Just a thought

[corvus_corax]

Clearly the fact that 99.9999999999999999999999999% of the entire universe is hostile to human life is evidence of the anthropic principle, dontcha know?

/\
THIS
Nothing more.
Of course you have to understand sandwiches sarcasm.

S'matter of fact the good majority of this planet that we live on is hostile to human life (despite superficial appearances to the contrary)

 

[Wiccan_Child]

/\
THIS
Nothing more.
Of course you have to understand sandwiches sarcasm.

S'matter of fact the good majority of this planet that we live on is hostile to human life (despite superficial appearances to the contrary)

Sandwich sarcasm?

 

[shinbits]

Just right for whom? Our lungs evolved to suit the atmosphere, not the other way around.

That's oversimplifying it, isn't it? After all, no life that we know of exists anywhere else.

 

[shinbits]

But you're right, I think that life is phenomenally versatile, and can form in the absence of carbon and water (e.g., silicon has long been held as an alternative to carbon by xenobiologists).

But by what basis do you conclude life is versatile? The only life we know of exist under specific circumstances. The circumstances are so specific, that as you've mentioned, scientists are mainly looking for life on earth-like planets.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

That's oversimplifying it, isn't it? After all, no life that we know of exists anywhere else.

Exactly: that we know of. We've only been to a handful of planets, and, statistically speaking, we expect there to be trillions of planets, any one of which could just so happen to have the right conditions for abiogenesis.

In any case, lungs, and life in general, evolve to fit their surroundings. Natural selection in environmental attrition leads to adaptation that suits the environment; very, very few organisms change the environment to suit them.

(Plants completely overhauled the atmosphere, but this was a side-effect, not an 'intentional' change).

But by what basis do you conclude life is versatile? The only life we know of exist under specific circumstances.

The conditions are less specific than you might think. Extremophiles are aptly named, since they can live in the extreme conditions on Earth: very high and very low pHs, levels of salt and oxygen, pressure, temperature, etc. There are even organisms that can survive in a vacuum.

The circumstances are so specific, that as you've mentioned, scientists are mainly looking for life on earth-like planets.

That's because we know life can live on Earth. Planets that are similar to Earth are going to have the same conditions (or thereabouts) that enabled life to form on Earth in the first place. But the versatility of life is such that there is no real reason why it couldn't develop in, say, the gaseous wastelands of the Jovian atmosphere.

 

[Naraoia]

That's oversimplifying it, isn't it? After all, no life that we know of exists anywhere else.

What proportion of all planets have we examined in enough detail to find life?

In any case, lungs, and life in general, evolve to fit their surroundings. Natural selection in environmental attrition leads to adaptation that suits the environment; very, very few organisms change the environment to suit them.

(Plants completely overhauled the atmosphere, but this was a side-effect, not an 'intentional' change).

I'm curious. How do you define side effects and intentional changes in this context?

 

[shinbits]

What proportion of all planets have we examined in enough detail to find life?

What proportion of planets not named Earth have conditions that we know can sustain life?

 

[shinbits]

Exactly: that we know of. We've only been to a handful of planets, and, statistically speaking, we expect there to be trillions of planets, any one of which could just so happen to have the right conditions for abiogenesis.

As of right now, we have no reason to believe that many planets exists. We're simply being optimistic.

In any case, lungs, and life in general, evolve to fit their surroundings. Natural selection in environmental attrition leads to adaptation that suits the environment; very, very few organisms change the environment to suit them.

Isn't just a pure assumption that life can evolve anywhere? Earth is TEEMING (sp?) with life. Yet we can't find even one indication of life elsewhere?

The conditions are less specific than you might think. Extremophiles are aptly named, since they can live in the extreme conditions on Earth: very high and very low pHs, levels of salt and oxygen, pressure, temperature, etc. There are even organisms that can survive in a vacuum.

The most extreme conditions on earth are still no where as extreme as any other planet.

That's because we know life can live on Earth. Planets that are similar to Earth are going to have the same conditions (or thereabouts) that enabled life to form on Earth in the first place. But the versatility of life is such that there is no real reason why it couldn't develop in, say, the gaseous wastelands of the Jovian atmosphere.

Again, Earth teeming (sp?) with life. We are packed full of life everywhere. Yet we've found nothing elsewhere. This is good evidence that life needs pretty specific requirements.

And for the record, it's not that I don't believe life may exist elsewhere; it's that there seems to be no reason to believe so.

 

[sandwiches]

What proportion of planets not named Earth have conditions that we know can sustain life?

I don't understand how not having found other planets with life makes it unreasonable to concur, based on the available evidence, that life adapted to its environment and not that the planet was tailor-made for us?

 

[shinbits]

I don't understand how not having found other planets with life makes it unreasonable to concur, based on the available evidence, that life adapted to its environment and not that the planet was tailor-made for us?

If life truly can evolve anywhere, shouldn't life be found anywhere? Or at the very least, shouldn't it be rare to NOT find life, rather than the other way around?

