Why is life on planets "unable to sustain life" an impossibility?

[Kal'Stang]

This is not logic, it is an appeal to ignorance fallacy.

Wait...I showed a picture from Hubble Telescope that shows lots of galaxies, each with a billion stars in each galaxy...and I'm making an appeal to ignorance fallacy? How is it a fallacy when I am basing my opinion on facts?

Fact 1: There is life in this universe. Evidenced by a little blue planet called Earth. Which itself has thousands of different types of life forms on it, some of those living in places that humans could not survive.
Fact 2: There are billions of stars in each galaxy. Evidenced through tons of research by accredited scientists.
Fact 3: There are billions of galaxies in the universe. Evidenced by the picture from Hubble Telescope which was taken of just a very small part of the sky. The rest can be extrapolated.
Fact 4: The odds of only one planet in the whole universe developing life would be astronomical in the extreme, so much so as to make it pretty much impossible for it to not happen again.

 

[tryreading]

I have always taken a huge interest in extraterrestrial life, what the implications on our modern world would be both in terms of science and culture, how it would change our fundamental understanding of biology and our own existence on this planet and - if this life is intelligent - what political implications there would be on world governments.

I'm not interested in alien or conspiracy cults, nor do i believe the US government withholds significant data pertaining to intelligent life in the universe, nor do i believe Area 51 holds futuristic alien nanotechnology.

I do, however, believe in the possibility of extraterrestrial life from a scientific standpoint, be it intelligent life forms or simple microorganisms although i believe the latter is most likely currently existent within our own solar system.

I know NASA scientists have suggested life could be present in the upper atmosphere of Venus, deep in the ground of Mars or on one of the many moons that orbit the many planets near Earth. I find the discovery of Gliese 581 g an encouraging find because it is likely to be very similar to Earth in terms of habitability but mostly because it was found so easily, suggesting that maybe planets with Earth-like conditions is not such a rarity.


However, it does bring many fundamental questions to my mind that makes me wonder if modern science is currently approaching the search for life elsewhere with the required attitude.

Many planets have been dismissed as "unable to support life" since it does not have the necessary conditions to support organisms from Earth, or, because the conditions could not possibly support "life as we know it". Why are we looking for organisms that need certain conditions just because "life as we know it" requires it? Shouldnt we be expecting everything but life as we know it?

Only recent finds bring the planet Europa back into the scope of possibility for holding life due to recent finds on our own planet suggesting certain microorganisms can live on vents on the sea bed without sunlight. How many planets have we dismissed for habitability of microorganisms due to conditions that cannot sustain life as we know it when in fact they survive in those very same conditions on our own planet, we just dont know it yet?

Or how many freezing planets or hot planets have we rendered lifeless when it could be possible that space Extremophile's require such severe conditions to survive? Do you think that current search for E.T life is too narrow?

If microorganisms have developed and evolved in completely separate and isolated locations within Space, is it not unrealistic, if anything, to expect that they would need the same conditions as organisms on Earth to survive?

You may have already seen this, considering your interest in the subject. Life may already have been found off-Earth in certain meteorites:


Fossils of Cyanobacteria in CI1 Carbonaceous Meteorites

Richard Hoover has discovered evidence of microfossils similar to Cyanobacteria, in freshly fractured slices of the interior surfaces of the Alais, Ivuna, and Orgueil CI1 carbonaceous meteorites. Based on Field Emission Scanning Electron Microscopy (FESEM) and other measures, Richard Hoover has concluded they are indigenous to these meteors and are similar to trichomic cyanobacteria and other trichomic prokaryotes such as filamentous sulfur bacteria. He concludes these fossilized bacteria are not Earthly contaminants but are the fossilized remains of living organisms which lived in the parent bodies of these meteors, e.g. comets, moons, and other astral bodies. Coupled with a wealth of date published elsewhere and in previous editions of the Journal of Cosmology, and as presented in the edited text, "The Biological Big Bang", the implications are that life is everywhere, and that life on Earth may have come from other planets.

...


Journal of Cosmology

 

[Guy Incognito]

Fact 4: The odds of only one planet in the whole universe developing life would be astronomical in the extreme, so much so as to make it pretty much impossible for it to not happen again.

Incorrect. This is not a fact. You haven't got the data to back this statement up. You are taking it on faith.

