Should DNA Complexity END the search for Intelligent Alien life?

originally posted by: sacgamer25
If we eliminate all the guessing and hypothesis what we are left with is DNA.

Scientists can guess that life started as something simpler than DNA, The problem with this theory, their is 0 evidence. They hold onto it simply because Irreducible Complexity is hard to refute when it comes to DNA as the simplest form of self replicating life.

If self replicating life based on some design simpler than DNA was ever possible, wouldn't it still be around? Why do we find no evidence in nature that suggest ANY form of life can exist without DNA?

At this time we should assume that the simplest self replicating life forms on earth are based on DNA. Why? Because no other evidence exists to the contrary.

This has to be the most moronic post of 2014...!


What does this mean to the availability of life on other planets?

Assuming the simplest form of life must be some sort of self replicating machine is the best place to start. Here on Earth that machine is DNA. However if life is spontaneous we should not expect the spontaneous machine to be exactly the same.

Surely the basic machine for self replicating life would be similar, but it couldn't possibly be exactly the same, lets call it ANA.

So on earth life is based on DNA, but on a distant planet somewhere, where self replicating life also happened spontaneously, life on that planet is based on ANA, a similar machine that has a similar function, but at least slightly different.

The probability of DNA being random is infinitely small, which scientists do not disagree with. The possibility of two random incidents occurring separatly and both creating the exact same machine, DNA, we should consider so statistically impossible that it can not happen.

Without a creator this is where we are left. All life, plant and animal, on this planet started from one single self replicating DNA. Out of this one cell, something that has happened only once on earth in 4.5 billion years all life came forth.

If spontaneous life is possible shouldn't we have found other machines such as ANA actually arising on earth? If life was random wouldn't you expect to see at least a few different types of machines?

Unless of course it's random but statistically very small.What does this say about the possibility of life on other planets?

First we can assume, based on what we actually see, that it only happened once on earth in 4.5 billion years, and took until recently for intelligent, dexterous life, capable of building communications and space travel devices to appear. And we haven't left the solar system.

Why should we believe this extremely random event that only happened once in perfect conditions has happened elsewhere? Even if it has, how could we possibly assume that out of chaos completely random forms of life startrd more than once and evolved into beings with human characteristics?

If their is no God in control than we should assume our chances of finding other intelligent life, capable of communication with us to be so close to impossible that we don't even look for it. We may consider in the vastness of space it exists somewhere, but unless we can greatly eclipse light speed, or the universe is much smaller than we currently think, we should assume we won't find it. We should assume we are only looking for planets to colonize, where the most we will find is simple life forms.

It is actually more likely we will find life if thier is a God, and who knows maybe all life everywhere is based on DNA. Isn't DNA similar to God's word? We need it to survive.

Is DNA so complex that we should stop looking for Aliens? Even if you believe Aliens seeded our planet, why would we be looking for them? Wouldn't they already be looking at us?

If their are aliens watching I imagine they learned the one lesson that humans have failed to learn. Don't get involved in other nations civil wars, it never solves anything and always creates one more enemy. So if the Aliens are out their they are waiting for world peace, so they never have to be our enemy.

a reply to: MarsIsRed

I understand why you might think it's wrong. But why not impart your opinion on the matter.

originally posted by: sacgamer25
Scientists can guess that life started as something simpler than DNA, The problem with this theory, their is 0 evidence. They hold onto it simply because Irreducible Complexity is hard to refute when it comes to DNA as the simplest form of self replicating life.

Actually, all the evidence points to U-DNA & Protein World preceding the present DNA & Protein World. Likewise, RNA & Protein World clearly preceded the U-DNA & Protein World, and RNA World preceded RNA & Protein World. Even today, the core catalytic functions of protein synthesis are carried out by RNA molecules.

If self replicating life based on some design simpler than DNA was ever possible, wouldn't it still be around? Why do we find no evidence in nature that suggest ANY form of life can exist without DNA?

Why would it be still around? Don't you think that the far more efficient present life would have outcompeted it a long time ago?

At this time we should assume that the simplest self replicating life forms on earth are based on DNA. Why? Because no other evidence exists to the contrary.

Except the millions of different RNA viruses?

What does this mean to the availability of life on other planets?

Good news, since apparently autocatalytic RNA molecules can spontaneously form in the right environment, and from there on the natural force of evolution takes over.

