Intelligent life on other planets only "looks extremely improbable" as long as one keeps one's eyes closed.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Study: Simple Life Forms are Common throughout Universe
- Thread starter shunyadragon
- Start date
Kangaroo Feathers
Yea, it is written in the Book of Cyril...
I have no doubt there are extraterrestrials "out there". I don't believe that necessarily means that every unexplained siting or radar artefact is an alien, nor that
"Simple Life Forms are Common throughout Universe".
Kangaroo Feathers
Yea, it is written in the Book of Cyril...
TYhere's plenty of likely Earth like planets we've discovered already, plus you are assuming that complex life inherently requires Earth like conditions. The short version is, we can't really tell what's probable or not based on a sample size of one.
Guy Threepwood
Mighty Pirate
ahh, so scientifically he meant the exact opposite?!
when he says that DNA is uncannily computer like- he really means DNA is NOT AT ALL computer like?
We agree on something then, our code is primitive compared with DNA. DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software ever created
and you're still using one
And now you're arguing with not only Dawkins but Berkeley and the majority of mainstream evolutionary science
Genetic variation
Without genetic variation, some of the basic mechanisms of evolutionary change cannot operate.
There are three primary sources of genetic variation, which we will learn more about:
- Mutations are changes in the DNA. A single mutation can have a large effect, but in many cases, evolutionary change is based on the accumulation of many mutations.
Mutation is a change in DNA, the hereditary material of life. An organism's DNA affects how it looks, how it behaves, and its physiology — all aspects of its life. So a change in an organism's DNA can cause changes in all aspects of its life.
Mutations are random
Mutations can be beneficial, neutral, or harmful for the organism, but mutations do not "try" to supply what the organism "needs." In this respect, mutations are random — whether a particular mutation happens or not is unrelated to how useful that mutation would be.
Mutation, Not Natural Selection, Drives Evolution | DiscoverMagazine.com
Like many things, everything arguably.. it comes down to the cold hard math, the only truly objective measure. What you have is a nested hierarchy of information systems, which is also what you are using right now, whether or not you recognize it. And we only know one proven source for this. Again that is not to say that DNA was not created by some infinite probability machine (flying spaghetti multiverse) that is, by design, impossible to disprove, but it makes no difference to the inherent structure and function of such systems which are not compatible with Darwinism. This was something not understood at all in the age the theory was developed. Darwinism made perfect sense in a classical Victorian model of reality, and still does from that superficial perspective
cmon, you sound like a smart fella, the penny still hasn't dropped yet?
Last edited:
Guy Threepwood
Mighty Pirate
That is using 'Earthlike' in the loosest possible sense! often as click bait on pop science sites.. we know of nothing remotely like Earth, in fact we are learning how extraordinary special Earth is
One of the most sensational 'discoveries' you may remember was Gliese 581g- remotely calculated to be sort of earth sized in sort of the habitable zone, but turned out not to exist at all..
'life Jim but not as we know it' is a great premise for science fiction, but in reality, yes, we have good reasons to expect that extremely Earth-like conditions are required for complex life
Even on Earth, we have environments that cannot support very complex life, being just slightly off- and that's being surrounded by complex life that cannot adapt to the conditions, far less arise there in the first place
ahh, so scientifically he meant the exact opposite?!
We agree on something then, our code is primitive compared with DNA. DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software ever created
and you're still using one
Now your arguing with Berkeley and the majority of mainstream evolutionary science
Genetic variation
Without genetic variation, some of the basic mechanisms of evolutionary change cannot operate.
There are three primary sources of genetic variation, which we will learn more about:
- Mutations are changes in the DNA. A single mutation can have a large effect, but in many cases, evolutionary change is based on the accumulation of many mutations.
Mutation is a change in DNA, the hereditary material of life. An organism's DNA affects how it looks, how it behaves, and its physiology — all aspects of its life. So a change in an organism's DNA can cause changes in all aspects of its life.
Mutations are random
Mutations can be beneficial, neutral, or harmful for the organism, but mutations do not "try" to supply what the organism "needs." In this respect, mutations are random — whether a particular mutation happens or not is unrelated to how useful that mutation would be.
