Aliens and Parallel Universes

[Shemjaza]

What you forget is according to evolution theory that a species will not survive if they do not find a way to avoid a threat and survive. So adapt to the Savanna or die or cooperate or live in conflict which makes it even costlier to live.

I'm not forgetting that at all. Survival techniques are varied, I just think that the specific set that can lead to technological intelligence will be extremely rare.

Look at sight, flight, hearing, swimming, air breathing... all developed multiple times in different ways. But we're the only advanced tool user... with our nearest siblings and cousins being the only ones close.

I guess this will only happen if an alien planet has a similar environment to earth. But water, oxygen and sunlight are important parts of life which are the main things scientists look for on other planets so it is quite possible for other planets to produce similar outcomes. But even if there is a different outcome to earth it seems evolution works towards intelligent beings like humans as we are ultimately capable of survival under almost any conditions and able to defend ourselves against all other species. So the cream is bound to rise to the top eventually.

Evolution doesn't have a goal or a plan, it's little beneficial steps. I've seen no evidence that technological intelligence is inevitable. That said, I do agree that it is a very powerful trait that will survive and spread if it develops... but then again in our case it has also triggered a mass extinction, so i guess we'll see how that turns out in the long run.

 

[Ophiolite]

I'm not entirely clear that we're talking about the same thing yet .. so please take this as being a genuine clarification question and not some deliberate attempt of trying shift anything.
Can you show me the objective evidence 'that human life may exist elsewhere', (meaning human life not originating from Earth), is anything other than an assumption taken as being true, (a belief or opinion), prior to its actually being testing out?
The point I'm making here is that 'human life' is only underwritten by objective evidence in the specific case of earth's biome (including its evolution over earth's geophysical/geochemical history).

You may well be correct; we seem to be talking past each other. I have no idea why you have suddenly introduced the idea of human life. Only if we have just about everything wrong about abiogenesis and evolution could there be human life anywhere else in the universe.
Now I need to ask, for I am at a loss, why are you even asking that question?

Is this what you believe as being mistaken?

I'm not sure what you are referring to here. My starting point was, and remains, suggesting opinions alone lie at the heart of the speculations [concerning the probability of alien life] is seriously misleading.

i) Even a likely outcome is never a sure thing. The meaning of 'alien life' however, depends on it being one.

I;ve read an re-read this multiple times and it still doesn't make any sense to me. Can you rephrase?

ii) How can an objective reality be portrayed by a speculation, when a speculation is defined as having no (verified) objective evidence? Science's method defines objective reality .. and that process calls for test results. There is a contradiction here.

You may define a speculation that way. I see a speculation as a reasoned estimate of possibilities, based upon available information. There are mountains of verified objective evidence that I have previously given you broad examples of. If you genuinely think that, for example, we do not have an excellent fix on the life cycle of stars, then we are probably wasting each others time.

None of the 'well founded theories' you refer to, have tested out beyond the Earth context. They are thus treatable as beliefs (under test) when it comes to a beyond earth context where a belief is defined as: 'A belief is any notion held as being true for any reason'.
There is therefore no: 'such is the case'.

Nonsense. We have no reason whatsoever to think that chemistry and physics operate differently in the rest of the universe from the Earth and plenty of reasons to think that they do. This has been multiply affirmed so that it is simply not in doubt. Again, if you think otherwise you are so outside the realms of conventional science that further discussion is unlikely to be of value.
If you don't mind me asking it would be helpful to know the extent of your science education. It might help me to better formulate my replies.

i) What 'calculations' might those be? I am unaware of any calculations leading us to conclude that alien life is probably out there.

The Drake equation, for example. I presumed that anyone so passionate on the topic of alien life would automatically be familiar with it.

ii) The 'relevancy' of the observations you presented is, at best, solely dependent upon inference reasoning, (note: a logic based thinking process is invoked here .. and not the scientific method), since they produce no objective outcome directly related to a beyond earth context. Logic based reasoning posits the existence of some truth value .. otherwise true/false gets trashed .. along with the entirety of math axioms, as well as the philosophical logic relied upon for this reasoning.

There is no alternative in the logic based reasoning you invoke here other than 'alien life exists is true' and thus, the above definition of 'A belief is any notion held as being true for any reason', defines it as also being a belief.

Uncertainty is implicit in the data underpinning probabilities (eg: distributions) .. We have only have one data point .. and no data on any hypothetical parent population proposed throughout the universe.