Assuming the simplest form of life must be some sort of self replicating machine is the best place to start. Here on Earth that machine is DNA. However if life is spontaneous we should not expect the spontaneous machine to be exactly the same.

Already addressed this.

Surely the basic machine for self replicating life would be similar, but it couldn't possibly be exactly the same, lets call it ANA.

So on earth life is based on DNA, but on a distant planet somewhere, where self replicating life also happened spontaneously, life on that planet is based on ANA, a similar machine that has a similar function, but at least slightly different.

I believe that RNA/DNA-based life is very frequent in the Universe. Of course e.g. protein synthesis is going to happen in a different way, as it does even on Earth with 3 fundamentally different ribosomes (archaeal, bacterial and eukaryotic).

The probability of DNA being random is infinitely small, which scientists do not disagree with. The possibility of two random incidents occurring separatly and both creating the exact same machine, DNA, we should consider so statistically impossible that it can not happen.

What do you mean by the probability of DNA? Exact same machines on another planet, yeah, I agree, not going to happen. However, as demonstrated by the 3 different ribosomal "designs", there's no single way how DNA & Protein makes life.

Without a creator this is where we are left. All life, plant and animal, on this planet started from one single self replicating DNA. Out of this one cell, something that has happened only once on earth in 4.5 billion years all life came forth.

Actually, all this started from some RNA soup, the delineation of archaea and bacteria probably happened in a pre-DNA world.

If spontaneous life is possible shouldn't we have found other machines such as ANA actually arising on earth? If life was random wouldn't you expect to see at least a few different types of machines?

How do you know they haven't? Anyway, as I pointed out above, there's this thing called competition. Stuff outcompetes other stuff.

Unless of course it's random but statistically very small.What does this say about the possibility of life on other planets?

That it's very likely given a favorable environment?

First we can assume, based on what we actually see, that it only happened once on earth in 4.5 billion years, and took until recently for intelligent, dexterous life, capable of building communications and space travel devices to appear. And we haven't left the solar system.

Consider the fact that there are almost 10 different fundamentally DNA polymerase families, that all have their own origin. What does this say about DNA-based life?

Why should we believe this extremely random event that only happened once in perfect conditions has happened elsewhere? Even if it has, how could we possibly assume that out of chaos completely random forms of life startrd more than once and evolved into beings with human characteristics?

If you buy 1 lottery ticket, your chances of winning aren't very good. However, when you buy trillions times trillions of tickets (rough estimate for the number of planets in the Universe), you're guaranteed to win.

If their is no God in control than we should assume our chances of finding other intelligent life, capable of communication with us to be so close to impossible that we don't even look for it. We may consider in the vastness of space it exists somewhere, but unless we can greatly eclipse light speed, or the universe is much smaller than we currently think, we should assume we won't find it. We should assume we are only looking for planets to colonize, where the most we will find is simple life forms.

It's not so unlikely that we'll eventually find extraterrestrial life even from our own solar system, either some moon, or even Mars. Intelligent life? Well, that might be end up taking longer..

It is actually more likely we will find life if thier is a God, and who knows maybe all life everywhere is based on DNA. Isn't DNA similar to God's word? We need it to survive.

I certainly don't need God's word to survive

Is DNA so complex that we should stop looking for Aliens? Even if you believe Aliens seeded our planet, why would we be looking for them? Wouldn't they already be looking at us?

A < is this complex?
AA < is this complex?
AAT < is this complex?
Saying "DNA is complex" doesn't mean anything. A DNA molecule needs not be much more complex than table salt.

a reply to: deloprator20000

Understood, but my point was that the numbers you plug in are flexible. you can wither enter optimistic figures or pessimistic ones. You get dramatic differences in results depending on what you plug in to the equation, like many civilization versus 1.

originally posted by: PhotonEffect
Well, technically, the universe was created by a higher power. One's opinion of it really depends on how they interpret the so called evidence. Some call it the work of God, others call it the work of a very sudden explosion.

The reality is, neither side has any real proof to firmly back up their claims.

