What exactly did NASA discover on Titan, and why is it not about green aliens with antennas but only the possibility of the existence of creatures at the level of complexity of bacteria at most, if at all
New Scientist published an article yesterday about a discovery made in March of this year. NASA scientists believe they have found clues that primitive aliens could have lived on Titan, one of Saturn's largest moons. This is of course not a green creature with transmitting antennae. It is about something much more primitive. Based on the chemical composition found on Titan's surface, experts believe that life forms could have once breathed on the giant moon's atmosphere and probably fed on its soil.
The study was based on an examination of data from NASA's Cassini spacecraft and was published in two separate studies. The first article, in the journal Icarus, shows that hydrogen gas flowing throughout the planet's atmosphere disappears before its surface. This finding suggests that extraterrestrial life forms could breathe (hydrogen of course). In the second paper, in the journal Geophysical Research, the researchers concluded that a chemical was missing from Titan's soil, so living aliens must have consumed it. The suggestion is to consume hydrogen, because that is the obvious gas that life on Titan would consume, just as we consume hydrogen on Earth. If it does turn out to be signs of life, it would be a second life sign independent of the one based on water as it is on Earth.
The researchers, led by Chris McKay, an astrobiologist at NASA Ames Research Center in Mott Field, California, believe that the chemistry for life forms is there. She just needs heat and warmth to start the process.
The findings discovered on Titan
Two new papers based on data from NASA's Cassini spacecraft have found strange complex chemical activity on the surface of Saturn's giant moon Titan. While non-biological chemistry offers one possible explanation for the findings, scientists believe otherwise, that this chemical signature actually indicates that primitive and exotic life forms once existed on Titan's surface. They theorize that these chemical findings provide two important conditions that are necessary for methane-based life. Oh, hydrogen for breathing... Leave, give me a little cup of methane, I'm thirsty...
What are the findings that could hint at life on Titan? (1) One finding comes from an article published in the journal Icarus, where the researchers show that hydrogen molecules flowed through Titan's atmosphere and disappeared before its surface. (2) A second paper was published in the journal Geophysical Research and it maps the hydrocarbons on the surface of Titan. There the researchers found the lack of acetylene. The lack of acetylene is important because this chemical would probably have been the best energy source for methane-based life on Titan. So explains Chris McKay, who proposed a set of conditions that are necessary for these methane-based life on Titan back in 2005.
The biological interpretations of the data
The researchers believe that the absence of acetylene means that the hydrocarbons are consumed as food, while the absence of hydrogen explains that hydrogen is the obvious gas for life on Titan, similar to the oxygen we consume on Earth.
Hydrogen: The oxygen of Titan creatures
Darrell Strobel, an expert scientist on the Cassini findings from Johns Hopkins University, one of the authors of the study on the hydrogen findings on Titan, says that we found a gap in the hydrogen density. This gap led to a downward flow of hydrogen towards the ground at a rate of about 10,000 trillion trillion hydrogen molecules per second. This is roughly the same rate at which molecules escape from the upper atmosphere. The researchers discovered that this hydrogen disappeared when it reached the ground. This was an unexpected result because chemically molecular hydrogen is a very inert gas, light and rising in the atmosphere. He must float up in the atmosphere and escape. Hydrogen is unlikely to be found stored in a cave or underground on Titan. In addition, Titan's soil is so cold that a chemical process, a catalyst of some kind, is needed to convert hydrogen and acetylene molecules back into methane. Although overall there will be a total release of energy. The energy barrier can be overcome if there is an unknown mineral that acts as a catalyst on Titan's soil. A biological entity could explain these findings. But what about a non-biological explanation for this process?
The absence of acetylene: a voracious biological creature or a new chemical process?
Cassini did not detect any acetylene on Titan's soil. The researchers expected the opposite, that the interactions of the sun on the chemicals in the atmosphere actually created acetylene that descends to cover the soil of Titan.
Of course the absence of acetylene on Titan's soil could have a non-biological explanation. One possibility is that sunlight or cosmic rays convert the acetylene in aerosols from ice in the atmosphere into more complex molecules that will fall to the ground without an acetylene signature.
Pools and oceans of methane
Roger Clark, a Cassini team scientist at the Denver Geophysical Center, led the hydrocarbon mapping study. He examined the data from Cassini's infrared and visible spectrometric mapping. Cassini's spectrometer did not detect any traces of water ice on Titan's soil, but instead detected deposits of benzene and other material, which appears to be an organic compound that scientists have not yet identified. The organic compounds flow across Titan's icy rocks. Liquid methane and ethane flow across Titan's ice everywhere and fill lakes and seas just as flowing sky fills ours.
Does it mean that life on Titan bathed in methane pools? Titan's atmosphere seems to rain down organic compounds on the ground, on top of the icy rocks. Methane and liquid ethane in the soil are not enough to wash away the organic compounds and already the rocks are covered again with these compounds. It is therefore clear that Titan is a dynamic place where organic chemistry bustles and stirs.
But why, after all, would a biological explanation be the first choice to explain all of this? It is more likely that a chemical process, and not biology, will eventually be able to explain Cassini's results.
Are there life forms that are based on methane?
Before we start advertising "methane minerals", methane from nature, it is appropriate to check whether it is even possible to talk about life forms that are based on methane. It turns out that until now such life forms were hypothetical and existed only above the pages of scientific journals. No scientist has been able to discover such a life form anywhere. Although water-based microbes exist on Earth, but feed on methane or produce it as a waste product. On Titan - where temperatures are around 90 degrees Kelvin - severe frost of minus 180 degrees Celsius - an organism based on methane would have to use a liquid substance as a medium for life processes, but not water itself. The water is an icy solid on Titan's surface because it is too cold there to support any form of life known on Earth. Therefore, the liquid that will be used as a medium for life processes will have to be liquid methane and similar molecules such as ethane. While ours is clear that liquid air is necessary for life and it is impossible to live without it, it may not be a requirement for life... The new findings about hydrogen are consistent with the conditions that could create exotic methane-based life, but they do not unequivocally prove their existence on Titan, says Darrell Strobel.