I understand the words, but I don't grasp your point.

Before proceeding, whatever do you mean by the term 'alien life'? Do you mean 'earth-life' inferred as existing some place other than Earth?

Why would I mean that?
At meeting ten or twenty years ago at an Astrobiology Conference the participants were asked to submit a definition of life. That produced over one hundred definitions. I'm not going to give a definition here, but will if pressed.
Alien life is some form of life, external to the Earth, probably, but not necessarily carbon based; probably, but not necessarily based on a planet or moon; probably, but not necessarily using water as a solvent; probably, but not necessarily cellular; possibly, but not necessarily complex; perhaps occasionally sentient; rarely, perhaps never, sentient.

I await your clarification of an operationally acceptable meaning which distinguishes 'alien life' from 'earth life' .. after all, earth's life has a huge objective data basis sourced from earth .. whereas 'alien life' has zip .. (unless we hold it as being a belief that alien life exists, of course).

Earth life is found on Earth, evolved there, reproduces there and is largely restricted to there currently. Alien life is to be found elsewhere if it exists, which seems highly probable.

I don't mind stepping up to discussing what I mean by 'truth'. Truth in science is never anything more than the last best tested theory (meaning its measured results). They are held as being 'true' simply because they've already tested out.
General philosophically held truths however are usually untestable .. and they are indistinguisable from a belief, where a belief can be defined as: 'A belief is any notion held as being true for any reason'.

I view this as an unprofitable sidebar.

So .. is there a problem in doing this, when the real problem is that you offer probabilities as being 'an objective reality'? (I thought I was being reasonable in conceding that the overall hypothesis is testable and that is may even make some kind of probablistic predictions).
If probabilities are taken as being an objective reality, then there should be a test I can do which already verifies the probabilities .. yet there are no such results produced from such a test.

On a roulette wheel the probability that the number 7 will turn up on one roll of the wheel is 1 in 37 (38, I think on American wheel which has both 0 and 00). That is an objective reality, yet it is "only" a probability.

Then the probabilities mean nothing more than a belief does

I don't wish to have to keep repeating this: the belief does not require analysis and data; determination of probabilities does.

The basis of your argument is not a scientific one

1. Then better tell that to the hundreds of astrobiologists engaged in research globally.
2. You claim an argument based upon data from astronomy, cosmology, astrophysics, geochemistry, palaeontology, biology, genetics, biochemistry, astrochemistry, geology, etc is not scientific. Good luck with that.

You have not demonstrated this ... and what I have said is that the basis of what we mean by 'alien life' is an untested belief.

1. I have not demonstrated it to your satisfaction.
2. I have made no claim that alien life exists. You seem to conflate an assertion that we can calculate a probability that alien life may exist with an assertion that alien life does exist.

Thank you for your lengthy and detailed reply.

 

[SelfSim]

You may well be correct; we seem to be talking past each other. I have no idea why you have suddenly introduced the idea of human life. Only if we have just about everything wrong about abiogenesis and evolution could there be human life anywhere else in the universe.
Now I need to ask, for I am at a loss, why are you even asking that question?

Ok .. so I tracked back to post#50 where your objection started and my prior post was talking about 'human life'. Coming clean, human life has clearly defined (geo)physical boundaries within which it can exist. However, my post #49 should be taken in the context of intelligent life (human-like life) developing from scratch on another world.

Now that you have also clarified what you mean by 'alien life', I think this conversation will be a lot clearer going forward. There are many, many different interpretations of these exo-biology terms, most of which I have I have encountered in other forums.
Thank you for clarifying yours.

I'm not sure what you are referring to here. My starting point was, and remains, suggesting opinions alone lie at the heart of the speculations [concerning the probability of alien life] is seriously misleading.

Ok got it .. paraphrasing in the hope of getting clear here: I understand that your objection is that because you can point to other objectively tested aspects relating to the clearly defined physical boundaries within which the existence of earth-life (and its development) are constrained, (eg: the Drake parameters), you feel that your speculations about 'the probability of alien life', are not solely opinion based, yes?

I;ve read an re-read this multiple times and it still doesn't make any sense to me. Can you rephrase?