By higher power, I'm referring to a conscious entity that intentionally created the universe. There is no "interpretation of the evidence" (I hear that expression quite a bit) that suggests this. There is only inserting this creator into areas that we cannot fully explain yet. Evidence is not up for interpretation. Whether the big bang was intentionally set off by a creator, caused by a dimensional membrane collision, a massive white hole, or something else that we do not know about. You can guess that god did it, but don't pretend that it's merely your interpretation of the evidence. It's not. The big bang happened, no matter what caused it. That's what the science is looking at.

a reply to: Barcs

Hi Barcs:

You said

There is no "interpretation of the evidence" (I hear that expression quite a bit) that suggests this. There is only inserting this creator into areas that we cannot fully explain yet. Evidence is not up for interpretation.

Everything in this world is always up for subjective interpretation. Let's not pretend that there is zero disagreement between scientists over what certain evidence is telling them.

Scientific agreement is often only a consensus, not unanimous. There are always scientists who look at the world differently from what the initial interpretation of the evidence was. Think back through the history of some of the most profound discoveries in science for your proof of that statement. In matters of cosmology, this seems to apply ever more so because of all the unknowns. The goal posts are constantly being moved around. It's not a criticism, (because I love reading about this stuff), but a reality.

We don't really know what the Big Bang was. Sure, something dramatic happened to create this universe, whatever it was that caused it. And it certainly doesn't make much logical sense when you really think about the dynamics of it.

You can guess that god did it, but don't pretend that it's merely your interpretation of the evidence. It's not. The big bang happened, no matter what caused it.

Actually your beloved Big Bang theory may be under some serious fire if it's confirmed that the recent "evidence for inflation" was really just a big dust cloud. Big Bang needs inflation.

Sure, we can guess god, interdimensional membranes, massive white holes, or a computer simulation. But these are just different interpretations of the so called evidence. No evidence for god or some other conscious entity? Fine. What's the evidence for any of the other causes? There isn't any- it's all guesswork and creative writing.

originally posted by: PhotonEffect
Everything in this world is always up for subjective interpretation. Let's not pretend that there is zero disagreement between scientists over what certain evidence is telling them.

I have no problem with people coming up with their own subjective interpretations of the world and universe. I enjoy pondering that stuff, myself. The only beef I have is when people say stuff like "science is wrong about X" when they are not qualified to make such statements and base that reasoning completely on a guess.

They aren't interpreting evidence differently, they are adding their own personal explanation to the parts that are unknown. Scientists don't claim to know the cause of the big bang. Nobody knows that right now. People only use that "interpreting the evidence" thing when they pretend their worldview is backed by science.

Scientific agreement is often only a consensus, not unanimous. There are always scientists who look at the world differently from what the initial interpretation of the evidence was. Think back through the history of some of the most profound discoveries in science for your proof of that statement. In matters of cosmology, this seems to apply ever more so because of all the unknowns. The goal posts are constantly being moved around. It's not a criticism, (because I love reading about this stuff), but a reality.

Can you please give me some recent examples of goalposts being moved in science? Science finds the facts. What you do with them is up to you. They don't always paint a full picture, either.

We don't really know what the Big Bang was. Sure, something dramatic happened to create this universe, whatever it was that caused it. And it certainly doesn't make much logical sense when you really think about the dynamics of it.

This is true. Generally speaking, all we really know is that matter was originally really close together and then expanded with very high energy. That isn't enough to suggest god or a conscious entity did it, but also is not enough to think it was the beginning of everything ever and that nothing existed prior. For all we know that could only one be one tiny cog in a giant machine with millions of universes that all affect the others.

Actually your beloved Big Bang theory may be under some serious fire if it's confirmed that the recent "evidence for inflation" was really just a big dust cloud. Big Bang needs inflation.

Can you refer me to what you are talking about? I didn't hear about that.

Sure, we can guess god, interdimensional membranes, massive white holes, or a computer simulation. But these are just different interpretations of the so called evidence. No evidence for god or some other conscious entity? Fine. What's the evidence for any of the other causes? There isn't any- it's all guesswork and creative writing.

Yes, which is why guesswork should be labeled as guesswork or personal faith and not an interpretation of the evidence. There isn't evidence of other causes, which is why we do not know the answer to that question yet. Maybe it's impossible to know that answer. Maybe we will know someday. Those are not interpretations of any evidence, those are straight up world views.

a reply to: Barcs

The only beef I have is when people say stuff like "science is wrong about X" when they are not qualified to make such statements and base that reasoning completely on a guess.

Fair enough, and I would agree with this.