Chris McKay believes that if these signs do turn out to be signs of life, then we have discovered a new life form that is independent of the water-based life form on Earth.
70 תגובות
The same one was posted exactly on my birthday lol
You are aware that it could be that the government is simply brushing it off..
Hydrocarbon (hydrocarbon) is hydrocarbon in Hebrew and not carbohydrates which are carbohydrates.
But I agree with you that we should speak in Hebrew and not use it as they did in the US SPANGLISH
If that's what you mean.
Hebrews, speak Hebrew.
Instead of hydrocarbons, they said carbohydrates.
Instead of consistent, they said consistent.
R.H.
I love your parables 🙂
Shimron in Galileo there is an article about the appearance of life on Earth, the number 20 is mentioned there
Uncle,
Perhaps the following analogy will illustrate the impossibility of creating a new life now.
How were new settlements created in the past? A group of people came and settled in an empty area, built tents, houses, a settlement was created. Now try to do it in the center of Tel Aviv.
In order for a new replicating molecule to be formed, there must first be available building materials and suitable chemical conditions. And then that it will be resistant against all those competitors who were designed to adapt to the environment during millions of years of competition that take advantage of anything that moves or is usable. what is the chance Like the chance that a Bedouin tent will be set up in Sheinkin.
deer:
In my opinion, every living creature on the path leading to the living creatures today had "hereditary material" but "hereditary material is not necessarily DNA or RNA.
Hereditary material is necessary for evolution.
There is no agreed upon definition of life, so I refrain from defining hereditary material as something that is necessary for the existence of life (although many do - in my opinion this is not justified. I can imagine a situation where one day a robot will be built that will live for everything but will not be able to reproduce. In my opinion, the ability Procreation/replication is not part of the definition of life - again - although many include these abilities in the definition of life).
However - hereditary material is necessary for reproduction - and therefore for evolution - but it is not necessary to have DNA or RNA.
In Shostak's article (which was mentioned by R.H. and also won an article on this site
https://www.hayadan.org.il/a-new-way-to-think-about-earths-first-cells-1006088/)
All material is used as hereditary material.
Ideas that came up in the past at the Complexity Research Institute in Santa Fe talked about clay-based forms of reproduction (I don't know where to point to the articles - I remember a book called Complexity written by Kaufman who headed the institute).
It is understood that one of the components of evolution is the development of the hereditary material and it turns out that among different forms of inheritance of traits, the computer-like coding that exists in DNA and RNA prevailed.
Among DNA and RNA, it is now accepted that RNA came first.
There is a whole collection of speculations under the heading "RNA World".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNA_world_hypothesis
This topic also received an article here:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/rna-the-immortal-molecule-1801092/
By the way - there are viruses from both DNA and RNA.
There are many books on evolution and indeed Dawkins' books such as "The Selfish Garden", "The Blind Watchmaker" or Climbing Mount Improbable are worth reading.
They also provide many examples.
"Evolution in four dimensions" also provides many examples.
All these books by definition also provide a common language in their field.
Two other books I would add to the list are
Dawkins: The Greatest Show on Earth
and Sean Carroll's book Endless Forms Most Beautiful.
This book provides an up-to-date view of the field called Evo Devo and in fact expands on topics that are also mentioned in the excellent book that was translated into Hebrew - "The Fish Within"
Uncle:
It's really nice that you claim that I answer as if I calculated the probabilities in response to my response where I said that I don't find any point in these calculations.
I referred you to the discussion where the things I wrote in the above response were explained succinctly, but you are simply too lazy to read.
Life took about 300 million years to form here.
This is the wildest of the existing assumptions as most researchers still believe it took them much longer.
I took the number 300 million from here:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/earliest-life-on-earth-1307083/
According to the above study, life began on Earth 4.2 billion years ago.
Wikipedia still sticks to a more traditional estimate of 3.7 billion:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life
So I was big with you when I took the 300 million year assumption.
If you divide 4.5 billion by 300 million you get 15.
I was even bigger and wrote 20
All this is written where you were too lazy to read and preferred to simply comment on the things without reading them.
Now you will see:
There is point in discussion when at least one of the parties can learn from it.
I certainly don't learn anything from this discussion.
You don't learn either because you think you know everything better than all the researchers who devoted their minds and lives to the subject.
So please: stop nagging.
From Kal and Max
I did not understand the simple logic that requires according to Earth time only 20 times of possibilities for the formation of life. I also don't understand the meaning of "once" - is it a certain time or a one-time event of the formation of one organism?
For commenter 61 David (the number 20 times) is based on the time that has passed since the troubles of the earth until the appearance of life on the globe, simple logic.
Machel
You answer as if you calculated the exact probability based on any data.
The problem here is that it is not possible to calculate probabilities because it is not at all possible to compare spontaneous formation with any group.
The hypothesis that life is created all over the universe all the time is itself unfounded because you have no idea how life is created spontaneously in the first place. You can't extrapolate from the theory of evolution anything about spontaneous primordial formation. It's pointless. And in the same way you can't estimate that life spontaneously forms on Earth and it only happened 20 times. And also that they were eaten all these 20 times except of course the first time.
The logic of these things is unacceptable.
deer,
A cell that lacks hereditary material or whose hereditary material is not DNA is not recognized. There are viruses based on DNA and RNA, but viruses do not maintain an independent metabolism and are therefore not defined as a living cell.