You have now given your definition of what you mean by 'alien life'. I now verify that its functioning as a living entity is entirely based on your opinion. Eg: there is no objective evidence that a hypothetical non-carbon based life form can meet the criteria used in diagnosing life .. there is not even any theoretical explanation of how it could. In fact, all of the parts following your 'not necessarily' qualifiers fall into this same category for the same reason. I am thus justified in rephrasing it by deleting them, as follows:

"Alien life is some form of life, external to the Earth, probably, carbon based; probably, based on a planet or moon; probably, using water as a solvent; probably, cellular; possibly, complex; perhaps occasionally sentient; rarely, perhaps never, sentient".

Now show me how the above does not describe earth-life to a tee?

The point here is that the only difference between your description of 'alien-life' and 'earth-life' is the opinion that other forms can function the same as life as we know it. Ie: the opinion about that using the lacking-in-objectively or even theoretically evidenced words following the 'not necessarily' phrase.

You may define a speculation that way. I see a speculation as a reasoned estimate of possibilities, based upon available information.

The 'reasoned estimate' is either; not objectively based, or contextually relevant or theoretically supported. The reasoning therefore makes no difference.

There are mountains of verified objective evidence that I have previously given you broad examples of.

They have not been shown to be contextually relevant other than in the singular instance of earth-life and its evolutionary history. They are therefore not relevant to a beyond earth context unless you can cite evidence of that. Any predictions made from any hypotheses developed from such an unconstrained definition are, at best, under test as we explore other worlds (either remotely via observations or by direct sampling).
You need to understand that the context of evidence is of primary importance in the topic of exo-life and until any hypothesis is tested in that context, they remain as opinions under test (and not more than that). You can append any 'probability estimate' you like .. it will not change the scientific status of that piece of data .. only the presentation of independently verifiable, objectively tested results can do that.

If you genuinely think that, for example, we do not have an excellent fix on the life cycle of stars, then we are probably wasting each others time.

I have no problems with what Astrophysics has to say about the life cycle of stars. I also have no problems recognising its relevance to the sustained survival of developing earth-life and its use for establishing constraints around that in the search for other instances of earth-like life.
I have no idea about what it means as far as the opinion based part of your 'alien life' definition.

Nonsense. We have no reason whatsoever to think that chemistry and physics operate differently in the rest of the universe from the Earth and plenty of reasons to think that they do.

That's not in dispute.
You have not demonstrated the vastly non-linear impacts of organic chemistry impacts on pre-biotic chemistry and its high dependency on physical environment conditions. We already know that life doesn't happen by a 'shake and bake' predetermined mechanism, and so your pointing to the indisputable relevance of the principles of chemistry and physics, still leaves an abundance of missing knowledge that, I argue, is necessary for making accuracte predictions (and so do Astrobiologists and Evolutionary Biologists).

This has been multiply affirmed so that it is simply not in doubt. Again, if you think otherwise you are so outside the realms of conventional science that further discussion is unlikely to be of value.

You can certainly choose run away from the issue that way, but doing so won't cover up the missing context about how all that is able to make accurately relevant predictions for the vaious hypotheses under test in the search for exo-life.
Your 'multiply affirmed' reference is just more opinion that adds precisely zip weight to your case.

If you don't mind me asking it would be helpful to know the extent of your science education. It might help me to better formulate my replies.

Helpful to you or not, I recommend your going ahead and making your formulations as a way of determining that .. my background in applicable formal science education and professional experience in the area won't limit any discussions you may choose ... and I'll not let you attempt escape on that basis, that easily.

The Drake equation, for example. I presumed that anyone so passionate on the topic of alien life would automatically be familiar with it.

The Drake equation is a tool for distinguishing the constraints under consideration. I'm pretty sure you're also aware of the issues around determining its values, too(?)
What isn't clear at this point, is your awareness of the impact of adding more terms to the right hand side, on its product (the left hand side).

I understand the words, but I don't grasp your point.

The point is that 'numbers arguments' which include 'probabilty discussions', result in the same inescapable conclusion as far as the 'likelihood' (or otherwise) of the existence of alien life .. Ie: unknown.

Why would I mean that?
At meeting ten or twenty years ago at an Astrobiology Conference the participants were asked to submit a definition of life. That produced over one hundred definitions. I'm not going to give a definition here, but will if pressed.
Alien life is some form of life, external to the Earth, probably, but not necessarily carbon based; probably, but not necessarily based on a planet or moon; probably, but not necessarily using water as a solvent; probably, but not necessarily cellular; possibly, but not necessarily complex; perhaps occasionally sentient; rarely, perhaps never, sentient.

