Adding a dimension--"Hi ET!"

[kbachler]

This is not news. Scientists discovered supposedly alien bacteria and fossils on meteorites a long time ago. This stuff has been on both creationist and secular/evolutionist websites for years. (I like to look at both sides for a more balanced perspective; most people I know just read from one side or the other, which isn’t very helpful when searching for truth.)

The bacteria was on a rare form of meteorite. So what? Scientists have been discovering all sorts of life forms recently, some are very strange ones especially in places like the bottom of the ocean (there are some crazy species down there!). And those are just the living ones… imagine how many more species are extinct!

I think it’s very biased information because they go in with the assumption of alien life and then conclude there is alien life (circular logic). I also notice the article does not say how old the meteorites are, or where they are from, only that they are rare. Has it been ruled out that that the fossils are from earth and got there after the meteorites landed on earth? I hope it has, considering how excited they are. But the “peer review” of scientists lately has been sort of science-fictiony when it comes to new discoveries, especially when it comes to fossils. It seems that everything is either a human ancestor or from another planet!

I am not saying there is or is not alien life out there. Both are possibilities. But I am not holding my breath considering how many times this “discovery” has happened before.

If there are aliens out there, I don’t see why it matters to us. They are obviously very far from here. If the meteorite bacteria are all that’s out there, and they are similar to forms here, that’s not very interesting. If there are intelligent forms out there, then they clearly are not interested in us or they’d be communicating with us by now, especially considering there are planets that are much older than ours and their species would be far more evolved than humans.

I don’t see what all these anti-God comments are doing on there? But then Yahoo! seems to be filled with teenaged and university-aged atheists, so I wouldn’t expect more from them. Apparently, aliens are very powerful because God is dead if they exist (despite the obvious fact that the Bible doesn’t say anything either way about whether or not aliens exist), so they must have killed God.

In the 1990’s there was information about a meteorite, probably from Mars that had evidence of fossilized microbial life. The evidence is not conclusive, but along with the additional information we are learning about the past of Mars, and that water was once more abundant there, the evidence is sufficient to keep an open mind that there may have once been life on Mars, with a smaller chance that there still is life on Mars.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ALH84001

www2.jpl.nasa.gov/snc/clinton.html

In 2009 the meteorite was examined with newer equipment. The findings were that the theories that the fossilized structures were created by a process other than life were significantly weakened, and that the life formation theory was significantly strengthened.

newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2009/11/fresh-claim-for-fossil-life-in.html

 

[kbachler]

Let’s take a critical look at this evidence.
Perhaps now would be an appropriate time to bring out a well written article on the possibility of life on other planets…
s8int.com/crichton.html

The real evidence is that we have no indication of life anywhere else within creation other then our little patch of soil (earth).
Yet for some reason ‘scientists’ keep telling us that it has to be out there.

I don’t buy it.
Without evidence, it is all just speculation.

And now we have ‘scientists’ peering into rocks and claiming that the life must have come from space.
There is more evidence that it came from earth then there is that it came from space.

Actually, we do have evidence.

Besides the Martian meteorites (there is also the Nakhla in addition to the one mentioned earlier in this thread) it has been shown that organic compounds exist on comets and in other star systems through radio spectography.

Some of the evidence for life elsewhere can be found in this article:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panspermia#Spaceborne_organic_molecules

 

[vz71]

it has been shown that organic compounds exist on comets and in other star systems through radio spectography.

Organic compounds do not necessarily mean life.
It simply means carbon is present.

As to the martian meteorites…I remember the news on these some time ago. Eventually the news died out as there is not compelling evidence.

We still are left with the only known life being here on earth.

Don’t get me wrong. I am perfectly open to the idea that life could exist elsewhere, but I have strong objections to the number of stars being used as evidence that life is elsewhere.

 

[ronnie_bonigli]

Organic compounds do not necessarily mean life.
It simply means carbon is present.

As to the martian meteorites…I remember the news on these some time ago. Eventually the news died out as there is not compelling evidence.