As I have already written several times, there are works by researcher Shostak showing the spontaneous culture of fatty bubbles built like a cell membrane:
http://genetics.mgh.harvard.edu/szostakweb/
R. H. and Michael,
First thanks for the detailed responses,
Anyway,
In the article Michael attached, it is actually about the possibility that the beginning of life was not in the creation of DNA but in the metabolism of a group of molecules with its external environment.
On the face of it, this sounds like a good option since it breaks down the step between still life and life into a simpler intermediate step that increases the chance of spontaneous formation (for the sake of clarification - it is agreed between us that the discussion is about scientific ways to create life and not all kinds of strange ideas - simply because there is nothing to discuss about it).
Nevertheless, I've never heard (and I certainly haven't heard too much) of a living creature lacking hereditary material (a question for you - do all creatures have only DNA or also RNA) - on the other hand, it is known that there are creatures that are almost only hereditary material (viruses) - What may conflict with this theory, although it is certainly possible that there is an evolutionary advantage in the existence of hereditary material which caused the disappearance of creatures lacking the hereditary material - do you know of a discussion on this topic? (don't worry I'm not asking this to publish an article in NATURE next week)
general question:
I feel that my knowledge in biology is poor compared to what I would like. I'm not a total ignoramus and I studied biology at a high school level (although it's not much, but still...).
I won't start an actual biology degree right now, but I would be happy to read popular science books that give basic biology concepts. I know Michael's recommendations on "Evolution in four dimensions", or "The Selfish Gene", but for some reason I got the impression (perhaps the wrong one) that they are mainly concept books with an emphasis on understanding evolutionary processes and less books that provide a basic common language for getting to know the field of biology .
I would love to hear feedback and recommendations.
Uncle:
You did not understand.
Read the entire chain of comments that follows and you will see that:
First of all - he is not "constantly created".
In the entire history of the earth this could have happened a total of twenty times.
Beyond that, "will be eaten" is a metaphor. He has to base himself on the materials that are on Earth and he already has competitors much more skilled than him who are taking over these materials.
Besides - most of the species on Earth are not known to science at all. It is estimated that 2 to 4 percent of all species are sold, so it is possible that among the remaining large percentages a creature created from another source will be found.
Besides - even the familiar creatures have not all been fully investigated and it may yet turn out that this or that familiar creature does not share a common origin with others.
In short - the difficulty is not a difficulty at all.
Machel
Machel
That is to say that you admit that there is a sufficient probability of spontaneous formation on the earth even today.
But you claim that the probability that what is created will be eaten immediately is also very high.
The problem with this argument is that you can't compare elephants to tomatoes.
Because the new organism created all the time may in many cases not match the ones that already exist.
Then they will have no appetite to eat it. For example, as in the present article, there is speculation for the formation of a different kind of life.
There are enough changing environments on Earth to create a new type of life that is not based on the known structures.
Uncle:
About the difficulty you have I have already given many explanations in the past because there were already people who had difficulty with it.
You can read, for example, here:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/evolution-continues-2611098/#comment-259924
deer:
In relation to probability calculations and estimates of the number of life-bearing stars in the universe, people (all serious) have already reached every possible number.
This is what happens when serious people try to give an answer instead of looking for the data on which the answer is based.
Personally, I prefer to avoid this discussion because it is impossible to say anything based on it.
The Yuri Miller experiment had sequels, some of which can be read here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller–Urey_experiment#Recent_related_studies
In relation to the formation of life there is much speculation.
You can read about some of them inThis article And in the additional links linked from his end.
Uncle,
Explanations for the non-creation of life now are that because of the living cells that are practically everywhere and utilize every resource, a new replicating molecule cannot survive because it will immediately be eliminated and used up. So maybe a creation does happen, but it has no chance against the existing cells.
A second opinion is that the oxygen created by the living cells and not there from the beginning is the one that prevents a new spontaneous creation from happening here.
deer,
1) In my humble opinion, the majority of the scientific community believes that there was a spontaneous creation. How and how opinions differ. Some have suggested that the first cells were created in the volcanic vents in the oceans (vents), there are other suggestions that the source is the edge of the atmosphere, warm water pools, the oceans, the earth's condensate.
The competing theory to spontaneous creation is panspermia, which claims that the first cells came from space by meteors or in other forms. This theory simply postpones the discussion to another planet and conditions unfamiliar to us.
2) Regarding the number of stars, as I wrote above, the assumption is that the conditions for creating life are chemical diversity and radiation in a certain window of levels that will not be too high or too low. Such versatility applies as far as we know in a rather narrow temperature range of a few hundred degrees around 0 Celsius (from -100 let's say to +200). So apparently stars like the sun will not have life. This leaves us with a variety of stars that meet these conditions. Exactly how much you should know more than I do I suppose.
3) Since Miller's famous experiment, a lot of water has flowed and today the thought that first there was a replicating molecule wrapped in a fatty membrane and then came the proteins. For example, the Nobel laureate Shostak shows the spontaneous culture of fatty bubbles (membranes) in a liquid without any additional molecule. At the same time, RNA molecules were found that process themselves. A combination of these two can be the beginning of life.
In addition, Ada Yonet of Weizmann shows in the ribosome (the same element that creates the proteins) a small and conserved segment of RNA that is probably a remnant of the original ribosome.
R. H.,
From the discussion here, I get the impression that you understand biology and specifically in this field more than most of us (certainly more than I do), so I'm turning to you - if someone else feels they can answer, of course I'd be happy (Michael - to mention you as understanding is unnecessary).
As I mentioned in previous correspondences (7 and 39), as far as I know, the accepted estimates are that the formation of primitive life (single-celled, if I understand correctly) is a process that is likely to occur spontaneously - and thus the chances are high that there are other planets where primitive life exists (of course, not necessarily in the solar system).
