Study: Simple Life Forms are Common throughout Universe

[shunyadragon]

From: Study: Simple Life Forms are Common throughout Universe | Astrobiology, Paleontology | Sci-News.com

A detailed analysis of 3.465-billion-year-old microbial microfossils provides evidence to support an increasingly widespread understanding that life in the Universe is common.


3.465-billion-year-old fossil microbes indicate that life in the Universe is common. Image credit: Reimund Bertrams.

Professor J. William Schopf from the University of California, Los Angeles, and his colleagues analyzed 11 specimens of 5 species of prokaryotic cellular microfossils from the Apex Basalt Formation, Pilbara Craton, Western Australia.

Two of the five species the researchers studied were primitive photosynthesizers, one was an Archaeal methane producer, and two others were methane consumers.

“The evidence that a diverse group of organisms had already evolved extremely early in the Earth’s history strengthens the case for life existing elsewhere in the Universe because it would be extremely unlikely that life formed quickly on Earth but did not arise anywhere else,” they said.

The study, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, is the most detailed ever conducted on microorganisms preserved in such ancient fossils.


A 3.465-billion-year-old fossil microorganism from Western Australia. Image credit: J. William Schopf / Center for the Study of Evolution and the Origin of Life, University of California, Los Angeles.

“By 3.465 billion years ago, life was already diverse on Earth; that’s clear — primitive photosynthesizers, methane producers, methane users,” Professor Schopf said.

“These are the first data that show the very diverse organisms at that time in Earth’s history, and our previous research has shown that there were sulfur users 3.4 billion years ago as well.”

“This tells us life had to have begun substantially earlier and it confirms that it was not difficult for primitive life to form and to evolve into more advanced microorganisms.”

“Scientists still do not know how much earlier life might have begun. But, if the conditions are right, it looks like life in the Universe should be widespread.”

 

[Rational Agnostic]

From: Study: Simple Life Forms are Common throughout Universe | Astrobiology, Paleontology | Sci-News.com

A detailed analysis of 3.465-billion-year-old microbial microfossils provides evidence to support an increasingly widespread understanding that life in the Universe is common.


3.465-billion-year-old fossil microbes indicate that life in the Universe is common. Image credit: Reimund Bertrams.

Professor J. William Schopf from the University of California, Los Angeles, and his colleagues analyzed 11 specimens of 5 species of prokaryotic cellular microfossils from the Apex Basalt Formation, Pilbara Craton, Western Australia.

Two of the five species the researchers studied were primitive photosynthesizers, one was an Archaeal methane producer, and two others were methane consumers.

“The evidence that a diverse group of organisms had already evolved extremely early in the Earth’s history strengthens the case for life existing elsewhere in the Universe because it would be extremely unlikely that life formed quickly on Earth but did not arise anywhere else,” they said.

The study, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, is the most detailed ever conducted on microorganisms preserved in such ancient fossils.


A 3.465-billion-year-old fossil microorganism from Western Australia. Image credit: J. William Schopf / Center for the Study of Evolution and the Origin of Life, University of California, Los Angeles.

“By 3.465 billion years ago, life was already diverse on Earth; that’s clear — primitive photosynthesizers, methane producers, methane users,” Professor Schopf said.

“These are the first data that show the very diverse organisms at that time in Earth’s history, and our previous research has shown that there were sulfur users 3.4 billion years ago as well.”

“This tells us life had to have begun substantially earlier and it confirms that it was not difficult for primitive life to form and to evolve into more advanced microorganisms.”

“Scientists still do not know how much earlier life might have begun. But, if the conditions are right, it looks like life in the Universe should be widespread.”

We really have no idea how common life is in the universe. A sample size of one planet (earth) is not large enough to make general inferences about the universe as a whole.

 

[David T]

From: Study: Simple Life Forms are Common throughout Universe | Astrobiology, Paleontology | Sci-News.com

A detailed analysis of 3.465-billion-year-old microbial microfossils provides evidence to support an increasingly widespread understanding that life in the Universe is common.