We still are left with the only known life being here on earth.

Don’t get me wrong. I am perfectly open to the idea that life could exist elsewhere, but I have strong objections to the number of stars being used as evidence that life is elsewhere.

My position exactly. Unfortunately, some people conflate their fervent desire for their to be other life with the actual evidence (of which there is none). If the of these folks would look into the incredibly complex interworkings of even the simplest cell they wouldn’t be expecting life to “arise” every time we have a rock and some water.

 

[ronnie_bonigli]

THe ft

 

[JDaniel]

JDaniel, if you didn’t read the link added in the update to the bottom of the original article the OP referances, it’s pretty good scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/03/did_scientists_discover_bacter.php

RB:

I missed that. Thank you for bringing it to my attention.

God bless,
jd

 

[kbachler]

Organic compounds do not necessarily mean life.
It simply means carbon is present.

As to the martian meteorites…I remember the news on these some time ago. Eventually the news died out as there is not compelling evidence.

We still are left with the only known life being here on earth.

Don’t get me wrong. I am perfectly open to the idea that life could exist elsewhere, but I have strong objections to the number of stars being used as evidence that life is elsewhere.

Excuse me. You are again incorrect on several points above.

First, I agree that organic compounds do not necessarily mean life. But they DO MEAN that there is a possibility of life, and the more complex, the greater the possibility. In several cases, complex organic compounds have been found.

This does not simply mean that carbon is present. Not all carbon molecules are organic compounds.

Your information on the Martian meteorites is incorrect. The news died out because news media has cycles. If you actually looked at any of the information I posted, you’ll see that much has been happening, including the announcement of just a few days ago.

The use of the Drake equation is a good mathematical approach to determining the probability of life in the universe.

Lets analogize. Suppose you lived at an oasis deep in the Sahara. You have just enough water and vegetation to provide you food and water indefinitely. You look in every direction, and can see no other sources of food and water. So you conclude that no other food and water exist in the world.

Then one day there is a sand storm. And when the wind is done blowing, you find a small branch with a leaf on it, like nothing you’ve seen before. You’ve never been anywhere else, so you still have no reason to believe that this is from another plant. Maybe some other natural process formed the branch and the leaf?

This is essentially the position we are in today. But what we are finding are wood chips here, compost there, and so on, INDICATIONS, but not complete proof, that there may be vegetation elsewhere.

So now we start to think. We can see maybe a few square miles of the Earth. Let’s say 10 to make it easy. The Earth has 196,939,900 square miles on its surface. So there are 19,693,990 area units like ours.

If only 1 out of every 1,000 units had water and vegetation, there would be nearly 20,000 other places like your own.

When you see the arguments for life based on Drake’s equation, it comes down to the commentary from the movie and book Contact. The universe is a very big place, and no other life would be a waste of space. Drake’s equation is simply making the point that there are SO many stars, and now we see evidence of SO MANY planets, and that organic compounds seem to exist throughout the universe, that it is reasonable to assume that if even a very small amount of the time life grabs a toe-hold, there could still be a lot of life out there.

 

[ronnie_bonigli]

Excuse me. You are again incorrect on several points above.

First, I agree that organic compounds do not necessarily mean life. But they DO MEAN that there is a possibility of life, and the more complex, the greater the possibility. In several cases, complex organic compounds have been found.

This does not simply mean that carbon is present. Not all carbon molecules are organic compounds.

Your information on the Martian meteorites is incorrect. The news died out because news media has cycles. If you actually looked at any of the information I posted, you’ll see that much has been happening, including the announcement of just a few days ago.

The use of the Drake equation is a good mathematical approach to determining the probability of life in the universe.

Lets analogize. Suppose you lived at an oasis deep in the Sahara. You have just enough water and vegetation to provide you food and water indefinitely. You look in every direction, and can see no other sources of food and water. So you conclude that no other food and water exist in the world.

Then one day there is a sand storm. And when the wind is done blowing, you find a small branch with a leaf on it, like nothing you’ve seen before. You’ve never been anywhere else, so you still have no reason to believe that this is from another plant. Maybe some other natural process formed the branch and the leaf?