1. To what extent are these estimates accepted by the scientific community?
2. How many stars are we talking about (orders of magnitude - individuals in the universe or thousands in the galaxy)?
3. I previously heard about an experiment in which amino acids were produced spontaneously from the simulation of the conditions that prevailed on the surface of DNA - a bit of poking around on the internet reveals that it is an experiment called the Miller Yuri experiment - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%E2%80%93Urey_experiment. Amino acids are not living matter and yet I understand that they are essential for the creation of proteins. Is the experiment (conducted in the 50s) seen today as valid and relevant and how big is the jump from amino acids to real living cells (probably big, right?)
Thanks in advance
Eddy, from Cal
There is another difficulty
The universe has (apparently) a huge number of planets suitable for the formation of life.
According to the theory of evolution, it can be assumed that in a large part of them there is indeed life in different stages of development.
And since more and more such stars are being created all the time, it can be assumed that there is spontaneous life formation in the universe
on a massive scale at any given moment.
That is to say that actually spontaneous formation is not a rare matter.
So why do we not witness such spontaneous formation again and again here on Earth.
Why here it happened only once and that was enough. Whereas in this universe it happens all the time.
And as mentioned - in relation to the past there can only be ideas and there can be no observation of the past or an experiment that will give a result in the past or an unplanned experiment.
A. Ben Ner:
It is reasonable - but that was not the question.
Eddie:
You should have followed your own advice and stopped.
1. There are all kinds of theories.
2. We will probably never be able to decide between them.
3. It's really not important. What is important is that we have no reason - based on the available data - to rely on the flying spaghetti monster.
I gave you an example with the meteorite from Mars.
I assume that it is clear to you that there are all kinds of possibilities regarding the route he took and the time of his arrival.
It doesn't stop us from understanding that it came from Mars and all in all that's all that matters.
As expected, even after the abundance of knowledgeable explanatory text, and even after the display of the usual tendency to argue on the issue, still no one has demonstrated a plausible theory, or even pointed to it ('ideas' are just ideas, not scientific theories)...
And more than that - it is clear that in the current state of knowledge the likelihood that we will reach a proof of the practical probability of a theory that is also coherent - is slim. This situation is different from what exists in scientific fields. Therefore, in my opinion, there is an impasse on the question of the origin of life.
In view of this situation - the educated at that time will stand still; The most basic intellectual honesty requires us to avoid the pathos that turned such wretched 'evidence' into such blown 'theories' - worked out so weakly as was done in the above 'article'. It also requires avoiding such inflated statements about the 'great chances' of finding life in other parts of the universe, or even decisive, more or less 'religious' statements about the spontaneous development of life - as some of the commenters are too eager to do. Please separate science from faith, even if the faith is 'secular'.
To Michael
The emphasis in the context of the influence of the moon on life on the Earth is mainly on "stability" over time
of the conditions that allow life over time.
"Stability" is the necessary condition for the "development" of life.
True, development and not necessarily "formation".
There is mostly evidence supporting the theory of spontaneous formation of living molecules in outer space as well.
But developed life is the result of the stability of conditions over hundreds of millions of years (if not more
From this) and to this the moon has a decisive contribution (according to the omission given below).
A. Ben-Ner:
The question was not whether the moon had an effect on life in the world but whether it had an effect on their very existence.
Eddie:
Human reason is not at a dead end here.
It is clear that it is impossible to reach the past and all that can be done in relation to it is speculation.
After all, you won't be able to prove that you existed a second ago (and I didn't create you right now - along with all the memories in your head and the heads of others and the entire historical record of your existence).
Even in relation to this question, you could argue that human reason is at a dead end.
A statement of this kind (about your existence) has the same importance as your words about the beginning of life.
You can't even calculate the probability that it happened a second ago.
Humans try to infer what happened in the past based on their observations in the present.
Their starting point in doing so is that the laws that govern the world today are the same laws that governed it in the past.
When the past is very far away - things get hazy and there is a need for speculations that present different possibilities without being able to decide between them.
Sometimes - even the speculations are vague.
We can know that a certain rock came from Mars without knowing its path through space.
We can know that life was created by combining non-living matter and without divine intervention without knowing exactly how it happened.
By the way - we have already proven that we can do this in the present without God's intervention.
A cell without DNA is not alive, DNA without a cell is not alive, connect the two by physical means and you get life! This fact in itself should bring down the whole house of cards you live in.
Any knowledge we have is the best knowledge we have been able to gather so far.
Just because it is the best knowledge today does not mean there won't be better knowledge in the future. What is clear is that this knowledge is better than the knowledge we had in the past and to which - even if you don't admit it - you are trying to bring us back.
To all my friends in the know, and especially to Zvi, with reference to your response #26 regarding the effect of Yah on the formation
Life is like this. Well, here is a quote from the "Earth" array in Wikipedia:
"...because of the tidal pull, the moon recedes from the earth by approximately 38 mm each year. along millions
Years of such tiny changes, and the lengthening of the day on Earth by 17 microseconds per year, add up to highly impactful changes.
In the Devonian period there were 400 days in a year, each 21.8 hours long.
The moon plays a significant role in the development of life on Earth because of its influence on the weather.
Paleontological evidence shows that the Earth's tilt angle is stabilized by tidal relationships
with the moon
Some theories believe that without the stabilization of the moon against the torque of the force, the angle of inclination of the earth
was unstable on a chaotic level, as it is unstable on Mars. If the angle of inclination of a sphere
The country will approach the Milka plain, tremendous seasonal changes will cause unusual and dangerous weather.
One pole will face directly to the sun in summer, and vice versa, in winter. paleontologists who studied the case
These theorists concluded that such a change would eliminate all large and superior life forms
Earth.
Even so, this issue is divided in departments that can be settled with further study of Mars sharing with people
The Earth has a similar angle of inclination, and a similar length of day, but differs from it in that it does not have a large moon or a liquid core..."