 

[Kal'Stang]

Incorrect. This is not a fact. You haven't got the data to back this statement up. You are taking it on faith.

Do you know what the law of average is?

Probability Theory

“If the probability of a given outcome to an event is P and the event is repeated N times, then the larger N becomes, so the likelihood increases that the closer, in proportion, will be the occurrence of the given outcome to N*P.”

Now we know for a fact that in the milky way galaxy there is one star system out of 100 billion star systems that has life in it. We also know for a fact that there are billions, even trillions of galaxies in this universe. Each one containing billions of star systems in themselves, some more, some less than the milky way galaxy. You do the math. Though honestly you shouldn't have to. Common sense alone would dictate that I am correct in my assessment. But hey, if you don't trust common sense then by all means do the math.

 

[Temporal]

Wow..another thing to correct. There is no Brown Dwarf star orbiting around the Kuiper Belt. If there was we could see it with our naked eye. Hell we can see brown dwarfs over a hundred light years away with a telescope...why couldn't we see a brown dwarfs at the outer reaches of our solar system?

It's not up to you to correct. I'm waiting for the data in April.

Now the planet...it MIGHT be possible that there is another planet out that far. As big as Jupiter though? Doubtful, but possible I guess. I wold imagine that any planet as big as jupiter being out that far would affect the orbits of the astroids and such in the Kuiper belt to a very noticable degree.

Maybe. Again, the data will tell.

 

[Kal'Stang]

It's not up to you to correct. I'm waiting for the data in April.

Can you honestly tell me that we would not be able to see a brown dwarf star that close to our solar system? Despite the fact that we can see them via telescopes in other solar systems? You couldn't even us the excuse of it being on the opposite side of the sun from us because not only would it have to be moving at a precise set speed to stay opposite us all year long but we would also have to be blind to not be able to see the glow of it bouncing off of the astroids in the kuiper belt. Not to mention all the probes that we have sent out would have seen evidence of it by now if it existed.

Maybe. Again, the data will tell.

Yeah, we'll see. Common sense would favor me though. Also you might want to wait a bit after it is published as it must also be peer reviewed. Just because its published doesn't mean that it is correct.

Edit to add: Voyager 1 & 2 Pretty sure they would have spotted a brown dwarf star by now.

 

[Temporal]

Can you honestly tell me that we would not be able to see a brown dwarf star that close to our solar system? Despite the fact that we can see them via telescopes in other solar systems? You couldn't even us the excuse of it being on the opposite side of the sun from us because not only would it have to be moving at a precise set speed to stay opposite us all year long but we would also have to be blind to not be able to see the glow of it bouncing off of the astroids in the kuiper belt. Not to mention all the probes that we have sent out would have seen evidence of it by now if it existed.

I said I don't know.

Yeah, we'll see. Common sense would favor me though. Also you might want to wait a bit after it is published as it must also be peer reviewed. Just because its published doesn't mean that it is correct.

Common sense is for lay people. Scientific thought is "common" until something happens to change it, which could very well be about to happen.

Also, just because it's not peer reviewed, doesn't mean it's NOT correct either.

As I said, we need to wait and see.

Edit to add: Voyager 1 & 2 Pretty sure they would have spotted a brown dwarf star by now.

[/quote]

It's just a theory waiting to be proven. There is some preliminary (and anecdotal) evidence that it would have a highly elliptical orbit spanning 3,000 years or so, based on the disposition of Sedna and other planetoids that the orbit of Uranus cannot account for.

If such an orbit can exist, then a brown dwarf could appear to be farther away than it really is, theoretically.

 

[Kal'Stang]

It's just a theory waiting to be proven. There is some preliminary (and anecdotal) evidence that it would have a highly elliptical orbit spanning 3,000 years or so, based on the disposition of Sedna and other planetoids that the orbit of Uranus cannot account for.

If such an orbit can exist, then a brown dwarf could appear to be farther away than it really is, theoretically.

It is all anecedotal. At best. So I take it you believe in Nemesis? Or what else was it called...Niburu or some such?

And even if such an orbit existed around our solar system scientists could still tell how far away it was and there is no brown dwarfs near close enough to fit such a description. The closest star to our is Proxima Centauri or Alpha Centauri as it is commonly called and it is 4.24 light years away.