 

[sandwiches]

If life truly can evolve anywhere, shouldn't life be found anywhere? Or at the very least, shouldn't it be rare to NOT find life, rather than the other way around?

How many planets' surfaces have we visited or even just seen close enough to distinguish life?

 

[SithDoughnut]

If life truly can evolve anywhere, shouldn't life be found anywhere? Or at the very least, shouldn't it be rare to NOT find life, rather than the other way around?

I can visit every country in the world, so shouldn't I have visited most countries? Sadly that is not the case, because potential to exist does not necessarily equal existance.

 

[shinbits]

How many planets' surfaces have we visited or even just seen close enough to distinguish life?

That doesn't answer the question. If life simply needs to adapt to an environment, than life, for the most part, should have an equal chance of developing everywhere. If life can truly evolve anywhere, shouldn't there be life everywhere? If life can truly evolve anywhere, why haven't we found life on the moon? Why haven't any unmanned vehicles sent to Mars found anything? In light of the fact that earth is PACKED with life, shouldn't we have found something by now, if all life needs to do to exist, is adapt to the planet?

It seems that life can't just evolve anywhere, but that life needs specific conditions, so far only found on earth.

 

[shinbits]

I can visit every country in the world, so shouldn't I have visited most countries? Sadly that is not the case, because potential to exist does not necessarily equal existance.

Hmm. Good point.

Still, there's no reason to believe that life exist elsewhere. We only believe, because of the "odds" that it might, because the universe unfathomably large.

 

[shinbits]

Okay, I understand that the first two pics, and the fifth pic, which is our galaxy. But what do the other pics represent?

 

[Chesterton]

Just more atheist doublethink. Some atheists believe the universe must be teeming with life, therefore the claim that "man is special" (which is not really a Christian claim) must be false. Other atheists believe the universe is a vast wasteland, therefore also, man is not special, because man is so insignificant in terms of space occupied (weird idea in itself). Both schools of belief can't be right.

If only they gave Olympic medals for mental gymnastics.

 

[SithDoughnut]

Hmm. Good point.

Still, there's no reason to believe that life exist elsewhere. We only believe, because of the "odds" that it might, because the universe unfathomably large.

There's plenty of reason to entertain the possibility - there's another thread around here showing examples of life that survives without oxygen, after all. That doesn't mean that life must exist elsewhere though, because we have only one example of life to work from. To come to any actual definitive conclusion on the existence of life elsewhere is like taking a dice, rolling one 6 and then drawing a conclusion of how many sixes you're going to roll. Life could exist out there, but then it may not.

So, you're right. There is no reason to believe that life exists elsewhere. However, there is likewise no reason to assume that it doesn't. We don't have the information to draw a conclusion.

 

[SithDoughnut]

Just more atheist doublethink. Some atheists believe the universe must be teeming with life, therefore the claim that "man is special" (which is not really a Christian claim) must be false. Other atheists believe the universe is a vast wasteland, therefore also, man is not special, because man is so insignificant in terms of space occupied (weird idea in itself). Both schools of belief can't be right.

If only they gave Olympic medals for mental gymnastics.

I present this as a nice example of someone who cannot comprehend that a group of atheists might have different opinions, while totally ignoring the fact that theists have thousands of conflicting beliefs.

I've mentioned this elsewhere - atheists may not have official groups, but that does not mean that they don't exist. Atheists are just as alike as theists are, and it would do you good to remember that. Atheism is not a group like Christianity is.

 

[Nostromo]

It seems that life can't just evolve anywhere, but that life needs specific conditions, so far only found on earth.

Life as we know it can't just evolve anywhere, that much should be obvious. Earth-based life needs Earth-like conditions thus far found only on Earth, true.

We don't know what different kinds of life may be possible.

Just more atheist doublethink. Some atheists believe the universe must be teeming with life, therefore the claim that "man is special" (which is not really a Christian claim) must be false. Other atheists believe the universe is a vast wasteland, therefore also, man is not special, because man is so insignificant in terms of space occupied (weird idea in itself). Both schools of belief can't be right.

It isn't "doublethink" if two groups believe two different things.

That man is special seems to be implied in the Bible, as the only species chosen to be created in God's image, the only one imbued with a soul, the only one to receive prophets, the only one that really plays a significant part in Christianity altogether.

edit: I'm so slow SD wrote two posts while I was procrastinating.

 

[Washington]

Okay, I understand that the first two pics, and the fifth pic, which is our galaxy. But what do the other pics represent?

Every picture that follows the image that precedes it shows where the preceding image fits into it. Just as the second image shows where the Earth fits into our solar system, the third picture shows where the solar system fits into its neighborhood of accompanying stars. The next image, #4, shows where this neighborhood of stars---including our own---fits into one of the spiral arms of our galaxy. Image #5, of course, then shows where this section of the spiral arms lies in our galaxy, and so on up to the last picture, the entire universe.

If only they gave Olympic medals for mental gymnastics.

Hey, atheists haven't had all the practice Christians have, so give 'em a break or two. I seriously doubt they'll ever match the Christian gymnastics that's given the world its countless denominations, but then I don't think they're really trying either.