Mutation, Not Natural Selection, Drives Evolution | DiscoverMagazine.com
Like many things, everything arguably.. it comes down to the cold hard math, the only truly objective measure. What you have is a nested hierarchy of information systems, which is also what you are using right now, whether or not you recognize it. And we only know one proven source for this. Again that is not to say that DNA was not created by some infinite probability machine (flying spaghetti multiverse) that is, by design, impossible to disprove, but it makes no difference to the inherent structure and function of such systems which are not compatible with Darwinism. This was something not understood at all in the age the theory was developed. Darwinism made perfect sense in a classical Victorian model of reality, and still does from that superficial perspective
see above
The above does not remotely justify your assertion, First it does not describe randomness (?) as a driving force, nor does it justify the assertion of 'verified origin.' Source of variation is not a driving force, which is 'Natural Law.'
'scientifically validated origin for such information systems, and that's creative intelligence.'
Your obviously advocating an 'Intelligent Design' Theological argument for which there is no scientific basis.
Nothing in your references refer to 'verified origin nor creative intelligence,' These are the issues, put up or shut up!
Still waiting . . .
Last edited:
ahh, so scientifically he meant the exact opposite?!
when he says that DNA is uncannily computer like- he really means DNA is NOT AT ALL computer like?
We agree on something then, our code is primitive compared with DNA. DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software ever created
and you're still using one
And now you're arguing with not only Dawkins but Berkeley and the majority of mainstream evolutionary science
Genetic variation
Without genetic variation, some of the basic mechanisms of evolutionary change cannot operate.
There are three primary sources of genetic variation, which we will learn more about:
- Mutations are changes in the DNA. A single mutation can have a large effect, but in many cases, evolutionary change is based on the accumulation of many mutations.
Mutation is a change in DNA, the hereditary material of life. An organism's DNA affects how it looks, how it behaves, and its physiology — all aspects of its life. So a change in an organism's DNA can cause changes in all aspects of its life.
Mutations are random
Mutations can be beneficial, neutral, or harmful for the organism, but mutations do not "try" to supply what the organism "needs." In this respect, mutations are random — whether a particular mutation happens or not is unrelated to how useful that mutation would be.
Mutation, Not Natural Selection, Drives Evolution | DiscoverMagazine.com
Like many things, everything arguably.. it comes down to the cold hard math, the only truly objective measure. What you have is a nested hierarchy of information systems, which is also what you are using right now, whether or not you recognize it. And we only know one proven source for this. Again that is not to say that DNA was not created by some infinite probability machine (flying spaghetti multiverse) that is, by design, impossible to disprove, but it makes no difference to the inherent structure and function of such systems which are not compatible with Darwinism. This was something not understood at all in the age the theory was developed. Darwinism made perfect sense in a classical Victorian model of reality, and still does from that superficial perspective
cmon, you sound like a smart fella, the penny still hasn't dropped yet?
Older views of Darwinism do not reflect nor can they be compared to the contemporary Science of Evolution nor abiogenesis.
Infinite probability machine?!?!?! How bizzaro.
'scientifically validated origin for such information systems, and that's creative intelligence.'
Your obviously advocating an 'Intelligent Design' Theological argument for which there is no scientific basis.
Nothing in your references refer to 'verified origin nor creative intelligence,' These are the issues, put up or shut up!
Still waiting . . .
Obviously no one here suggested that "every unexplained siting or radar artefact is an alien". Right?
How do you explain what Commander Fravor (et al.) saw with their eyes, detected on radar and recorded?
I suppose one could object to the claim that "simple life forms are common throughout the universe" on the basis of the meaning of "common". But, other than that, why should simple life forms be uncommon in the universe?
Kangaroo Feathers
Yea, it is written in the Book of Cyril...
I don't pretend to be able to explain it. But "I can't explain it" does not automatically mean "aliens".
Why should they be common? Again, the issue is making probabilistic claims based on a sample size of one.
I, personally, believe that life is probably fairly common throughout the universe, at least simple life. But there's a big difference between making claims based on belief about probability, and claiming things as factual, as in "study says thing X is a fact".
Obviously there is nothing irrational in concluding that a flying object that is seen with the eyes of multiple credible witnesses as well as detected on radar, and that exhibits behavior that cannot be achieved by any human technology, and is not a natural phenomenon, is of extraterrestrial origin.