Eddie:
"Beyond this statement I didn't want to say anything - certainly not a 'flame-cutting speech' that someone accidentally pretends to hear":
In comment 37, the phrase 'materialistic explanation' was mixed up - did you not want to say anything by doing so?
What leads you to the conclusion that human reason is at a dead end? Before the discovery of DNA, were we also at a dead end? Were we at a dead end before the invention of the computer?
Do you think there are different levels of uncertainty in scientific research? For example, at the extreme there is a dead end - that is, research that is without a doubt destined for failure, next to it is probing in the dark and next to it is light at the end of the tunnel, with different levels in between...
How do you know in scientific research which of the situations you are in?
And if you know, why do you think the research on the creation of life deserves to be found in the extreme?
R. H., you can agree or disagree with what you want, but the conditions I set for the appearance of intelligent "life" are minimal, especially in the case of life that already exists. I also said that the length of time for the appearance of life (and hence also for reason) depends, in my opinion, on the friendliness of the environment for the appearance of life, therefore I have almost no doubt that there are places where life appeared much earlier than here and therefore reason also appeared quickly (a place that is friendly to the appearance of life rather than pleasant for life itself and can certainly push for diversity and rapid evolution). And beyond all that, most of the stars and probably also their planets have existed much longer than the solar system and the Earth.
Eddie,
Just because you don't know doesn't mean there aren't well-founded theories about the formation of life. A simple search in Madeline shows about 14000 articles on biogenesis, are they all nonsense?.
Of course, as Michael said, there is and most likely will never be proof that this is indeed how life was created, but today we are in the direction of creating replicating molecules and even artificial pro-cells. This means that such a process is possible under the conditions that apparently prevailed here 4 billion years ago.
See, for example, a review summarizing the latest developments on the subject:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19562107
To all the knowledgeable and wise critics:
I would be very happy if any of you could demonstrate a theory (as opposed to chatter about speculations without an evidentiary and probabilistic basis - or even rational enough) of the spontaneous formation of life, estimate its probability, and show that it is a practical probability.
Whoever does this will be entitled to the Nobel Prize, without a doubt - in the most convincing way (not like that of the current American president...). This will surely be one of the most important contributions of the science site to science...
My response 37 referred to the link provided by Mr. Rothschild in response 33. All I asked was to point out the simple fact that Mr. Rothschild pointed out ("We don't know exactly how life was created") and add my own insight to it - that indeed human reason, at least according to the current state of knowledge - is At a dead end when it comes to the question of the origin of life (and I don't know of any research/article that outlines a well-founded or proven idea that breaks down the difficulties involved in the question of the origin of life). Beyond this statement I didn't want to say anything - certainly not a 'flame-cutting speech' that someone accidentally pretends to hear.
And no, I have no obligation to demonstrate a competing theory - and the requirement for me to do so is, how to say - strange, and certainly demagogic. Such a demand would have been justified if I had claimed that it was possible to demonstrate some theory on the issue, or speculative claims about the spontaneous formation of life or about the possibility of life being invented in other parts of the universe (claims that critics assert, or seem to assert, the same, with overeagerness). But I am claiming exactly the opposite...
Such a duty of demonstrating a theory falls precisely on the critics of the sages - and I am very satisfied if any of them can lift the burden of bringing the evidence and the burden of persuasion involved.
Eddie:
Of course everything you have been told is true but I think one point should be emphasized because of which you will never be able to escape.
Science is built on formulating theories and refuting or confirming them through experiments and observations.
The question of the formation of life has a fundamental problem with this definition for two reasons:
One is that it is talking about something that happened in the past and we will never have a time machine to transport us to that past. Therefore we will not be able to make an observation.
The second is that an experiment is always a planned thing while in the process of the formation of life randomness and the lack of planning played a central role so that it is not possible for a (planned) experiment to please you.
But - if you care so much about adherence to the scientific method then please - as Lisa hinted - put the alternative theory you want to propose to the same tests.
Eddie,
What dead end? Have you read a bit about the latest studies on the subject that you declare in Rish Gali as a "dead end"? For example, have you seen the works of the Nobel laureate Shostak? I bet you that in 10 years when there will be a replicating molecule you and others like you will say "Yes, but no cell was created here, dead end" and then in 20 years when there will also be a cell you will say "Yes, but it is only a cell and not a multicellular creature with organs, dead end" and so on And so on. The convoy passes.
Eddie,
Please spare us the flame-throwing speeches about the dead end human reason has fallen into. If you do think this is the case, then you have nothing to do on a site dealing with science - which exists because in essence it does not think that human reason reaches a dead end so quickly.
(To this you should ceremoniously answer something along the lines of "Scientists think they know everything... they know nothing.... what we will know in a hundred years.... blah blah blah..." but I will allow you to deviate from these rules of ceremony).
to the heart of the matter,
It is understood that supporters of any theories must prove that they know what they are talking about and that the theories do stand the test of reality.
There are scientific theories that are very difficult to prove and at this point they are considered successful but surely waiting for experimental confirmation and until it arrives, their prestige will not be complete (Stephen Hawking still dreams of a Nobel Prize for "Hawking radiation" and so far he has not received it for this very reason).
Your far-fetched claim is that it must be assumed that the probability of life forming is impractical - on what basis do you say that? What is your knowledge of biochemistry? in physics? in geology? In the formation of planets? In the evolution of biological beings?
Do you understand how much knowledge is required from a team of scientists interested in dealing with such a subject?
Since the answer to this is surely "more than your knowledge and mine combined", it would be better for people like us to be satisfied with knowing what those who understand the matter say and not with raising their own estimates - that would also be a lot.
just so you'll know,
As far as I know, most experts tend to estimate that the chance of life forming is not so zero at all.
Eddie:
Do you have an explanation that gets us out of the impasse?