They aren't interpreting evidence differently, they are adding their own personal explanation to the parts that are unknown. Scientists don't claim to know the cause of the big bang. Nobody knows that right now. People only use that "interpreting the evidence" thing when they pretend their worldview is backed by science.

There are certainly some scientists taking guesses at what caused the big bang, based off their interpretation of the evidence. This happens all the time in the other sciences as well. Unfortunately it's a "god of the gaps" of a different kind.

Can you please give me some recent examples of goalposts being moved in science? Science finds the facts. What you do with them is up to you. They don't always paint a full picture, either.

Within cosmology? It happens all the time.

Science looks for the facts. What they find is largely based upon the final interpretation. Then, a consensus of some sort is reached, until someone with a different view of the "facts" postulates another interpretation which may, or may not, force another consensus, or at least another fact finding mission, to take place. RInce and repeat.

Can you refer me to what you are talking about? I didn't hear about that.

Sure. Linked one above already. Here's another one.

Yes, which is why guesswork should be labeled as guesswork or personal faith and not an interpretation of the evidence. There isn't evidence of other causes, which is why we do not know the answer to that question yet. Maybe it's impossible to know that answer. Maybe we will know someday. Those are not interpretations of any evidence, those are straight up world views.

Another fair point.

originally posted by: PhotonEffect
There are certainly some scientists taking guesses at what caused the big bang, based off their interpretation of the evidence. This happens all the time in the other sciences as well. Unfortunately it's a "god of the gaps" of a different kind.

This is true, but they aren't claiming it's fact, and it is not an interpretation of the actual evidence. It's a hypothesis. The evidence itself isn't up for interpretation, only areas that we lack knowledge or understanding in.

Can you please give me some recent examples of goalposts being moved in science? Science finds the facts. What you do with them is up to you. They don't always paint a full picture, either.
Within cosmology? It happens all the time.

That isn't moving the goalposts. Moving the goalposts "means to change the criterion (goal) of a process or competition while still in progress, in such a way that the new goal offers one side an intentional advantage or disadvantage."

An example of moving the goalposts would be:

-A creationist claims that god is responsible for thunder and lightning when he's angry, so it is evidence for god.
-Science discovers that lightning and thunder work perfectly fine in nature without the need of an intelligent entity.
-The creationist then says "well, then god created the whole earth and everything that works within it"
-Science discovers that stars and planets can form naturally in the universe.
-The creationist then says, "well god set the big bang in motion"

It relies on the opponent not being able to prove his claim wrong, rather than him having to prove his claim correct. Each time his claim is proven wrong, he retreats to a different gap in scientific knowledge to insert god. THAT is moving the goalpost, because instead of following the evidence to modify the idea, the keep the faulty idea and move the criteria for it, despite the evidence. Originally thunder and lightning were considered evidence for god, and now it has become 'god caused the big bang'.

That isn't how science operates. The evidence is examined and an assessment is made. If one piece of evidence suggests an idea is wrong, they don't move the goalposts to accommodate that wrong idea, they change the idea to fit the evidence. That is not moving goalposts, that is following the evidence.

Can you refer me to what you are talking about? I didn't hear about that.
Sure. Linked one above already. Here's another one.

So they were wrong about the evidence and more evidence was presented to show this. I don't see anything wrong with that. That isn't evidence AGAINST inflation, it merely means they were wrong about the data and it was corrected. That's how science is supposed to work. That's why scientists debate these things and scrutinze all evidence. Thanks to the knowledgeable scientists that have worked on mapping clouds of dust, they were all able to learn what they were seeing. Either way there is a lot of other evidence for the big bang. It doesn't live or die based on that one thing and I don't recall them ever saying that it was absolutely set in stone evidence for inflation. They thought it might be, so a full investigation was done. That's how science works and why it is so great.

You know, I was thinking that like all things in the universe (an oxygen atom is the same here as the other one twenty galaxies away) that life could be as similar anywhere in the universe as it is in two different corners of this planet. I think there is a peak where life can only be so different because although the sheer number of stars in the universe is unfathomable, the condition that all stars exist in is limited. I would say that although Earth can only hold a fraction of what is possible within all life in the universe given the specific properties and conditions of this planet, that there is ultimately a threshold of diversity. This means that intelligent specie has a limit in how it can exist within these conditions and therefore there may be someone who looks identical to you on the other side of the universe.