even fathom...and some planets with moronic aliens smashing each other's skulls in. (Like on Earth

And then of course, yes there is the time factor which means that some planets might only have a tiny window where intelligent beings (maybe even LIFE ITSELF) existed....but billions of years *after* and *before*, where none existed. Who knows how many civilizations, maybe even entire planet systems and galaxies already came and went again.

Originally posted by WanderingThe3rd
A ant could come to these conclusions, yet people only start listening once someone in a wheelchair that gets to think all day admits that's what he thinks?



humans

could an ANT, REALLY come to these conclusions.......perhaps not my friend.........

reply to post by PhoenixOD


No, the theory of universal common descent, is just that; A theory. It is not KNOWN. It is highly likely that UCD is correct, but it is not 100% definitive.

That is besides the point in any case. We do know that RNA and proteins made DNA, and DNA made animate lifeforms. Why? We do not know. But there is nothing to suggest, that it was a very special circumstance (or a set there of) that made it happen.

reply to post by PhoenixOD




well said

Originally posted by AmatuerSkyWatcher
reply to post by PhoenixOD

 

No, the theory of universal common descent, is just that; A theory. It is not KNOWN. It is highly likely that UCD is correct, but it is not 100% definitive.

That is besides the point in any case. We do know that RNA and proteins made DNA, and DNA made animate lifeforms. Why? We do not know. But there is nothing to suggest, that it was a very special circumstance (or a set there of) that made it happen.

I disagree on both counts. The semantics of the word theory is something that is argued about a lot. But as there isnt the slightest bit of evidence that anything doesn't come from an original source (ie all DNA in anything living fits nicely in the tree) then there is not much to debate. If you going to say "what if" you might just as well put God into the mix. But then the whole discussion of facts, figures and probability just becomes pointless.

On the second point you gave as DNA has only ever happened once as far as we can tell but the chemical to make it have been around for a very long time all the evidence would suggest that the process that set off that first lot of DNA is very special. If not there would be more examples of different variations on it right here on earth.

If there was anything that pointed to the contrary id be very happy.

Good debate by the way

I do find it hard to believe that people doubt the existence of life outside the universe.

I agree the chances of that one strain of dna starting are pretty insane.

but to the that in all those billions of planets to doubt that there is a bacteria, or even a piece of mold out there is quite odd to me.

just we have this one strain of dna here, who is to say that there is not a different type of dna somewhere else?

i really do believe there is other life out there.

probably too far away for us to ever find it.

i'm still holding out that there may be life on one of the moons around jupiter!!!

Originally posted by PhoenixOD

I disagree on both counts. The semantics of the word theory is something that is argued about a lot. But as there isnt the slightest bit of evidence that anything doesn't come from an original source (ie all DNA in anything living fits nicely in the tree) then there is not much to debate. If you going to say "what if" you might just as well put God into the mix. But then the whole discussion of facts, figures and probability just becomes pointless.

On the second point you gave as DNA has only ever happened once as far as we can tell but the chemical to make it have been around for a very long time all the evidence would suggest that the process that set off that first lot of DNA is very special. If not there would be more examples of different variations on it right here on earth.

If there was anything that pointed to the contrary id be very happy.

Good debate by the way

edit on 27-9-2012 by PhoenixOD because: (no reason given)

"what if" is a very important question, that any scientist will tell you is the most important question, one can ask.

Lets talk about "facts, figures and probability". You are basing you whole argument on the 'fact' that the universe (discounting the multiverse theory) is finite. I have seen your arguments, both on a finite amount of stars and a finite amount of planets. Now discounting the mathematics, that in all probability the amount of stars and planets 'out there' means there is likely to be another extremely similar to Earth, the "facts, figures and probability" that you are regarding so highly say that in fact the universe is infinite. There is no beginning and no end. So what say you now?

The maths has been done, the universe is not spherical as first thought, but flat (in every direction-kind of weird but true). If you start at one point, and keep going in straight line, you will never come to your point of origin (unlike a sphere), even if you could live forever. So that puts paid to your argument of finite possibilities, does it not?


EDIT: As for your argument on the creation of DNA: All DNA is, is a process of chemical reactions that we do not know the process of. I am not arguing against the fact that DNA was created by a 'circumstance', I am arguing against the fact that it was a 'special circumstance', as the Earth like many billions, upon billions, upon billions of other planets have had the same circumstances visited upon them. Get it?

What is this mystical 'special circumstance' you keep mentioning?