The supporters of the "replicate first" theory must prove a probability that is not actually zero. They are unable to show such a probability.
On the other hand, the supporters of some "metabolism-first" theory - must show how a network of chemical reactions capable of growing and evolving could have formed in the early days of the Earth.
There is no experimental factual basis for any theory of the above type.
In light of the large number of fundamental requirements of such a theory, and also in light of the expected large number of environmental and technical requirements that will be required for the proof of such a theory, it must be assumed that the more efforts are made to lay such a foundation, the more and more it will become clear that the probabilities are not practical.
Either way, looking at a purely materialistic explanation of the question of the origin of life brings human reason to a dead end.
Yigal c.
I agree with you that life in the universe is probably very common. As I already wrote to Tzvi above, in light of the timeline in which the Earth was created 4.5 billion years ago, it cooled and already in 3.8 there was life, it seems that the process is highly probable.
I assume that wherever there is chemical diversity, sooner or later a replicating molecule will form that will start the life process. Chemical versatility applies within a relatively narrow window of temperatures, pressures, and radiation. But I guess there are enough stars with these conditions.
On the other hand, I disagree with you about intelligent life. You say "the appearance of intelligent beings from here is inevitable" but note that it took almost 4 billion years of life for intelligence to appear here even though life of all sizes and in a huge variety of forms roamed here. On the other hand, legs or wings for example were created many times in independent evolutionary processes, for example the wings of insects, birds and bats. But reason, as far as we know, developed and survived only once.
So the chance of meeting another intelligent life is very small in my opinion. What does increase the chance of finding them is that an intelligent culture "screams" with light, radiation and technology that it produces and spreads and this will increase the chance of finding them even if they are very rare.
Evolution is devoid of any will.
She is not a living being but a statistical phenomenon.
This phenomenon is also exploited in software development (in other words - we create on the computer what you have decided to call God).
In many comments you wrote in the past you preached to us about acceptance.
I guess you think this book of nonsense was written by evolution.
So as mentioned:
Evolution has no desire and I have no desire to continue arguing with you.
Moshe:
I will ignore your transparent attempts to sell God's nonsense again and answer seriously.
I really hope you stop nagging.
There were no seeds of life in the Big Bang.
This is clear because there wasn't even material.
This is also clear because even if you were to name any living thing it would immediately give up to the elements.
We don't know exactly how life was created.
It is clear that they were created without warning because there was no one to warn.
However, apparently, they were created gradually.
There are all kinds of speculations about it. Here is one of them
thanks Michael.
Another small question, was there microscopic life (seeds of evolution) in the big bang or was the microscopic life suddenly created without any advance warning???
Thanks and all the best
Moses
circle:
It is not true that the moon is a center of attraction that deflects asteroids away from us.
The truth is that there used to be the opposite hypothesis - as if we were protecting its side facing us from asteroids, but this is also not true.
And in the matter - "how can you call it life" - it's really not bad. So they will call it Yosef, Big Deal 🙂
Our moon is responsible for the highs and lows during the days, and is a center of attraction for all the asteroids that pass through here, thus preventing them from hitting the earth. Besides, the moon is where the wolves get frustrated at night and bark. What will they do without the moon?! How would it be possible to call it life without the moon
Read this article that was published a few days ago, it is popular:
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/discoblog/2010/06/04/world-science-festival-the-4-ways-to-find-e-t/
In my opinion, the development processes that we call "evolution" take place wherever there are physical conditions (which also include the chemical ones) that allow reproduction. Given such conditions and a sufficiently long period of time, self-replicating entities will be activated (due to the inherent property of environmental conditions). Since it can be assumed that there is no ideal replication process, there will be mistakes in the process that will lead to evolution in the ways we are familiar with, with natural selection and appropriate survival. (A basic and embedded assumption in my words is that resources used by replicating entities for their existence, at some stage become limited and limit the size of the population, even if to begin with they are very extensive, a fact that causes the competition between the various entities - or similar ones to worsen.) The emergence of intelligent entities from this is inevitable: the advantage The survival of reason surpassing any other advantage means that there will inevitably be an intelligent "competition" for resources, which will lead to an evolutionary race, which will endlessly deepen the capabilities of reason.
By the way, the questions about whether the moon (or any other condition besides those mentioned above) is necessary for the appearance of life are unnecessary because if these additional conditions were not met, different life would have been created that would fit the new conditions.
These things have several conclusions (you can add more - if you want...):
A. Apparently life (not in the sense we are familiar with) is widespread in the universe far beyond what we assume.
B. The assessment of the distribution of life in the universe (and not whether additional life exists) must take into account only two factors: what are the conditions that allow for reproduction (as the best imagination) and how long it was possible, until the moment of assessment, for the appearance of the replicating entities.
third. We will probably be surprised again and again by the environments in which life can and does exist, because we cannot imagine all the possibilities.
d. The time that elapses from the moment the conditions supporting replication are established to the appearance of the replicating entities depends only on the ease of replication: if there are places in the universe where replication is easier than it was on Earth when life appeared, then life appeared much earlier in that place.
In my opinion there is no connection between the formation of life and the moon.
I think the moon's effect is purely gravitational.
This effect causes tidal forces (which, among other things, kept the temperature of the Earth's core warmer, but even if this heat is necessary for the creation of life, there may be planets that will be warm enough from the inside even without a moon).
This effect probably also stabilizes the Earth's axis, but I don't think that stabilization is really necessary for the formation of primitive life.
One of the things that probably had an impact on the formation of life is the collision of the earth with another celestial body - a collision that created the moon.
You can read about it here:
http://www.astronomytoday.com/astronomy/earthmoon.html
Michael and Moshe,
About a year ago I saw a TV show (unfortunately I can't say for sure where, but I think it was on the History Channel or National Geographic) concerning the effects of the moon on Earth, and there it was claimed that the moon played an important role in the stages of Earth's evolution that allowed, among other things, the creation of life.
