"empty" space

[soot]

How do you know it only happened once? Might be it started and failed to take root a few times before things finally took off. Could have started and failed millions of times for all we know.

Right. And worked once. Then stopped for good.

Sorta like God making appearances. As soon as we evolved to the point that we could keep accurate records of his appearance he stopped appearing.

Curious.

Look, I don't ENTIRELY discount the possibility. Sorta like with the God issue, if I can't see evidence that He DOESN'T exist or that it ISN'T possible I'm not going to entirely close the book on it out of hand.

But I think it's a lot of wishful thinking in either respect.

 

[marduc]

If life is so prolific, why is it that on the one place we KNOW is suitable for life to arise it's only happened once?

So we have a sample size of 1 out of a hundred billion and we should shut down inquiry on the matter and declare the case closed? Science is driven by answering unanswered questions, and one of the biggest unanswered questions out there is "are we alone". Even if it is not prolific the likelihood that there is life somewhere other than here is very very strong.

 

[marduc]

Right. And worked once. Then stopped for good.

Sorta like God making appearances. As soon as we evolved to the point that we could keep accurate records of his appearance he stopped appearing.

Curious.

Once life was established once, new more primitive lifeforms would not be able to compete with the already established population. Even if life arose more than once here on earth (and we cannot discount that it might have) - any latecomers to the party would be out-competed by the established lifeforms and would be doomed to failure.

 

[shagg]

Right. And worked once. Then stopped for good.

Sorta like God making appearances. As soon as we evolved to the point that we could keep accurate records of his appearance he stopped appearing.

Curious.

Look, I don't ENTIRELY discount the possibility. Sorta like with the God issue, if I can't see evidence that He DOESN'T exist or that it ISN'T possible I'm not going to entirely close the book on it out of hand.

But I think it's a lot of wishful thinking in either respect.

or.... more like once life took root and flourished, there was no more opportunity for abiogenisis on earth, by definition. How do you know it stopped for good? Could be that new life is constantly popping up spontaneously here on earth, but with competing organisms that have already evolved to flourish in the current environment, the new organisms are hopelessly outgunned and just provide a curious snack to veteran life forms.

 

[soot]

Once life was established once, new more primitive lifeforms would not be able to compete with the already established population. Even if life arose more than once here on earth (and we cannot discount that it might have) - any latecomers to the party would be out-competed by the established lifeforms and would be doomed to failure.

So, for instance, Gazelles wouldn't be able to compete with Lions and would therefore be driven to extinction.

That's a sound theory.

 

[marduc]

So, for instance, Gazelles wouldn't be able to compete with Lions and would therefore be driven to extinction.

That's a sound theory.

ummm no. That would require gazelles to pop into existence fully formed. It is more like a proto-cell would not be able to compete with bacteria and viruses which have alreday developed advanced features such as cilia for locomotion, or a permeable membrane for osmoregulation, or intake of nutrients. These established lifeforms would already have well honed components which drastically increase their survival rate, while new comers would be incredibly simple. As an example, a lifeform with even the most simplistic means of locomotion can pick off an immobile newcomer with zero challenge, while the newcomer would be entirely defenseless.

edit: your attempt at an appeal to ridicule fails on one important aspect (aside from no new lifeform would ever emerge with the complexity of a gazelle).. lions and gazelles have been co-evolving alongside one another. It is a cat and mouse game where the offense and the defense of both species have been driven through competition. A new lifeform would not have the developed escape mechanisms that a gazelle possesses. A loose analogy would be that a pop-warner football team of 6 year old kids that had put pads on for the very first time would never be able to compete with a pro football team.

 

[Fenton]

I already explained it, sans insults. I
wondered whether the post was for real, or simply a misunderstood joke.

WASN'T talking to YOU.

I was simply responding to a generic insult made about the ideology I follow by a different poster.

 

[Dittohead not!]

WASN'T talking to YOU.

Tough. I'll respond when I feel like responding. You don't have private conversations on a public board, not unless you want to PM the guy.

I was simply responding to a generic insult made about the ideology I follow by a different poster.

and you do that by bringing up stuff like:

Whats wrong ? That Atlanta public education didn't pay off ?

Scientific notation a bit too abstract for your liberal brain ?

Its funny to hear libs come down on Conservatives for being stupid as they expose just how unknowledgable they are about.....well everything.

WTF do liberal and conservative have to do with scientific notation?

 

[Fenton]

Tough. I'll respond when I feel like responding. You don't
have private conversations on a public board, not unless you want to PM the guy.



and you do that by bringing up stuff like:



WTF do liberal and conservative have to do with scientific notation?

Nosey aren't you ?

Don't mind interjecting yourself when your opinion is not warranted ?

Tell me, what does being a CONSERVATIVE have to do with being scientifically ignorant ?

Because thats what I was addressing and yes, I did it in my own contentious style.

He was and IS a Liberal, and he didn't recognize scientific notation, WHILE he was making broad brush assrtions about Conservatives.

You don't like my rebut ? TOUGH.

 

[Dittohead not!]

Nosey aren't you ?

Don't mind interjecting yourself when your opinion is not warranted ?