As discussed above, the notions expressed following the phrase 'not necessarily' are unconstrained by contextually relevant test data and incomplete theoretical models. Their inclusion only serves to support either: a philosophically held belief on the topic, or as a reminder about our current state of knowledge (ie: unknown).

Earth life is found on Earth, evolved there, reproduces there and is largely restricted to there currently.

Agreed.

Alien life is to be found elsewhere if it exists,

.. an assertion which is entirely dependent on the word meaning of 'alien' in the phrase: 'alien life' .. and not on any contextually relevant objective evidence.

which seems highly probable.

'Seems' denotes an opinion .. (Count 'one' datapoint supporting my assertions .. passing one test in fine style).

On a roulette wheel the probability that the number 7 will turn up on one roll of the wheel is 1 in 37 (38, I think on American wheel which has both 0 and 00). That is an objective reality, yet it is "only" a probability.

And so(?) ...
We already can observe that the wheel had 37 (38) numbers on it .. We don't have a clue as to how many planets/moons in the universe have life on them .. oh hang on, yes we do .. its "1" so we know the numerator of your probability figure ... but not the denominator ..

I don't wish to have to keep repeating this: the belief does not require analysis and data; determination of probabilities does.

.. and the probability as shown immediately above, requires contextually relevant knowledge of the parent population .. which we don't have.

1. Then better tell that to the hundreds of astrobiologists engaged in research globally.

Hundreds of astrobiologists are also humans and are entitled to their opinions .. some of them (maybe hundreds) turn their opinions into contextually relevant testable hypotheses/predictions.
None of that matters to science's objective reality until we have the results of those tests.

2. You claim an argument based upon data from astronomy, cosmology, astrophysics, geochemistry, palaeontology, biology, genetics, biochemistry, astrochemistry, geology, etc is not scientific. Good luck with that.

Those topics have their own clearly defined contexts. Astrobiology's contexts are largely philosophically based and rely on commonly held beliefs (or opinions).

1. I have not demonstrated it to your satisfaction.

In this topic, (and particularly in this forum), I see a need for a crystal clear view for tracking the impacts of Astrobiology's philosophically held tenets, on its outputs. The field is quite unlike Astrophysics, Physics, Chemistry, etc in this regard.

2. I have made no claim that alien life exists. You seem to conflate an assertion that we can calculate a probability that alien life may exist with an assertion that alien life does exist.

One cannot calculate a probability that carries any physical significance with only one datapoint (earth life, in an earth context).
You can, of course, go on to believe in the opinion that one can do this however.

Thank you for your lengthy and detailed reply.

I have much to say on this topic (and it tests out well in thousands of posts elsewhere, with other minds also similarly engaged on it).
My conclusion is that it is one of the most confused topics currently engaged by science.
I'm quite happy to challenge peer reviewed publications on Astrobiology .. so I have no qualms in challenging apparent 'authority figures', as they are quite open in accepting such challenges.

I find it deeply concerning when I see the set of religious folk here, who recognise their beliefs as being beliefs, being pummelled by a false front (a 'sciency looking' barrage), from those who don't (or can't) distinguish their own beliefs in what they say ..
(I am not in any way implying that you do this .. in any way shape or form .. quite the opposite, in fact .. ie: I respect the general quality of your posts in this forum .. we may disagree on this particular topic .. and that's ok by me to leave it that way, if either of us so choose. I mean after all, 'Alien life' is hardly high on the mission critical topics list around these parts, eh? .. ).

 

[stevevw]

I'm not forgetting that at all. Survival techniques are varied, I just think that the specific set that can lead to technological intelligence will be extremely rare.

Look at sight, flight, hearing, swimming, air breathing... all developed multiple times in different ways. But we're the only advanced tool user... with our nearest siblings and cousins being the only ones close.

That is not because the evolution of intelligence is rare. Those other features can apply to a number of creatures lower down the evolutionary tree. Humans are at the top after all those features came about. If it was not for eyesight then there would not be a need for other evolved traits. Good eyesight seen predators which created the need for perhaps tree climbing. Once mammals came along like primitive apes who could use tools then it was inevitable that more intelligent behavior was going to happen. It is the nature of life that someone in the group is going to experiment and find a different way to do things. But that only happened because an ancestor of apes used their brains to survive which led to apes doing the same and eventually humans. We are still doing this to a point.