Second thing to consider is that it would be impossible for an orbit that took 3,000 years to complete to even exist for the simple fact that in order for there to BE an orbit there must be something caught with in the suns gravitational well. Once you get beyond our suns gravitational well our sun no longer affects it. And the larger an object is the more it must be within the suns gravitational well in order for the sun to affect its orbit. And even then in order to stay with in the correct orbit to stay within the solar system it would have to be at a speed favorable to being captured by our suns gravitational well. If it is going to fast then it would just end up shooting back out of our solar system and beyond our suns gravitational well. Once it gets beyond our suns gravitational well, in order for it to come back then it MUST have another equally large or larger body to make it sling shot back around again AND sling shot it in such a way as to aim it directly back at our solar system again. This is of course assuming that this all happens despite the fact that our solar system is also moving around the center of our galaxy as is every other star in this galaxy. And not all of them at the same speeds.

Quite frankly even the explanation I just gave does not take into account all the variables that would HAVE to happen in order for a 3000 year orbit to be achieved. To summarize a short list of what I just said...

Things to consider for a 3k year orbit around our sun.

1: gravity well strength vs object size and density and its own gravitational well
2: Would need at minimum 2 objects with the equivalent gravitational well of our sun (this includes our sun). If this is off (ie more or less) then it would not affect the object the same so would not give the same type of sling shot effect as our sun.
3: Slingshot effect itself would have to be accurate as hell..to the point of the tip of a needle accurate from both suns. One degre of difference at the start of the journey back to our sun or to the other sun could literally mean millions of miles of being off course by the end of the journey, as such it must ALWAYS be accurate. And since gravity does fluctuate due to tons of variables in itself..not going to happen.
4: Would have to take into account the movement of the stars that the object would have to sling shot around also.

Basically the only way that there is going to be a 3,000 year old orbit is if it was not natural. IE alien in origin in this case. There are just way too many variables for such an orbit to work.

 

[kaya'08]

You may have already seen this, considering your interest in the subject. Life may already have been found off-Earth in certain meteorites:


Fossils of Cyanobacteria in CI1 Carbonaceous Meteorites

Richard Hoover has discovered evidence of microfossils similar to Cyanobacteria, in freshly fractured slices of the interior surfaces of the Alais, Ivuna, and Orgueil CI1 carbonaceous meteorites. Based on Field Emission Scanning Electron Microscopy (FESEM) and other measures, Richard Hoover has concluded they are indigenous to these meteors and are similar to trichomic cyanobacteria and other trichomic prokaryotes such as filamentous sulfur bacteria. He concludes these fossilized bacteria are not Earthly contaminants but are the fossilized remains of living organisms which lived in the parent bodies of these meteors, e.g. comets, moons, and other astral bodies. Coupled with a wealth of date published elsewhere and in previous editions of the Journal of Cosmology, and as presented in the edited text, "The Biological Big Bang", the implications are that life is everywhere, and that life on Earth may have come from other planets.

...


Journal of Cosmology

Apparently that guy is quick to make assumptions on everything. His work has a lack of expert peer reviews, and NASA has made a point of personally distancing itself from his claims.

Hope something comes of it though.

 

[Guy Incognito]

Now we know for a fact that in the milky way galaxy there is one star system out of 100 billion star systems that has life in it. We also know for a fact that there are billions, even trillions of galaxies in this universe. Each one containing billions of star systems in themselves, some more, some less than the milky way galaxy. You do the math. Though honestly you shouldn't have to. Common sense alone would dictate that I am correct in my assessment. But hey, if you don't trust common sense then by all means do the math.

You listed a lot of variables, but you forgot one critical variable, the probability that abiogenesis will take place at all. Since we don't know how abiogenesis occurs, and we don't know the probability that it will occur, "common sense" dictates that we cannot speak about the likelihood that it will occur.

So let's do the math, as you put it. Make it a simplified Drake equation. The number of galaxies (trillions) times the likelihood that life will develop on any given one of them (X) = the likelihood life has developed elsewhere at all (Y). Now, algebra was never my best subject, but I seem to recall that you cannot solve an equation like that unless you fill in one of the two absent values for variables X or Y.

We're talking about science, not science fiction. We need those variables filled in with data, not your warm and fuzzy feelings that tell you there just have to be aliens because aliens are just so cool. Because, let's face it, that's what this is all about for you. You're making an emotional argument, not a rational one.