I've done basically zero research on this issue, but offhand it seems to me there are numerous reasons by which to conclude that life has probably arisen in many places in the universe. Among these reasons: the sheer number of solar systems with rocky planets in the Goldilocks zone (in the Milky Way alone, it has been estimated that there are about 11 billion stars like the sun with planets in the habitable zone: Milky Way may host billions of Earth-size planets); the apparent frequency of formation of water (The Solar System and Beyond is Awash in Water ); the ubiquity of the elements involved in the formation of life as we know it; the prevalence of and ease with which amino acids assemble (https://phys.org/news/2010-12-blocks-life-impossible.html ); the ease with which peptides form (https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/09/170905093604.htm ; Sublimation of ices of astrophysical interest: A bibliographic review - ScienceDirect ); the fact that at least one complex organic molecule (glycolaldehyde) involved in synthesis of RNA is able to form in the gas surrounding stellar systems, even before planets condense (Sugar Found In Space: A Sign of Life? ); the rapidness in which life on earth began; the diversity of types organisms that formed (including in oxygen-free environments, as the organisms noted in the OP article).
And I must admit that in addition to those facts is my own philosophical bias against the idea that life on earth was some improbable accident. It's the idea that if you put a billion monkeys in front of typewriters, eventually one will produce Macbeth. I find that unconvincing. I am much more congenial to idea that the laws and systems of the universe have an inherent tendency toward producing life. I.e., that life will arise when the conditions are right, and the right conditions are not highly specialized nor uncommon.
Kangaroo Feathers
Yea, it is written in the Book of Cyril...
Begging the question. How do we know it's not a natural phenomena? How do we know it cannot be achieved by human technology?
As long as we're talking about what is "probable", I fully agree.
Did you not watch any of the videos or read the articles I linked to? Two of those who observed it commented that that it was moving against a 120-knot wind. Commander Fravor noted that it began mirroring his own movements, circumscribing a circle. He also noted that it hovered over the water. Those are not the behaviors of a natural phenomenon.
Cmdr. Fravor noted that it hovered over the water but produced "no rotor wash in the water." It had no wings, yet its lateral movements were radically unlike the movements of a helicopter. Rather, it's movements were "extremely abrupt, like a ping pong ball bouncing off the wall. It would hit and go the other way.” Its “ability to hover over water, then start a vertical climb from basically zero to 12,000 feet, then accelerate in less than 2 seconds and disappear, is something I've never seen in my life.” Col. Stephen Ganyard said, "No aircraft that we know of can fly at those speeds, maneuver like that, and looks like that."
Kangaroo Feathers
Yea, it is written in the Book of Cyril...
Not a known own one, possibly. But even so, there's a huge leap from "appears not to be a known natural phenomena" to "alien intelligence"
And they're entitled to their opinion, of course. You are, however, presupposing two things, 1. either of the observers was in a position to make accurate observations about the object, and for all sorts of reasons, eye witnesses are notoriously unreliable. Personal anecdote, but I'm something of an expert on armoured vehicles. I can say with reasonable certainty that I can identify by sight any armoured vehicle in regular use by any military up to 10 years ago. But on one particular occasion, because of a confluence of factors, a ray of light passed through a certain pattern of leaves and struck a vehicle I was observing in such a way that I completely misidentified it. And not just misidentified, but was absolutely certain I was looking at something other than what I was looking at. Like, would have sworn in court I was looking at something I wasn't looking at. When I moved literally half a meter to one side, it became obvious that I was mistaken, and looking at something completely different. The problem wasn't my expertise, nor my bonafides as a reliable witness, the issue was numerous other factors beyond my control of which I was not aware at the time. It happens. Mistaken identification happens often, even with trained observers, differences in light, angle, atmospherics, all sorts of things can affect observations. I'm not saying this is what happened in the cited case, but again, which seems more likely? Alien spaceship, or observer error?
2. Your second assumption is that the witnesses are familiar with every type of aerial vehicle in the catalogue, and the characteristics of such.
Sorry. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I'm yet to see any that the UFO we're discussing is extra terrestrial.
Show us that a human-made aircraft can exhibit the behavior of the UFO that Cmdr. Fravor documented.