Evolution doesn't have a goal or a plan, it's little beneficial steps. I've seen no evidence that technological intelligence is inevitable. That said, I do agree that it is a very powerful trait that will survive and spread if it develops... but then again in our case it has also triggered a mass extinction, so i guess we'll see how that turns out in the long run.

Do you think if an ape has learnt to use tools that this would not continue to be developed or would all species just hit a dead end and not find and not evolve anymore.

 

[Shemjaza]

That is not because the evolution of intelligence is rare. Those other features can apply to a number of creatures lower down the evolutionary tree. Humans are at the top after all those features came about. If it was not for eyesight then there would not be a need for other evolved traits. Good eyesight seen predators which created the need for perhaps tree climbing. Once mammals came along like primitive apes who could use tools then it was inevitable that more intelligent behavior was going to happen. It is the nature of life that someone in the group is going to experiment and find a different way to do things. But that only happened because an ancestor of apes used their brains to survive which led to apes doing the same and eventually humans. We are still doing this to a point.

Except these things aren't sequences that always happen.

Not everything that can smart can use tools, not everything with fine manipulation skills is smart, not every tree climber will re-adapt to a land based life.

Getting smarter is not always an advantage.

Do you think if an ape has learnt to use tools that this would not continue to be developed or would all species just hit a dead end and not find and not evolve anymore.

Except there are many, species of monkeys and apes with well above average intelligence and small amounts of tool use... yet only the hominids developed more advanced tool use.

It's just not inevitable.

 

[stevevw]

Except these things aren't sequences that always happen.

Not everything that can smart can use tools, not everything with fine manipulation skills is smart, not every tree climber will re-adapt to a land based life.

Getting smarter is not always an advantage.


Except there are many, species of monkeys and apes with well above average intelligence and small amounts of tool use... yet only the hominids developed more advanced tool use.

It's just not inevitable.

But that is how evolution is suppose to work. There may be several species of ape like creatures that did not go on to evolve advanced tool use and intelligence. But one or two lines did and that is the same for evolution across all species and new traits. It all comes down to the environment. If the environment is similar to earth then chances are similar outcomes will happen. If there are trees then creatures evolve limbs, hands and feet to grasp trees just because the trees are a new possible habitat to be exploited.

The way evolution is suppose to work is that trees can be a safe place above prey and it does not take a lot of brain power to work that out. Once a creature gets the ability to grasp branches then they can utilize that grasp to use tools. Evolution theory goes to great lengths to explain just about every trait and behavior because of an evolutionary necessity as though it is a logical extension of adaptation and inevitable to happen.

 

[Ophiolite]

"Alien life is some form of life, external to the Earth, probably, carbon based; probably, based on a planet or moon; probably, using water as a solvent; probably, cellular; possibly, complex; perhaps occasionally sentient; rarely, perhaps never, sentient".

Now show me how the above does not describe earth-life to a tee?

The point here is that the only difference between your description of 'alien-life' and 'earth-life' is the opinion that other forms can function the same as life as we know it. Ie: the opinion about that using the lacking-in-objectively or even theoretically evidenced words following the 'not necessarily' phrase.

This is ludicrous.
1. The phrase "other forms can function the same life as we know it" does not parse. As such I can only guess at you meant to type. I think you meant "other forms can function in the same manner as life as we know it".
2. If that is the case then the notion "other forms can function in the same manner as life as we know it" is not an opinion,but a reasonable inference from the data provided by a previously mentioned concatenation of -ologies.
3. "the opinion about that using the lacking-in-objectively or even theoretically evidenced words following the 'not necessarily' phrase." I am not even going to attempt to parse that.

A tried and tested technique of insulting people on forums it to ask if English is not their native language. That is not my motive here. Is English your native language?

Until and unless these points are resolved to our mutual satisfaction there is zero value in proceeding. Idiosyncratic applications of bizarre meanings do not constitute a refutation of sound argument, no matter how often you repeat them.

 

[SkyWriting]

If they exist would it be something to say of Gods true powers?

They don't, but that supports His word and not His powers.