You're not accounting for the face that X could be a much greater number than even the number of stars in the universe. You simply take it on faith that it is smaller, when in reality we have no data one way or the other. Stop letting your imagination run away with you.

 

[The Mark]

I think I'll just comment here that: If, in fact, earth IS the only planet with life in the entire universe, that fact could almost be considered proof of a all-powerful being of some sort.

 

[Guy Incognito]

I think I'll just comment here that: If, in fact, earth IS the only planet with life in the entire universe, that fact could almost be considered proof of a all-powerful being of some sort.

I disagree, if for no other reason that it is practically impossible to prove a negative, it can probably never be shown that there is only one planet with life on it. Even if such a thing was shown, it wouldn't be any sort of evidence in and of itself. Abiogenesis could simply be a very rare occurrence, not necessarily miraculous. You're going too far in drawing this conclusion.

 

[Guy Incognito]

Hope something comes of it though.

This is the emotion that leads to sloppy research like the article in the OP.

 

[The Mark]

I disagree, if for no other reason that it is practically impossible to prove a negative, it can probably never be shown that there is only one planet with life on it. Even if such a thing was shown, it wouldn't be any sort of evidence in and of itself. Abiogenesis could simply be a very rare occurrence, not necessarily miraculous. You're going too far in drawing this conclusion.

Which is why I said "almost".

I find it implausible for "Abiogenesis" to actually be that rare, barring some type of outside intervention.

On the other hand, if it IS that rare, then one would almost be led to think humans themselves are some pseudo-demi-god-like race, in a way - because we would be the only force with a will of it's own...but whatever.

Far more a philosophical question than a scientific, in either case.

 

[Kal'Stang]

You listed a lot of variables, but you forgot one critical variable, the probability that abiogenesis will take place at all. Since we don't know how abiogenesis occurs, and we don't know the probability that it will occur, "common sense" dictates that we cannot speak about the likelihood that it will occur.

So let's do the math, as you put it. Make it a simplified Drake equation. The number of galaxies (trillions) times the likelihood that life will develop on any given one of them (X) = the likelihood life has developed elsewhere at all (Y). Now, algebra was never my best subject, but I seem to recall that you cannot solve an equation like that unless you fill in one of the two absent values for variables X or Y.

We're talking about science, not science fiction. We need those variables filled in with data, not your warm and fuzzy feelings that tell you there just have to be aliens because aliens are just so cool. Because, let's face it, that's what this is all about for you. You're making an emotional argument, not a rational one.

You're not accounting for the face that X could be a much greater number than even the number of stars in the universe. You simply take it on faith that it is smaller, when in reality we have no data one way or the other. Stop letting your imagination run away with you.

Now add in the law of probability. If something happens once, it can happen again.

 

[Guy Incognito]

If something happens once, it can happen again.

Once again, you have no evidence on which to base this assertion. You continue to take it on faith, like a religion fundamentalist.

If you want to have faith in ETs despite the complete dearth of scientific evidence, who am I to argue with your religion? But do not claim that it is science.

 

[kaya'08]

This is the emotion that leads to sloppy research like the article in the OP.

Not all scientific notions evolved from concrete facts. Science provides indicators which suggest theories and they remain as such until technology progresses enough to confirm those theories. THAT is the nature of science. Life on another planet is a mere theory, it is mere speculation that life can exist elsewhere but evidence on Earth of extremophiles from deep sea worlds show us that life thrives where it can and life is biologically capable of adapting to conditions usually considered inhabitable.

There are many theories to suggest how or if life could or does exist elsewhere, the search for life is the search for an answer to those scientific theories. It does not make it a "religion" to believe life could exist elsewhere. It is a scientific search, just like any other scientific search to satisfy the answers of any other scientific theory. E.T life remains something that is within the realms of possibility, regardless of how far stretched it may seem. It is not irrational to expect life, however primitive, may exist in our endless and forever expanding universe. Therefore it makes the theory for E.T life feasible and valid.

Throwing about stupid rhetoric contributes little to this otherwise intelligent discussion.

 

[ricksfolly]

I have always taken a huge interest in extraterrestrial life, what the implications on our modern world would be both in terms of science and culture, how it would change our fundamental understanding of biology and our own existence on this planet and - if this life is intelligent - what political implications there would be on world governments.