3.465-billion-year-old fossil microbes indicate that life in the Universe is common. Image credit: Reimund Bertrams.

Professor J. William Schopf from the University of California, Los Angeles, and his colleagues analyzed 11 specimens of 5 species of prokaryotic cellular microfossils from the Apex Basalt Formation, Pilbara Craton, Western Australia.

Two of the five species the researchers studied were primitive photosynthesizers, one was an Archaeal methane producer, and two others were methane consumers.

“The evidence that a diverse group of organisms had already evolved extremely early in the Earth’s history strengthens the case for life existing elsewhere in the Universe because it would be extremely unlikely that life formed quickly on Earth but did not arise anywhere else,” they said.

The study, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, is the most detailed ever conducted on microorganisms preserved in such ancient fossils.


A 3.465-billion-year-old fossil microorganism from Western Australia. Image credit: J. William Schopf / Center for the Study of Evolution and the Origin of Life, University of California, Los Angeles.

“By 3.465 billion years ago, life was already diverse on Earth; that’s clear — primitive photosynthesizers, methane producers, methane users,” Professor Schopf said.

“These are the first data that show the very diverse organisms at that time in Earth’s history, and our previous research has shown that there were sulfur users 3.4 billion years ago as well.”

“This tells us life had to have begun substantially earlier and it confirms that it was not difficult for primitive life to form and to evolve into more advanced microorganisms.”

“Scientists still do not know how much earlier life might have begun. But, if the conditions are right, it looks like life in the Universe should be widespread.”

Nice catch. In a sense we already know we aren't alone. Some seek intelligent life on other planet but the definition isn't clear and I see no real evidence of it actually existing!!!! Maybe it's a theory or hypothesis that it exists? I think it's pure speculation.

 

[Nous]

Some seek intelligent life on other planet but the definition isn't clear and I see no real evidence of it actually existing!!!!

Well, someone created the UFOs observed in the 1990-91 Belgian wave and the 2004 Campeche sightings, and it apparently wasn't humans: What Shall We Do about Radar-Confirmed UFOs? Just within the past week, new video from 2004 was released of a UFO whose maneuvers led the observer, 18-year Navy veteran, Commander David Fravor, to conclude "I think it was not from this world." Navy pilot recalls encounter with UFO: 'I think it was not from this world' Col. Stephen Ganyard, USMC (Ret.), said, "No aircraft that we know of can fly at those speeds, maneuver like that, and looks like that."

 

[Skwim]

The claim:

"Study: Simple Life Forms are Common throughout Universe"
​

The truth---not quite so sure:

"A detailed analysis of 3.465-billion-year-old microbial microfossils provides evidence to support an increasingly widespread understanding that life in the Universe is common.


Professor J. William Schopf from the University of California, Los Angeles, and his colleagues analyzed 11 specimens of 5 species of prokaryotic cellular microfossils from the Apex Basalt Formation, Pilbara Craton, Western Australia.

"The evidence that a diverse group of organisms had already evolved extremely early in the Earth’s history strengthens the case for life existing elsewhere in the Universe because it would be extremely unlikely that life formed quickly on Earth but did not arise anywhere else,” they said.

“Scientists still do not know how much earlier life might have begun. But, if the conditions are right, it looks like life in the Universe should be widespread.”

“While the study strongly suggests the presence of primitive life forms throughout the Universe, the presence of more advanced life is very possible but less certain,” he said.​

​

Ah, those pesky weasel words that spoil everything.

.

 

[shunyadragon]

The claim:

"Study: Simple Life Forms are Common throughout Universe"
​

The truth---not quite so sure:

"A detailed analysis of 3.465-billion-year-old microbial microfossils provides evidence to support an increasingly widespread understanding that life in the Universe is common.