This is essentially the position we are in today. But what we are finding are wood chips here, compost there, and so on, INDICATIONS, but not complete proof, that there may be vegetation elsewhere.

So now we start to think. We can see maybe a few square miles of the Earth. Let’s say 10 to make it easy. The Earth has 196,939,900 square miles on its surface. So there are 19,693,990 area units like ours.

If only 1 out of every 1,000 units had water and vegetation, there would be nearly 20,000 other places like your own.

When you see the arguments for life based on Drake’s equation, it comes down to the commentary from the movie and book Contact. The universe is a very big place, and no other life would be a waste of space. Drake’s equation is simply making the point that there are SO many stars, and now we see evidence of SO MANY planets, and that organic compounds seem to exist throughout the universe, that it is reasonable to assume that if even a very small amount of the time life grabs a toe-hold, there could still be a lot of life out there.

I hate to be the one to point this out, but to most scientists, the “Drake equation” is a joke, what good is an “equation” where none of the terms can be known, and most cannot even be estimated? That has nothing to do with science (or math for that matter), it’s just an “equation” for nerds who dream about other life.

 

[kbachler]

I hate to be the one to point this out, but to most scientists, the “Drake equation” is a joke, what good is an “equation” where none of the terms can be known, and most cannot even be estimated? That has nothing to do with science (or math for that matter), it’s just an “equation” for nerds who dream about other life.

I agree, as do many, that there are issues with the Drake Equation. It is, however, still a useful beginning tool to speculate about what we might be looking for. As a mathematician, I can state that yes, it actually DOES have something to do with math. I don’t think most scientists consider it a “joke” but rather useful for what it is.

 

[ronnie_bonigli]

I agree, as do many, that there are issues with the Drake Equation. It is, however, still a useful beginning tool to speculate about what we might be looking for. As a mathematician, I can state that yes, it actually DOES have something to do with math. I don’t think most scientists consider it a “joke” but rather useful for what it is.

Well, I give you the “ronnie equation”, which calculates the approximate number of fairies in North American, you just multiply the number of fairy friendly environments times the number of benign wizards over the number of hobbit villages by the squareroot of female elves.

 

[kbachler]

Well, I give you the “ronnie equation”, which calculates the approximate number of fairies in North American, you just multiply the number of fairy friendly environments times the number of benign wizards over the number of hobbit villages by the squareroot of female elves.

Well, I hope you find it useful for finding fairies.

The Drake equation, as I noted, is just a tool. It has proved useful because it forced people to think about aspects of the problem within a framework. Many of Drake’s original estimates can now be revised, and as we learn more about our galaxy/universe will be revised again.

One can make fun of any tool by putting it in a ridiculous situation. I could argue that hammers are ridiculous because their real purpose is to pound fairy rocks into fairy dust.

But that would be no more valid than the argument you just made.

 

[ronnie_bonigli]

Well, I hope you find it useful for finding fairies.

The Drake equation, as I noted, is just a tool. It has proved useful because it forced people to think about aspects of the problem within a framework. Many of Drake’s original estimates can now be revised, and as we learn more about our galaxy/universe will be revised again.

One can make fun of any tool by putting it in a ridiculous situation. I could argue that hammers are ridiculous because their real purpose is to pound fairy rocks into fairy dust.

But that would be no more valid than the argument you just made.

No, hammers have a real purpose, which is to hammer nails. While the “Drake equation” does not have the “purpose” of a real equation, which is to take known terms (or at least knowable terms) and run them through the equation to get a real number. Like the “ronnie equation” the Drake equation has terms which could be nearly any value including zero and of which the actual value can never be known.

 

[kbachler]

No, hammers have a real purpose, which is to hammer nails. While the “Drake equation” does not have the “purpose” of a real equation, which is to take known terms (or at least knowable terms) and run them through the equation to get a real number. Like the “ronnie equation” the Drake equation has terms which could be nearly any value including zero and of which the actual value can never be known.