 

[Shemjaza]

But that is how evolution is suppose to work. There may be several species of ape like creatures that did not go on to evolve advanced tool use and intelligence. But one or two lines did and that is the same for evolution across all species and new traits. It all comes down to the environment. If the environment is similar to earth then chances are similar outcomes will happen. If there are trees then creatures evolve limbs, hands and feet to grasp trees just because the trees are a new possible habitat to be exploited.

The way evolution is suppose to work is that trees can be a safe place above prey and it does not take a lot of brain power to work that out. Once a creature gets the ability to grasp branches then they can utilize that grasp to use tools. Evolution theory goes to great lengths to explain just about every trait and behavior because of an evolutionary necessity as though it is a logical extension of adaptation and inevitable to happen.

Yes the sequence of developments that led to humans are completely possible within the framework of evolution. But they are not the only solution to the issue, in fact the sequence seems particularly unlikely.

So on the scale of the universe is absolutely expect other technological species to develop, but expecting every planet with complicated land based life to produce them seems unwarranted.

 

[SelfSim]

This is ludicrous.
1. The phrase "other forms can function the same life as we know it" does not parse. As such I can only guess at you meant to type. I think you meant "other forms can function in the same manner as life as we know it".
2. If that is the case then the notion "other forms can function in the same manner as life as we know it" is not an opinion,but a reasonable inference from the data provided by a previously mentioned concatenation of -ologies.
3. "the opinion about that using the lacking-in-objectively or even theoretically evidenced words following the 'not necessarily' phrase." I am not even going to attempt to parse that.

Your point (1) above is generally what I meant.
I can see that you're struggling with abstracted level of this discussion, so I suggest we grapple with a specific example .. take the following (underlined) part of your example of the definition of alien life:

'Alien life is some form of life, external to the Earth, probably, but not necessarily carbon based;'

For expediency, let's use the well-known so-called 'hypothetical' example of imagining silicon atoms displacing carbon atoms. Please explain how metabolic chemistry works in said 'hypothetical' silicon lifeform, such that a specimen would produce measurable signs that signify the presence of metabolic functions. (Metabolic functions form a key part of the definition of 'llfe', which also appears in the same definition).

If you are unable to do this (in this highly simplified for discussion purposes) instance, then on what basis do you justify the inclusion of the above underlined phrase in the definition? Why is it there? Where is your data for it, (provided from your concatenation of the '-ologies')?

A tried and tested technique of insulting people on forums it to ask if English is not their native language. That is not my motive here. Is English your native language?

As you well know, attempts at shifting the focus of this discussion onto the individual is irrelevant (intended insult, or not) and will not resolve anything. You're better than that.

Until and unless these points are resolved to our mutual satisfaction there is zero value in proceeding. Idiosyncratic applications of bizarre meanings do not constitute a refutation of sound argument, no matter how often you repeat them.

So my above above attempt of shifting towards a specific example, will hopefully make things easier.
I can only try.

 

[stevevw]

Yes the sequence of developments that led to humans are completely possible within the framework of evolution. But they are not the only solution to the issue, in fact the sequence seems particularly unlikely.

So on the scale of the universe is absolutely expect other technological species to develop, but expecting every planet with complicated land based life to produce them seems unwarranted.

According to evolution theory it is the environment that will dictate the outcome. So a planet similar to earth will be most likely. Other planets that may have different environments maybe no vegetation, no trees and just swampy marshlands, planets that contain mostly water or very little water and more arid land, icy worlds etc will produce different results.

Scientist claim there are earth like planets that are the right distance from a similar sized sun. I guess to be exactly the same they would need a satellite moon around the same distance away to control the seasons, tides, rotation and stability of the earth. It may be that the earths location in relation to other planets in our solar system is important as well. So maybe there needs to be a lot of factors in place to get the exact same situation as earth.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... even if there is a different outcome to earth it seems evolution works towards intelligent beings like humans as we are ultimately capable of survival under almost any conditions and able to defend ourselves against all other species. So the cream is bound to rise to the top eventually.

Even a cursory look around this planet will reveal that intelligent beings are very much the exception, in terms of numbers of species and individuals at any time, and over deep time. Intelligence is an extremely rare attribute even among specialising non-specialists.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

According to evolution theory it is the environment that will dictate the outcome.

It doesn't dictate the outcome, it influences it - via natural selection. Don't forget the 'environment' includes other organisms (including members of the same species), and is itself influenced by the evolving organisms.