Professor J. William Schopf from the University of California, Los Angeles, and his colleagues analyzed 11 specimens of 5 species of prokaryotic cellular microfossils from the Apex Basalt Formation, Pilbara Craton, Western Australia.

"The evidence that a diverse group of organisms had already evolved extremely early in the Earth’s history strengthens the case for life existing elsewhere in the Universe because it would be extremely unlikely that life formed quickly on Earth but did not arise anywhere else,” they said.

“Scientists still do not know how much earlier life might have begun. But, if the conditions are right, it looks like life in the Universe should be widespread.”

“While the study strongly suggests the presence of primitive life forms throughout the Universe, the presence of more advanced life is very possible but less certain,” he said.​

Ah, those pesky weasel words that spoil everything.

.

Actually the article is a bit superficial and for opening discussion here. The real basis for this conclusion is the advances in abiogenesis, geochemistry, biochemistry and the environment that primitive life form arise in. Also, our knowledge of the environments of the planets outside our solar system, and possible moons in our solar system indicate that the environment where early life formed on the early earth is common in our universe. It is obvious that by far most planets and our moon are not suitable for the evolution of life beyond simple life forms.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Well, someone created the UFOs observed in the 1990-91 Belgian wave and the 2004 Campeche sightings, and it apparently wasn't humans: What Shall We Do about Radar-Confirmed UFOs? Just within the past week, new video from 2004 was released of a UFO whose maneuvers led the observer, 18-year Navy veteran, Commander David Fravor, to conclude "I think it was not from this world." Navy pilot recalls encounter with UFO: 'I think it was not from this world' Col. Stephen Ganyard, USMC (Ret.), said, "No aircraft that we know of can fly at those speeds, maneuver like that, and looks like that."

 

[David T]

Well, someone created the UFOs observed in the 1990-91 Belgian wave and the 2004 Campeche sightings, and it apparently wasn't humans: What Shall We Do about Radar-Confirmed UFOs? Just within the past week, new video from 2004 was released of a UFO whose maneuvers led the observer, 18-year Navy veteran, Commander David Fravor, to conclude "I think it was not from this world." Navy pilot recalls encounter with UFO: 'I think it was not from this world' Col. Stephen Ganyard, USMC (Ret.), said, "No aircraft that we know of can fly at those speeds, maneuver like that, and looks like that."

Just tourists lost!!! Lol

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Nobody has the faintest idea how life was able to come into being on Earth, we'd have to at least have some idea of the mechanism before we could start making any guesses about 'abiogenesis' on other planets..

But we do have some basis for understanding how special Earth is as a habitat for complex- let alone intelligent life, this existing elsewhere is looking extremely improbable- even given abiogenesis

 

[shunyadragon]

Nobody has the faintest idea how life was able to come into being on Earth, we'd have to at least have some idea of the mechanism before we could start making any guesses about 'abiogenesis' on other planets..

But we do have some basis for understanding how special Earth is as a habitat for complex- let alone intelligent life, this existing elsewhere is looking extremely improbable- even given abiogenesis

You need to read up on the advances in geochemistry and biochemistry concerning abiogenesis. There is continuing research that is making advances in these fields. Yes, we have considerable understanding concerning how the first life forms developed on earth. Of course, we do not have all the knowledge, and there are unanswered questions. to complete the models of the the different ways the first life developed, but that is the way of all science.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

You need to read up on the advances in geochemistry and biochemistry concerning abiogenesis. There is continuing research that is making advances in these fields. Yes, we have considerable understanding concerning how the first life forms developed on earth. Of course, we do not have all the knowledge to complete the models of the the different ways the first life developed, but that is the way of all science.

Likewise! You'll find it's those advances that have highlighted the problem.

Back in Darwin's time, cells were thought to be relatively simple blobs of protoplasm that could be explained by simple chemical/physical processes- long before we had any knowledge of DNA, proteins

now trying to explain biology by mere chemical/physical processes is understood to be a little naive, a bit like trying to account for War and Peace using only the chemistry of paper and ink.

