I dont think we're alone

Discussion in 'Science and Nature' started by OweKnowsBest_4.23, Aug 16, 2012.

  1. [quote name='"dishin reg"']

    Well to be fair, what single shred of evidence is there in favor of the existence of aliens in comparison to god?[/quote]

    That there are trillions of stars in the sky and atleast have of them supporting star systems with planets, that's alot of planets, and I'm sure atleast one of those trillions of planets have life, don't feel like we're so special, we're just another creature that has evolved in the universe
     
  2. There have been numerous experiments supporting the abiogenesis theory. The precise mechanism isn't certain, but the evidence supporting the chemical genesis of life is prevalent.
     
  3. It'd be pretty arrogant and illogical to think there isn't other life in universe
     
  4. We've gotten nowhere near actually creating life from non-life. It's actually a law of science called the Law of Biogenesis stating life does not arise from non living materials, only from pre-existing life.


    Ya know I hear alot of theists saying the same thing but about god.. lol
     
  5. Just because scientist have not yet created life does nothing to invalidate the idea that life arose from non-living compounds. We have made significant progress toward that end. Also you have an incomplete understanding of the Law of Biogenesis. First a little background info.

    Louis Pasteur, who came up with the Law of Biogenesis, lived in a time during which the prevailing thought about life was that if was generated spontaneous from nothing. So things such as bacteria, maggots and the like were thought to just pop into existance. Pasteur conducted experiment that proved that bacteria will not grow in a closed off flask and therefore could not be spontaneously generated thus the conclusion life comes from life.

    While the exact origin of life is not precisely known, we do know that all life traces back to a single common ancestor. Meaning at one point in the past abiogenesis occurred and if it occurred here it most probably occurred somewhere else in the universe. Also let's remember one thing, life had around a billion years to form the first cell and we have only seriously been trying for less than a century.
     
  6. #26 StonedOpossum, Aug 17, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 17, 2012
    Absolutely correct. The Law of Biogenesis states that life cannot spontaneously come into existence. However, abiogenesis is a chemical evolution, by which life came to exist. Every living process can be explained on a molecular level. We are molecules, we are chemicals. Life comes from chemicals. And we can recreate the early steps of the beginning of life. In fact, we're pretty damn close to completing the whole thing process.
     
  7. How does that work out for you? Why don't you fuck shit up then, kill some bots, blow some buildings into promethean displays of lights? Afraid the robots are going to manhandle you all the way to prison?

    If I was the only one, I would give no fucks. Doing so, will just make you an actor in a weird fatalistic movie. :cool:
     
  8. I've currently got one of their fem-bots corralled into a domestic situation. Why fucked up a good thing?
     
  9. [quote name='"StonedOpossum"']When you consider how massive the universe is, and how long it has existed relative to life on Earth, the odds are pretty damn good that we aren't alone. I just look forward to the day when we can finally prove life exists elsewhere in the universe.[/quote]

    Agreed. I think it's impossible for us to be the only life in the entire universe.
     
  10. So far we've shown ourselves it isn't possible, so I have no reason to believe it.

    Is that so? I guess you're capable of showing me how an octopus and a trilobite are related then right? Or how a starfish and nautilus are related?

    Yes, or arise from non-living materials.

    You state that as if fact, yet here we are discussing the lack of evidence for abiogensis..

    Who told you that and why'd you believe them? We have not gotten anywhere CLOSE to creating life from non-living matter.. We've been able to make single amino acids.. just a fraction of the whole. Watch this video and tell me if you expect something as such to just 'fall into place' then suddenly starts to operate and reproduce and find food.. all for no good reason at all..


    [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uwnw4vg9I5Q"]Inside a cell - YouTube[/ame]
     
  11. #31 DjSmokeBowls, Aug 18, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 18, 2012
    We haven't shown that it's not possible only that the exact conditions during which it occurred and the precise mechanisms aren't yet known; Again not having done something doesn't mean it's impossible.