Nope, not at all. why else would I be posting here?

Tell me, what does being a CONSERVATIVE have to do with being scientifically ignorant ?

I dunno... you're the one who brought up conservative and liberal, not me. I just explained what scientific notation was all about without engaging in some kindergarten level personal attacks and bringing up irrelevant points.

Because thats what I was addressing and yes, I did it in my own contentious style.

Yes, you did, and what a good job you did of being contentious.

He was and IS a Liberal, and he didn't recognize scientific notation, WHILE he was making broad brush assrtions about Conservatives.

You don't like my rebut ? TOUGH.

I loved it. I thought it showed off just how silly your arguments really are.

Now, what was this thread really about again? Conservatives.. no.. Liberals... no again... you... certainly not.. Oh, yes, I remember, it was about the incredible numbers of stars that actually exist in the known universe.

Quite amazing, isn't it?

 

[Fenton]

Nope, not at all. why else would I be posting here?




I dunno... you're the one who brought up conservative and liberal, not me. I just explained what scientific notation was all about without engaging in some kindergarten level personal attacks and bringing up irrelevant points.



Yes, you did, and what a good job you did of being contentious.




I loved it. I thought it showed off just how silly your arguments really are.

Now, what was this thread really about again? Conservatives.. no.. Liberals... no again... you... certainly not.. Oh, yes, I remember, it was about the incredible numbers of stars that actually exist in the known universe.

Quite amazing, isn't it?

I brought up " Conservative Liberals" to the poster named "Atlanta Adonis ", not you.

You interjected and made an ass out of yourself.

Savy ?

 

[Fenton]

Fun Fact, Molecularly, we're no more than ten years old at any given time.

 

[Threegoofs]

Fun Fact, Molecularly, we're no more than ten years old at any given time.

(citation needed)

 

[douglas]

How do people find something to fight about in ANY thread. Seriously, it's ridiculous.

 

[shlunka]

No, that's not it, but your conclusion is still valid. With more suns than grains of sand on the beach, somewhere there must be other intelligent life.

Maybe it's watching us as we post.


Perhaps they are watching us much like Dianne Fossey watched gorillas, and that other lady whose name escapes me just now watched chimps.

Er, Jane Goodall?

 

[shlunka]

Yes, there are quite a few planets. But, there is really no way to quantify the probability of life forming "don't give me the, But the Fermi paradox says!". It could be 1 in 10^5 suns, which would make life abound in the cosmos. It could be 1 in 10^50, and we're simply a bizarre accident "my math examples there are certainly considerably conservative/extreme, just using them as an example."

 

[Dittohead not!]

Er, Jane Goodall?

Yes, that's her.

 

[Fenton]

(citation needed)

Really ??

 

[DDD]

Just a small rise in CO2 on the order of 2% could make their air unbreathable and I sincerely doubt we'll ever develope the warp drive technology to reach one.

Too much CO2 and Sun rays and you are talking about photosynthesis plant heaven. Warp technology aside there are ways with today's "primitive" technology to get there too.

In Discovery I saw frozen reproductive cells sent to those planets and taken care of from artificial wombs and robotic nun. Far fetched but there is hope.

 

[Threegoofs]

Really ??

Yeah, really. Ten years old molecularly? That doesn't sound right to me. I'd be interested to see the source.

I suppose if you include water, which is two thirds, then we'd be mech younger molecularly....but in terms of dry matter, I'd be hard pressed to believe there is that much turnover.

 

[Fenton]

Yeah, really. Ten years old molecularly?
That doesn't sound right to me. I'd be interested to see the source.

I suppose if you include water, which is two thirds, then we'd be mech younger molecularly....but in terms of dry matter, I'd be hard pressed to believe there is that much turnover.

I just revisted the issue and let me make a small clarification.

Its based on a cellular level as old cells die off and are regenerated.

 

[USViking]

Here is a good article on cellular turnover:

Your Body Is Younger Than You Think

Many surface cells have life expectancies of a few days, while some interior cells may live over 15 years. The only cells now thought to last throughout life are most brain cells.

The next question is how many molecules survive in the body after expiration of the cells they are part of.

 

[Threegoofs]

Here is a good article on cellular turnover:

Your Body Is Younger Than You Think

Many surface cells have life expectancies of a few days, while some interior cells may live over 15 years. The only cells now thought to last throughout life are most brain cells.

The next question is how many molecules survive in the body after expiration of the cells they are part of.

That's an awesome article. Many thanks.

I know the gut/mouth epithelial cell turnover is a couple days, and bone is about a decade, but I was surprised that the liver turns over in a year. I'd imagine all the stem cells we have are original too...but maybe not.

 

[zgoldsmith23]

Sure, be my guest. You mean, more theories with no evidence behind them, or more reasons to simply dismiss the speculation about how unlikely it is that this one planet out of hundreds of trillions is the only one supporting life?

the evidence is the mathematical probability

I'll see your probability and raise you a Fermi Paradox.

I see your math and raise you a science. This is the science subforum. Math is not science. What's mathematically possible is not, necessarily, scientifically possible.

 

[KevinKohler]

I'm of the belief that thee is no such thing as empty space.