I’m sorry, the Drake equation does have a real purpose; in fact more than one. One purpose is to take known/knowable terms and to generate a real number. UNFORTUNATELY, we don’t have good numbers for many of those terms at this point. That said, it doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t continue to look for ways to estimate those terms.

One could equally argue (and some have) that M-theory is not a legitimate theory because its not (currently) testable.

But the second purpose of the Drake Equation is to help provide a framework around which to have an intelligent discussion on the topic. The equation has led to thoughts about whats wrong with the approach and how to correct for that. It has also helped spur on attempts at solving for some of the terms, and especially in terms of how many planets there may be, we are addressing that.

As I noted, it is a tool. It has some observable utility. That’s really all I ever claimed for it.

And, BTW, M-Theory does the same thing; in fact, there have already been some new proposals on how M-theory might be testable now or in the near future.

 

[vz71]

The Drake equation, as I noted, is just a tool. It has proved useful because it forced people to think about aspects of the problem within a framework. Many of Drake’s original estimates can now be revised, and as we learn more about our galaxy/universe will be revised again.

Revised to what?
Seems to me not a single variable of that equation can be known.
As such, it is a meaningless equation.
The result of the equation can be anything…or nothing.

One can make fun of any tool by putting it in a ridiculous situation.

So tell us, what exactly is this tool used for?
How exactly does it provide any further information then we already have.
It is a tool that does nothing.

 

[vz71]

The equation has led to thoughts about whats wrong with the approach and how to correct for that. It has also helped spur on attempts at solving for some of the terms, and especially in terms of how many planets there may be, we are addressing that.

As I noted, it is a tool. It has some observable utility. That’s really all I ever claimed for it.

First and foremost it has led to people believing non-provable assumptions can substitute for scientific fact.

 

[ronnie_bonigli]

First and foremost it has led to people believing non-provable assumptions can substitute for scientific fact.

Less ridiculous than the Drake equation (while not pretending to be a scientific equation or question), is the Fermi Paradox en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox

If there is intelligent life out there (at least in our galaxy anyway), why haven’t we seen any radio (or any other electromagnetic) signals from them? Even if they weren’t bothering to send signals to other civilizations, it should happen by accident, someone on Alpha Centauri would have seen every episode of I Love Lucy many times over.

It isn’t a bogus “equation” masquerading as something serious but it is at least an interesting question.

 

[mangy_dog]

Organic compounds do not necessarily mean life.
It simply means carbon is present.

As to the martian meteorites…I remember the news on these some time ago. Eventually the news died out as there is not compelling evidence.

We still are left with the only known life being here on earth.

Don’t get me wrong. I am perfectly open to the idea that life could exist elsewhere, but I have strong objections to the number of stars being used as evidence that life is elsewhere.

I agree except that I’m not perfectly open to} the idea of life elsewhere in the universe.

Bacteria and germs inside of rocks flying around in space does not qualify. And I wouldn’t even bother anyone to show greater evidence or proof of such life - it’s not out there because it’s here, on earth.
Jesus Christ came to this planet and to Bethlehem and then born in a manger. And that manger to me is the center of the universe. But that’s just me… what do I know I’m just a mangy dog.

 

[vz71]

Bacteria and germs inside of rocks flying around in space does not qualify. And I wouldn’t even bother anyone to show greater evidence or proof of such life - it’s not out there because it’s here, on earth.

Yes, I have heard a theory that the universe was so big because that is what was needed for life to develop.

 

[mangy_dog]

Yes, I have heard a theory that the universe was so big because that is what was needed for life to develop.

Exactly!

Just another curious fact of our immense universe. No distant civilizations; no space brothers; no ascended masters… just germs and bacteria.

 

[ronnie_bonigli]

Exactly!

Just another curious fact of our immense universe. No distant civilizations; no space brothers; no ascended masters… just germs and bacteria.

no germs and bacteria either. At least from outerspace

scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/03/did_scientists_discover_bacter.php