It's all a TV show and I really don't remember enough to justify the argument, but it is quite possible that the existence of such a large moon had an effect on the processes of the formation of life in the Earth.
I would love to know if anyone can point to more authoritative sources for the positive or negative.
Why? Why directly say primitive aliens? Has anyone seen them? Has anyone talked to them?
straight human arrogance that will lead to racism and enslavement of other races. Once it was Africa and now Titan.
Moshe:
To be clear - of course there are complex life forms that developed a dependence on the moon during evolution (because it is there), but there is no evidence that life itself needs the moon.
Moshe:
Since the earth is the only example of life available to us - it is impossible to prove unequivocally that life is possible without a moon.
On the other hand - there is no logic in this hypothesis.
It's kind of like arguing that there can be no life without the North Star.
There is no life-supporting condition that the moon provides and there is no reason to think of such a connection.
I don't think there is intelligent life elsewhere.
The emphasis is on intelligent, I think it is correct to assume that there is normal life in other places in the universe. With the same degree of certainty it is to be assumed that religious beings may and will develop in all these places.
I hope there are multicellular creatures there, maybe some kind of fish. And one day they will be brought to Earth, and we can watch them in zoos. The day will come when the number of extraterrestrial species will be greater than the number of native species. So it will be fun to go to the zoo!
deer,
You're right. There are two options here. The first is that for some mysterious reason or as a result of the fulfillment of a very low chance (winning the lottery) we are the only winners. The second is that we represent the norm. Again, I don't know how to quantify this mathematically but my gut feeling is that the second scenario is much more likely. Of course we won't be able to decide between them until the meeting of the third kind.
The truth is that I hardly doubt the existence of life, my doubt is about intelligent life as we know it. Even here on Earth, out of hundreds of millions of life forms, only one intelligent one was created.
Michael, thank you very much
I don't understand English, I read what was written in Hebrew, do you mean that the moon moves away from the earth 3.8 cm a year?
I ask, can life exist without the moon?
I ask, once the moon moves a great distance from the earth, can life still exist?
Regarding a state without the sun I do not ask because it is clear that there can be no existence.
Thanks and all the best
Moses
R.H.
The first fact you bring up is indeed an argument - and indeed it is difficult to assess its value.
- If so, note that the situation is not such that life was created in the first second - but a time of one sdg from the age of the universe is required. It can be rightly argued that in the early days of Kadaha the conditions were different and did not allow life but again, as he obeyed all these things are difficult to evaluate.
As for the second claim regarding the non-uniqueness of KDA, it suffers from the same logical fallacy that I pointed out earlier -
Let's say there are N stars like this, so if the chance of creating life is significantly smaller than (1-)^N - then the most likely chance is that no star with life would have been created - if it was not created at all, there would be no one to check and then there would be no discussion at all . If there is someone to check (ie life was created on one planet) and this is the case - then there is still a high chance that there is only one planet with life on it.
The mistake is in your looking at the universe as an experimental system external to you - in such an experiment if life appeared at least once in a certain number of samples (N) - then the chances of their formation are probably greater than 1-^N. But being part of the experimental system, you must think that if life did not appear in at least one sample there is no experiment!
If they find life on another planet in our galaxy, for example, and it becomes quite clear that there is no connection between the formation of life on the Earth and the formation of life on that planet - or then, you can press something about the formation of life and your argument about the non-uniqueness of the Earth and the planet where they will be discovered Life will be relevant.
Moshe:
No - it has no meaning. It also changes all the time and in the past, when life was created, it wasn't like that.
Read, for example, here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon
And search the text for all occurrences of the word Distance
Abi Shalom, I don't think you should delete this (it's not my usual ramblings)
I don't understand science but I have a question.
Is it significant that the moon and the sun that are visible to our eyes with the naked eye are the same size? Is this a special and necessary condition for creating life on other planets?
Thanks and all the best
Moses
lunar juice
Hahaha!!!! do you know
of slinky wizard
recommended…
deer,
There are at least two facts that raise the possibility of life on other stars (although I'm not sure how to quantify them):
1) The relatively short time that passed between the creation of the earth - 4.5 billion years and the appearance of the first cell - 3.8 billion. Shows that unless some amazing lottery win happens here, the chance of life is not that small.
2) The sun is not visible and is not located anywhere that looks unique, just an ordinary star at the edge of an ordinary galaxy. So there doesn't seem to be any special reason here and if so maybe every planet like ours orbiting a star like the sun at the right distance would produce life similar to the ones here?
Eddie:
Those who want to advance science publish their findings and conclusions - both for the purpose of peer review and so that others can continue from the point they reached.
They say that a donkey does not show half a job, but the basic premise of those who publish such findings is that their readers are not serious and they can infer from the news what is in it and not infer from it what is not in it.
Can't believe that facts are so neutral/implied for so many interpretations - building such shoddy 'evidence' for such blown 'theories'.
To the 'researchers': Rabak, stop fooling around in public. Give us real science, not a bunch of bullshit recycled over and over again.