    Yes, all life on earth is DNA, carbon, and cellular based; DNA is the major factor since we know that the same genetic code is present in all living organisms. For example the gene for insulin production in humans is sometimes inserted into bacteria in order to produce insulin on a large scale.


    The point of both post about the Law of Biogenesis was to show you that it was not meant to determine how life came to be, but simply to dispel belief in the popular notion of the time spontaneous generation.


    It is a fact, as you are alive are you not? If not abiogeneisis how did life originate?



    We've gotten a little past making simple amino acids. Scientist have discovered ribozymes which are RNA based enzymes. This is important in the theory of the origin of life known as the RNA world hypothesis. It postulates the first cell were probably RNA based since RNA can store information, self-replicate, and plays a critical role in cellular life (ribosomes).

    As to the video you posted, no one would expect something so complicated to pop up out of nowhere. The first cell's were most likely extremely simple containing just RNA/DNA, proteins, and a membrane with no other organelles. It would most likely feed off of the organic molecules around it. The "reason" for this would be that small changes and mutations would allow the cell the replicate easier or find food faster or something to that affect.
     
  12. #32 StonedOpossum, Aug 18, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 18, 2012
    That law is only applicable to the modern earth. In the environment of ancient earth, it was possible for life to be created out of just chemicals. And we've proven it to be possible. Biogenesis works under the knowledge that life already exists, abiogenesis tries to explain the mechanisms through which it came to exist. You can't compare them.

    What lack of evidence? Abiogenesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia That will give you an overview of some of the experiments.

    The only thing that we haven't been able to do is create a ribozyme. Once we do that, we've essentially created synthetic life (ribozymes are considered to be a major precursor to life). We have the amino acids, but we're struggling to create a protein without enzymes. But then again, this isn't the ancient earth.

    But in the end, your argument hinges solely on the fact that we've yet to produce the final pieces of evidence to prove abiogenesis. Yet, you can't provide any evidence for creation. And it's always the same with creationists. You have no proof so you attempt to use our science against us.
     
  13. i chuckled a little :smoke:

    thats pretty dope that scientist are close to creating life. pretty soon they'll be selling diy kits and we'll have a bunch of experiments gone wrong walking around lol.
     
  14. It didn't fell into place just to start operate and find food and reproduce. The place allowed such thing to develop itself over a long period of time. It's chemistry, it's physics, it's biology, it's like water. Water isn't water because it has fell into place to be water, it's water because oxygen and hydrogen atoms were at the right place with the right conditions to hold themselves together making a water molecule. Why amino acids couldn't been in the right place to form proteins, why couldn't H, C, N and O atoms been in the right place to form a cytosine, which is part of DNA which one the few essential macromolecules for our life. Well it could as early Earth had perfect conditions for such things to happen. Macromolecules is basically made out of molecules which are made out of atoms which are made out of ... . It's about perfect place and perfect timing and our Universe laws which allows that to happen. We define life as something that exhibits metabolism, growth, homeostasis, reproduction etc. It's the life we know, the life we accept. Life isn't substance, it's just a process. We aren't something that have been thrown into the universe as a substance. We are the part of the universe. The part which took a long time to evolve into a process that we are today. The part that can comprehend itself. Which is conscious. We are no different from any other 'nonliving' material. What is exactly nonliving material? We are just process named Life. Our Earth is alive thinking that it is part of something bigger, The Big Electron. Haha George. Our Universe is alive. It operates, it creates and destroys, it evolves, it develops, it produces, it changes. It's a process just as we are. It is an alien life to us which operates differently then we do. Is there any life based on carbon as we are at some other planet? It is very likely that there is. Our life is based on atoms that are widely spread throughout all universe and extrasolar planets in habitable zone are being constantly found. So why not? Why same building blocks of our life with the same conditions can't do the same thing it did on Earth? Can those building blocks exist there, who knows, our scientists says that the comets bombarding early Earth delivered our ingredients of life, amino acids. Well who knows what's happening there, right? That's why we have science, to search, to find, to understand. There's a good chance that we are not alone, or there was someone before us, or there will be someone after us somewhere else than our Home. Is there any life based on different chemistry than we and is conscious as we are? Maybe, who knows. Rock golems. Tamagotchi, the very simple one. Maybe our Universe is conscious of itself as we are of ourselves? Maybe it just wobble in the vast, dark abyss or at some happier place like huge cannabis smoke lighting up a bong, knowing about galaxies, planets. Knowing about us, about its building blocks as we do about our cells, our building blocks. Maybe our Universe just floats stoned, eating munchies, thinking "is there anywhere somewhere elsewhere, other Universes like me" ...
     