Scientist claim there are earth like planets that are the right distance from a similar sized sun. I guess to be exactly the same they would need a satellite moon around the same distance away to control the seasons, tides, rotation and stability of the earth. It may be that the earths location in relation to other planets in our solar system is important as well. So maybe there needs to be a lot of factors in place to get the exact same situation as earth.

Depends what you would accept as 'the exact same situation'. Only the Earth can be literally in 'the exact same situation' as the Earth...

 

[Monksailor]

If they exist would it be something to say of Gods true powers?

NOTHING more than already is said. GOD created ALL in the beginning. ANYTHING ANYWHERE was created by and is controlled/sustained by God. He has already (at least in the wonder of His creative design as here-Romans ch. 1) or will, at the appropriate time, reveal Himself to them, also, if He chooses. The mind which would ask this question is not asking for reasons to believe but rather for reasons NOT to believe. One need not reach so far into the imagination for such. It may seem more worthy but it is not. Tripping on intellectualism is no more different than tripping on LSD, self-righteousness, animal/creation worship, and many , many more already easily grasped. Claiming intellectual rights to one's pursuit only ascribes to exclusiveness and an elevated sense of pride.

 

[Monksailor]

"Jesus answered, “I am the way and the TRUTH and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." John 14:6

The TRUTH is already here. READ the GOSPEL of JOHN, PLEASE. Your eyes WILL be opened, eventually, and you WILL be set free, John 8:32.

 

[Shemjaza]

According to evolution theory it is the environment that will dictate the outcome. So a planet similar to earth will be most likely. Other planets that may have different environments maybe no vegetation, no trees and just swampy marshlands, planets that contain mostly water or very little water and more arid land, icy worlds etc will produce different results.

Scientist claim there are earth like planets that are the right distance from a similar sized sun. I guess to be exactly the same they would need a satellite moon around the same distance away to control the seasons, tides, rotation and stability of the earth. It may be that the earths location in relation to other planets in our solar system is important as well. So maybe there needs to be a lot of factors in place to get the exact same situation as earth.

Also volcanoes, meteors, earth quakes... all manner of things that change the specifics of the history of life on Earth. Take away a few mass extinctions and you have no age of mammals, thus no primates and so no humans.

When the oceans filled with complex life, it was probably inevitable that plants and animals would move to the land, but what shape that would take could have gone in many ways. Saying "Something will probably move onto the land." is one thing, but saying "Some vertebrates who will grow four limbs then move onto land, some of them will grow hair, feed their babies milk... and some of them will become intelligent, guaranteed." is another.

I'm starting to think that "According to evolution theory" is getting perilously close to "So's law" which I've seen around here.

 

[Ophiolite]

As you well know, attempts at shifting the focus of this discussion onto the individual is irrelevant (intended insult, or not) and will not resolve anything. You're better than that.

The implicit insult in the last sentence is duly noted.

It is entirely relevant to the discussion to determine whether or not the idiosyncrasies of grammar, usage and semantics in your posts, that obfuscate rather than clarify, are explained by inexperience with the language, or some other factor. So, is English your native language? For the same reason it would be helpful if you would comment briefly on your science education. I asked earlier, but I don't think you replied.

'Alien life is some form of life, external to the Earth, probably, but not necessarily carbon based;'

For expediency, let's use the well-known so-called 'hypothetical' example of imagining silicon atoms displacing carbon atoms. Please explain how metabolic chemistry works in said 'hypothetical' silicon lifeform, such that a specimen would produce measurable signs that signify the presence of metabolic functions. (Metabolic functions form a key part of the definition of 'llfe', which also appears in the same definition).

If you are unable to do this (in this highly simplified for discussion purposes) instance, then on what basis do you justify the inclusion of the above underlined phrase in the definition? Why is it there? Where is your data for it, (provided from your concatenation of the '-ologies')?

Once again with the nonsense, I see. My inability to explain "how metabolic chemistry works in said 'hypothetical' silicon lifeform" is a reflection on my unfamiliarity with metabolic processes in general and the postulated processes in particular, not upon the validity of including the qualifier but not necessarily carbon based. (Either that was a rhetorical trick on your part, or you were waffling.)

Do you concede that if such a description of possible silicon metabolic processes exists then that fully validates the inclusion of the qualifier? If not, why not?