What's an "extraordinary claim"? If you claim that I have made one, quote it and demonstrate its extraordinariness.
Given that the facts unequivocally eliminate the UFO as either a natural phenomenon or a craft produced by human technology, what other options are left?
It is not irrational to conclude that an UFO whose behavior excludes it as either a natural phenomenon or human technology is an alien aircraft. Correct?
Kangaroo Feathers
Yea, it is written in the Book of Cyril...
I'm not the one making the claim. The burden of proof isn't on me.
Except the facts don't unequivocally eliminate the UFO as natural phenomena or human made, as explained. That's begging the question.
The basic problem with any study like this is that we have a sample size of one. We look at the Earth and attempt to determine what the relevant variables are for the development of life and then look and see how common those variables are in the universe.
And I agree. based on what we know about life and its chemistry and the distribution of various molecules in the universe, I would be *shocked* if the Earth is the only planet with life on it. But, at this point, we do not *know* that there is other life out there. Finding another planet with an atmosphere high in oxygen would be a wonderful first step!
And I agree. based on what we know about life and its chemistry and the distribution of various molecules in the universe, I would be *shocked* if the Earth is the only planet with life on it. But, at this point, we do not *know* that there is other life out there. Finding another planet with an atmosphere high in oxygen would be a wonderful first step!
We have specific evidence of water on planets, and at least one with an atmosphere.
From: There’s an ‘Earth-like’ planet with an atmosphere just 39 light-years away
There’s an ‘Earth-like’ planet with an atmosphere just 39 light-years away
By Sarah Kaplan April 7, 2017
Astronomical Journal, is the first detection of an atmosphere around a terrestrial “Earth-like” planet orbiting a red dwarf star — and it suggests there could be millions more.
Although the researchers call the planet “Earth-like,” the term is only applicable in its broadest sense. GJ 1132b is so close to its sun that it more likely resembles Venus than Earth. Astronomers estimate its average temperature to be about 700 degrees Fahrenheit, and that's without taking into account the potential greenhouse effect of its atmosphere. It is also probably tidally locked, meaning that gravity keeps one side of the planet constantly facing the star, while the other is cast in permanent shadow. GJ 1132b would not make a cozy home for life — at least, not life as we know it.
[Scientists discover 7 'Earthlike' planets orbiting a nearby star]
But the presence of an atmosphere around the exoplanet could have consequences in the search for life on worlds beyond our own, according to lead author John Southworth, an astrophysicist at Keele University in the United Kingdom. Red dwarfs like the one GJ 1132b orbits are the most abundant type of star in the universe, and exoplanet surveys suggest that terrestrial planets around them are also common. If one of them has an atmosphere, then why not more?
“It shows that the huge number of planets in the universe which are like this could have atmospheres themselves and maybe life,” Southworth said.
ahh, so scientifically he meant the exact opposite?!
when he says that DNA is uncannily computer like- he really means DNA is NOT AT ALL computer like?
Dawkins was referring to Natural Laws that resulted in the natural origins, evolution of life including DNA, and not specifically DNA. I have already acknowledged the humans have 'Intelligently Designed' all the technology through history from the flint ax to the computer. There is no evidence of anything 'Intelligently Designed' beyond human intelligence.
There is absolutely no evidence of Intelligent Design beyond that which is a result of human intelligence.
Guy Threepwood
Mighty Pirate
That's his belief, we all believe in something, as long as we acknowledge those beliefs/faith as such, we can all be friends! The problems start when somebody claims their belief is 'undeniable scientifically proven truth'- anyone with a different belief is now deemed inherently intellectually inferior- that's where the problems always start is it not?
We only have one proven method by which 'uncannily computer like' code can be created, and it's through creative intelligence.
That doesn't mean fluke is impossible, we just don't have such clear evidence supporting that claim- so it is the more extraordinary of the two
You could argue that with some of the the 'wow' signal people at Ohio State
But we are made in his image, and even many atheist cosmologists note how remarkable it is, that the universe so lends itself to our understanding.
So yes, in one sense we can call the intelligence that designed you and I 'human' in nature- The' wise woman of Google' is not strictly human either, but represents human intelligence in a collective form.. which can be shared simultaneously among billions-- proving the principle of something that was considered inherently supernatural and 'religious pseudoscience' not so long ago!