 

[shunyadragon]

Likewise! You'll find it's those advances that have highlighted the problem.

Back in Darwin's time, cells were thought to be relatively simple blobs of protoplasm that could be explained by simple chemical/physical processes- long before we had any knowledge of DNA, proteins

now trying to explain biology by mere chemical/physical processes is understood to be a little naive, a bit like trying to account for War and Peace using only the chemistry of paper and ink.

No substance here, and your your mention of Charles Darwin is only relevant to the history of the science of evolution, and not the substance of today's science.
Obfuscation with phony arguing from ignorance from a religious agenda bold above. 'Mere chemical and biological processes? and a bit like trying to account for War and Peace using only the chemistry of paper and ink.' ah, very revealing. There is nothing in nature by the present evidence that has any other explanation than natural law. I hear this same argument against natural evolution, from the perspective of a religious agenda, and it stinks!!!

Despite your unfounded assertions there is an adequate explanation for abiogenesis as a result of natural process.

One comment here concerning the article is the earliest known primitive life forms correspond to extreme environmental conditions like those present at mid-ocean vents. At present the energy of these extremely host areas and there geochemistry corresponds to the energy and chemisty needed for the formation of the first life forms.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Obfuscation with phony arguing from ignorance from a religious agenda bold above. 'Mere chemical and biological processes?' ah, very revealing. There is nothing in nature by the present evidence that has any other explanation than natural law

Insults only betray the emotional component of your position. For the record, you sound to me like a perfectly rational, intelligent person, capable of critical thought

so back to the substance; you understand why chemical and physical processes cannot explain War and Peace, they merely describe the medium for carrying the information- this is not a religious argument, just a logical one

Just as silicone, plastic, copper etc cannot account for the information and hence the function of your computer motherboard, that's not a religious argument either


The machine code of the genes is uncannily computer-like. Apart from differences in jargon, the pages of a molecular biology journal might be interchanged with those of a computer engineering journal

we only have one scientifically validated origin for such information systems, and that's creative intelligence.
This is not to say that entirely natural explanations are technically impossible, we just have no knowledge of any

 

[shunyadragon]

we only have one scientifically validated origin for such information systems, and that's creative intelligence.

Please explain, because we have not 'scientifically validated origin for such information systems, and that's creative intelligence.'

This is not to say that entirely natural explanations are technically impossible, we just have no knowledge of any

The whole of science including the science of abiogenesis and evolution has confirmed that there is no other explanation possible based on the evidence.

Your assertions need explanations, particularly the bold above. So far you have presented nothing of substance.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Please explain, because we have not 'scientifically validated origin for such information systems, and that's creative intelligence.'

we only have one verified origin of uncannily computer like machine code- and you are using substantive, empirical proof of it right now, unless you think this software also spontaneously wrote itself for no particular reason?

The whole of science including the science of abiogenesis and evolution has confirmed that there is no other explanation possible based on the evidence.

no other explanation other than what? blind chance? even most microbiologists have given up on that these days- how the information got there is a complete mystery, no way aorund that

we have no explanation for the origin of DNA, the closest thing we know of is computer machine code, and of course I think creative intelligence is the least improbable explanation, but I am rather less dogmatic in my belief than you are in yours, I don't have to rule natural causes out entirely

 

[Whitestone]

As Christ, who is the author of Life, is Omnipresent, it wouldn't be surprising that biology exists elsewhere in the universe. Undersea volcanic vents, I imagine are quite common. If God needs to directly seed them by His Specific Word for microbes to exist elsewhere, or having already designed the environment for ninth configuration protein molecules to spontaneously come in to existence, none of us know. And none of it matters because our Life doesn't depend on knowing that. One day I will know that perfectly. For now, I tell others about accepting Christ's free gift to join Him in Eternity, the only real honorable sure path to know all things in Eternity, including this minor curiosity.