And this is also aimed at the 'scientific' press.
sympathetic,
Again, I agree with your words and also with Zvi, I also think you are absolutely right that we need better tools to deal with the question "What are lives?" And if we even know how to define them as such if we find them - by the way, we can ask the same question about the whole of our planet - how do we know that the planet itself is nothing but one conscious life form?... But it is not impossible that they will indeed find bacteria and bacteria (even on Titan) that are not on Carbon base and water that we know and maybe even more exotic materials. I agree that it is difficult to discuss this question when the only reference we have to life is here - after all, we have nowhere to compare, but the range of recent discoveries tends to support the real chances that life can and does exist in a huge variety of variations and currently what limits us from accepting this position is "the lack of education ” ours regarding those variations. I think that such a discovery will rock our world - that within our planetary "neighborhood" more than one variation of life can exist (and when I say life I mean a different and alien type to us). - Recently experiments with micro particles strongly support the existence of dark matter. Obviously, there is still a long way to go, and I have no doubt that humanity's great discoveries have yet to be discovered at all, but discoveries of this kind expand the ability to perceive that life as we know it is a comma in the vast variety scattered in the universe.. Amino acids in comets, glucose that are scattered throughout and are formed naturally more Confirming this claim.. - just to remove doubt, I know that there is no proof of "other" life yet, but the intuition supported by recent revelations Laita establishes a logical and reasonable basis for the claim. - Look - even Drake's equations support the claim - even Hawking's equations..
I must also say that the invention of amino acids in space supports some place that despite the remote possibility that life on another planet will resemble something we know - maybe we have a common denominator after all.. don't you think?
ravine,
The first sentence simply indicates that you did not understand me, so I will try to explain again.
There are several options - we will specify in the meantime:
Or there is no life in the universe (chance Q)
Or is there life only on the surface of the earth (chance P)
Suppose that P<
If so, the chance of life on 2 separate planets is then 2^P, on three stars it is 3^P, etc.
Instead, since the sum of the probabilities is 1, then:
1=Q+P+P^2+P^3+…..+P^N
Q is not 0 and neither is P 0 (because we are alive) so the calculation I described (Drake equation) must be made.
What can we learn from the fact that we exist - in fact nothing - since if we didn't exist we wouldn't be here to see it, and still, the chance of life existing in two stars is P times smaller than the chance of life existing only on Earth - and the aforementioned P can be very small…
My claim is that by living life on Earth, nothing can be learned! What is surprising is the chance that we will actually live in a place that allows life - very simply - if it did not allow life, we would not be here to see it.
By the way, it is absolutely wrong to say that 10 years ago they thought that there were no solar systems except ours - there simply was not the technology to find them and determine with certainty that they exist - in fact the existence of planets in non-binary star systems is required by the law of conservation of angular momentum (assuming that the gas cloud that created a star had some sort of starting rotational speed) that was invented a little over 10 years ago.
And again, I'm really not saying that there is no life on other stars, I'm just saying that nothing can be learned from the fact of our own existence.
ravine
In my opinion, in the last twenty years there has been no progress on the issue of dark matter, on the contrary, they are looking for it and continue not to find it. The only thing that has accumulated over the past twenty years is evidence that many observations cannot be explained by Newton's laws and visible matter. Is it necessary to add dark matter to the image or change Newton's laws? In my opinion, the issue has not been decided. Regarding life in the universe, no additional relevant information has been accumulated here either. Twenty years ago, they estimated that there were many systems of planets, they just did not believe that we would be able to observe them. Today, we have the tools for this, but I do not see this as significant progress towards the claim that there is life.
in other worlds.
By the way, I tend to agree that there is a high probability of life in other worlds (personal belief and not scientific) the main question is whether we can identify them. The research that should be carried out in my opinion is the understanding of how life was created from inert matter. Once we have the tools to deal with this question, we will know better how to assess the chance of something like this happening again. By the way, in this case we are talking about life similar to us and not like the life that may exist on Titan.
deer,
I completely agree with your words. But our very inventions here (about 5 billion species on Earth) is already proof that life exists in the universe. – If it happened once, the probability is that it is not the only one. I think it is possible today - in view of the growing evidence - to conclude quite firmly that life (the definition can fall into dispute) does exist in other worlds. I think that today, unlike twenty years ago, it's no longer a question of intuition, but a question of when we'll discover it - quite similar to dark matter in the universe - we haven't seen/proved it either yet... but the math and logic in both cases tend to confirm the idea. (Suffice it to say that 10 years ago we thought there were no more planets besides the solar system... - I wonder what we will be able to say 10 years from now...?).
Gideon,
There are about 20^10 stars in the universe - and probably a not terribly different number of planets. It's a big number but definitely finite. If we assume that the chance of life forming on a planet (of course a very simplistic concept that apparently assumes that all planets are the same) is smaller than some number - we will get that there is a very reasonable chance that we are not alone in the world - this number is of course about 20-10 and it is not zero at all (the chance of throwing coin 67 times and always get a smaller 'tree').
We do not know how to correctly estimate the chance of life forming - the Drake equation, which is nothing more than a multiplication operation of the number of stars in the various probabilities, tries to give a prediction but of course fails because it depends on countless unknown parameters.
Please note that the invention of life on Earth does not teach anything about the probability - and this from the anthropic argument - even if the probability is much smaller than the marginal probability I presented, then if there were no living Christians in Earth we would not be here to see it and therefore it is impossible to learn anything from The existence of life on Earth as regards the chances of the existence of life in the universe.
As far as I understand the chances are probably good for the existence of life, but it's really only from half the things I've heard - I don't think a person like you or me deserves to say with such confidence that life exists - it's really a very difficult professional and computational question and not a question of intuition.
Here is NASA's message from March:
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/solarsystem/features/titan20100603.html
It is impossible that there is no more life in the universe. The fact that the discoveries are not successful, does not mean that they do not exist.
Let's not forget how many times researchers found evidence of things that seemed to us to be fiction and only a few years later science found them to be true. I would actually think (pathetic) that you jump to hasty conclusions faster than the scientists who speculate that there are organisms that breathe hydrogen. The options throughout the universe are too many to rule out anything for now - let's not forget that our only reference for life is the Earth - after all - we know nothing!
They did not find hamburgers on Titan, apparently they were eliminated by Americans.
It is interesting that NASA has not made any such official announcement but everyone is already rushing to translate foreign articles.
You don't spend life, so you invent theories about life in discussions that breathe hydrogen.