 

[SelfSim]

Once again with the nonsense, I see. My inability to explain "how metabolic chemistry works in said 'hypothetical' silicon lifeform" is a reflection on my unfamiliarity with metabolic processes in general and the postulated processes in particular, not upon the validity of including the qualifier but not necessarily carbon based. (Either that was a rhetorical trick on your part, or you were waffling.)

So, if you concede that you are unable to defend the content of your cited definition of ‘Alien life’. Fine. I make no attempts at redirecting the essence of this sub-conversation to just being about that, however.

I’m more focused on the lack of scientific justification in this instance, for the inclusion of an objectively unjustifiable belief (opinion) in a supposedly scientific definition, from an Astrobiology conference twenty years ago, (in post #82). If I was present at any such lecture, I would have made the exact same point to them, as I’m making to you now:

In this instance, there is no evidence that the tests we use for determining metabolism would support a conclusion of life’s primary function of metabolism, in a sample of some hypothetical ‘non carbon based lifeform’, which is inferred to exist by the phrase '.. but not necessarily carbon based', in said definition.

All of science’s definitions rely on the inclusion of testable concepts. The non-carbon based life inference is not one of them. Its inclusion in the cited definition, is therefore an unjustifiable inference, (or opinion, or a belief), that such a thing exists, is true.

Do you concede that if such a description of possible silicon metabolic processes exists then that fully validates the inclusion of the qualifier? If not, why not?

No, because there are other functions, (which are also intricately integrated with metabolism in lifeforms), required for diagnosing life: (eg homeostasis, reproduction, etc).

Also, any considerations beyond these issues, would depend on the description itself, and its underlying basis of support.

I mean, if the sole basis of support was an episode of Star Trek would you accept it?

(My agreement/disagreement is also irrelevant to the underlying issue here).

 

[stevevw]

Also volcanoes, meteors, earth quakes... all manner of things that change the specifics of the history of life on Earth. Take away a few mass extinctions and you have no age of mammals, thus no primates and so no humans.

I think there still would have been mammals as they were around with the Dinosaurs. It may have just taken longer for them to evolve into more intelligent species.

When the oceans filled with complex life, it was probably inevitable that plants and animals would move to the land, but what shape that would take could have gone in many ways.

According to evolution it did go in many ways. Just about every feature and ability has evolved. I don't think there is any trait left to evolve.

Saying "Something will probably move onto the land." is one thing, but saying "Some vertebrates who will grow four limbs then move onto land, some of them will grow hair, feed their babies milk... and some of them will become intelligent, guaranteed." is another.

Not really for the same reasons you say it was probably inevitable that aquatic life moved onto land would be the same logic used for the evolution of the other features you mention. It would have been logical for there to be creatures with 4 limbs because there were four fins available that could be used as legs. The pressure of gravity compared to the buoyancy in water would have caused a creature crawl rather than be upright at first. Growing hair would be natural as a way to keep warm in cooler regions. It seems natural for a mother to have a reserve of milk to ensure her baby receives nourishment. Though I don't agree with the theory on how these traits evolved.

Doesn't evolution go to great lengths to explain how the environment and conditions on earth produced exactly what we see. It claims remarkable convergence that has seen the repeat of complex features over and over again due to similar environments and needs. So if a similar environment was on another planet it would end up repeating the same again.

I'm starting to think that "According to evolution theory" is getting perilously close to "So's law" which I've seen around here.

How do you mean

 

[Ophiolite]

So, if you concede that you are unable to defend the content of your cited definition of ‘Alien life’. Fine. I make no attempts at redirecting the essence of this sub-conversation to just being about that, however.

Then the discussion will be at an end. I asked if English was your second language because it was a neutral explanation for your writing style. I shall now work on the basis that you are well aware of what you are writing.

I do not sit idly by when someone engages in manipulative behaviour apparently because they sense they have lost the argument. I have not, I repeat not stated I am unable to defend my definition of alien life. I have stated that I currently lack the technical expertise to adequately defend one small portion of that definition in the specific way that you demand. That is quite a different matter and it is reprehensible of you to descend to such low tricks in such an obvious way.

When you are ready to continue the discussion in an honest and open manner, then I shall be happy to continue. In the meantime you might do a brief search on google scholar where you will find many peer reviewed documents addressing silicon lifeform metabolism. I imagine you will find plenty there you also disagree with. You are the one in this discussion who is taking a non-standard position. You are the one who needs to defend the notion that speculation about alien life is just an opinion. So I also expect such a defence from you before I rejoin.