 

[shunyadragon]

we only have one verified origin of uncannily computer like machine code- and you are using substantive, empirical proof of it right now, unless you think this software also spontaneously wrote itself for no particular reason?

No uncanny like machine code is known?!?!?! This is more bizzaro to say the least than your last science fiction assertion.

Again . . .

Where is the 'scientifically validated origin for such information systems, and that's creative intelligence.'

Still waiting fro scientific references to support this . . .

. . . no other explanation other than what? blind chance? even most microbiologists have given up on that these days- how the information got there is a complete mystery, no way around that.
we have no explanation for the origin of DNA, the closest thing we know of is computer machine code, and of course I think creative intelligence is the least improbable explanation, but I am rather less dogmatic in my belief than you are in yours, I don't have to rule natural causes out entirely

Nothing in the natural course of the nature of our physical existence is possibly caused by 'blind chance.' The only causes in whole of the scientific evidence in all sciences are Natural Laws.

We do have an explanation for the evolution of DNA.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

No uncanny like machine code is known?!?!?! This is more bizzaro to say the least than your last science fiction assertion.

Again . . .

Where is the 'scientifically validated origin for such information systems, and that's creative intelligence.'

Still waiting fro scientific references to support this . . .

Sorry I forgot to attribute the quote:

"The machine code of the genes is uncannily computer-like. Apart from differences in jargon, the pages of a molecular biology journal might be interchanged with those of a computer engineering journal."
Richard Dawkins (Well known science fiction author)

Nothing in the natural course of the nature of our physical existence is possibly caused by 'blind chance.' The only causes in whole of the scientific evidence in all sciences are Natural Laws.

Actually.. entirely random, blind chance, mutation is explicitly the primary driver of variation according to the theory.

We do have an explanation for the evolution of DNA.

Really?!

Okay give it your best shot- this should be good!

 

[shunyadragon]

Sorry I forgot to attribute the quote:

"The machine code of the genes is uncannily computer-like. Apart from differences in jargon, the pages of a molecular biology journal might be interchanged with those of a computer engineering journal."
Richard Dawkins (Well known science fiction author)

Richard Dawkins is not citing science, his statement is anecdotal, and what he is oddly describing means nothing equating your claim of 'Creative Intelligence, You unethically added, 'verified origin,' to Dawkins quote, which does not reflect Dawkins. Science fiction. No uncanny computer like code has been observed in nature. Actually our binary computer code is rather primitive compared to nature.

Again . . .

Where is the 'scientifically validated origin for such information systems, and that's creative intelligence.'

Still waiting . . .

Actually.. entirely random, blind chance, mutation is explicitly the primary driver of variation according to the theory.

Actually no randomness and blind chance is not observed to cause anything in nature, The primary driver of the genetics of life is Natural Law. The observed variation in our macro world is fractal (chaos theory), and it is not causal factor not driver in the process,

Really?!

Okay give it your best shot- this should be good!

Do your own homework. I do not spoon feed. You have not gotten it right how math applies in evolution and genetics, how could you remotely understand the science behind DNA?

Again . . .

Where is the 'scientifically validated origin for such information systems, and that's creative intelligence.'

Still waiting . . .

 

[Nous]

View attachment 19874​

I find it quite amazing and amusing that some people have an anti-extraterrestrial religion. I don't get it.

I'd say all category D UFOs that are radar/visual incidents should be taken seriously and give us pause for at least wonderment.

The UFO observed by Commander Fravor (et al.) was apparently a Category D radar/visual incident. The witnesses had their eyes on and radar contact with an object that maneuvered in ways that are not possible for any human aircraft.

Fravor reports further details here: Former Navy pilot describes UFO encounter

And additional video of the object can be found here: Former Navy pilot: UFO 'something I had never seen in my life' - CNN