  15. But again, not having any evidence for something does not show it's fact..

    Well we have only ever observed life coming from non-life, and never observed life coming from non-living matter.

    No, it is not fact because I came from a pre-existing lifeform, I did not form out of an unguided chemical soup, there were very precise steps going on to lead to my existence today.

    The fact that I am alive does not prove abiogenesis. It proves I came from pre-existing lifeforms, hence following the law of biogenesis.


    There are experiments showing life needs at the very least 250 genes to self sustain itself. Any less and any lifeform is not capable of living.

    Scientists Find Smallest Number Of Genes Needed For Organism's Survival


    There's a lot of 'most likely' and 'probably' when discussing the first lifeform.

    The simple fact of the matter is, we don't know. There is zero evidence in the fossil record of 'simple' unicellular organisms. And it's not that we have a lack of unicelluar fossils, there are tons of them. The problem is they're all as complex as the ones shown in the video.



    Oh, so you mean long ago and far away inorganic matter was once capable of doing something it cannot and has not shown to be possible today?

    Please cite a paper showing where we've proven this is possible.




    I did not see any experiments showing life coming from non-life, which is what abiogenesis claims, correct?

    Why do you believe ancient Earth is capable of doing something that isn't possible today?

    Even if you got all the necessary parts, what makes you believe they'll just fall into the precise design of a unicellular organism?

    Yes, my argument hinges on that fact that you cannot create life from non-living matter, because that is your claim and you have no evidence for it...

    I'm not using science against you because you have no science to show you can create life from non-living materials.

    Of course I cannot empirically prove how the first lifeform got here, no one was around to observe it therefore is not and cannot be direct science.
     
  16. #38 Carl Weathers, Aug 18, 2012
    Last edited: Aug 18, 2012
    Hey look everyone, its the exact same argument from about 3 months ago. Just so you know, dishin reg has already been exposed to the concept of ribozymes, abiogenesis and the plethora of detail to support evolution. I doubt he actually listens to you, or absorbs this information. Unfortunately, he will continue digging up the same argument until he is able to sit down and watch a piece of rock turn into a living and breathing organism. Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if he found a way to look at that as insufficient evidence too.

    I recommend just avoiding the frustration of trying to explain these concepts to him, as it will only lead to your time being wasted as he feels gratified by your inability to "show him" evolution.
     
  17. [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Dt1HE8NQoc]Through The Wormhole: How Did We Get Here? - YouTube[/ame]

    A recommended documentary. dishin rag you should really watch it. It gives a very clear picture whats happenned at the very beginning of life.
     
  18. We've proven all of the basic components of life existed, or could have been created, in the conditions of the ancient earth. The only evidence we don't have is the mechanism by which those components randomly came together to form life. But considering we have evidence of protocells, I don't think it's a stretch to say that abiogenesis is the most probable explanation for the origin of life. No, I cannot say that it is. However, I can hypothesize based on other evidence that it is.

    This whole debate started because you said we were better off searching for a god than for alien life. However, the evidence supporting the probability of alien life far exceeds that for a god.
     

Share This Page