Careful what you ask for...

Suppose this super intelligence said that man is just a stimulus/response machine with no purpose in life, just work and pleasure, Would you believe it?

ricksfolly

 

[ricksfolly]

If you want to have faith in ETs despite the complete dearth of scientific evidence, who am I to argue with your religion? But do not claim that it is science.

I've often wondered about those who claim they saw UFOs, and the ones who rig the evidence. Is it for recognition, conjured illusion, or are they just in denial like so many others?

ricksfolly

 

[ricksfolly]

Not all scientific notions evolved from concrete facts. Science provides indicators which suggest theories and they remain as such until technology progresses enough to confirm those theories. THAT is the nature of science.

I would hope so, but far too many scientists make educated guesses when the exact causes of certain functions (effects) can't be pinned down.

ricksfolly

 

[Kal'Stang]

Once again, you have no evidence on which to base this assertion. You continue to take it on faith, like a religion fundamentalist.

If you want to have faith in ETs despite the complete dearth of scientific evidence, who am I to argue with your religion? But do not claim that it is science.

Actually there are tons of evidence that if something happens once it can happen again.

People get born all the time. IE if one person gets born, it can happen again.
People learn how to drive. If one person can do it so can another. IE it happens again.
It rains once, it can happen again.
Lightening strikes happen all the time, every once in awhile it even strikes the same spot as before.
Despite the rarity of people getting hit with lightening, some people have been struck more than once. Link

Lots of things happen over and over.

 

[Guy Incognito]

Actually there are tons of evidence that if something happens once it can happen again.

People get born all the time. IE if one person gets born, it can happen again.
People learn how to drive. If one person can do it so can another. IE it happens again.
It rains once, it can happen again.
Lightening strikes happen all the time, every once in awhile it even strikes the same spot as before.
Despite the rarity of people getting hit with lightening, some people have been struck more than once. Link

Lots of things happen over and over.

None of this is evidence that abiogenesis can happen more than once, or even that abiogenesis happens more frequently than once in the number of stars in the universe. There is simply no evidence that abiogenesis can happen more than once. There is no good explanation of how abiogenesis even happened on Earth at all. Until there is, or until there is evidence of the existence of alien life, there is no evidence to support your faith that abiogenesis is a frequent occurrence.

 

[The Mark]

None of this is evidence that abiogenesis can happen more than once, or even that abiogenesis happens more frequently than once in the number of stars in the universe. There is simply no evidence that abiogenesis can happen more than once. There is no good explanation of how abiogenesis even happened on Earth at all. Until there is, or until there is evidence of the existence of alien life, there is no evidence to support your faith that abiogenesis is a frequent occurrence.

In short, before we can draw any kind of scientific conclusions, we need more data.

Without it, we’re just guessing.

That said, given the number of stars in the universe, and what miniscule bits are known about it's workings, I consider the chances that other life exists somewhere to be somewhere in the moderate to high range – but not 100% assured, by any means.

 

[Kal'Stang]

None of this is evidence that abiogenesis can happen more than once, or even that abiogenesis happens more frequently than once in the number of stars in the universe. There is simply no evidence that abiogenesis can happen more than once. There is no good explanation of how abiogenesis even happened on Earth at all. Until there is, or until there is evidence of the existence of alien life, there is no evidence to support your faith that abiogenesis is a frequent occurrence.

But it is evidence that things repeat themselves. Which you said I have no evidence for. Which brings the probability that abiogenesis happening more than once up.

Just because we have no evidence for something or evidence of how something happens does not mean that it doesn't happen. We have no evidence of how gravity happens, yet there is evidence for it. Just as we have no evidence for how abiogenesis happens, yet we know it did happen. And honestly, the more time goes on, the more evidence keeps creeping in that raises the probability for abiogenesis happening elsewhere. Ask any astrobiologist and they will say that the probability is greater than 0.

 

[Guy Incognito]

But it is evidence that things repeat themselves

That's not evidence, nor is it necessarily true.

Just because we have no evidence for something or evidence of how something happens does not mean that it doesn't happen. We have no evidence of how gravity happens, yet there is evidence for it. Just as we have no evidence for how abiogenesis happens, yet we know it did happen. And honestly, the more time goes on, the more evidence keeps creeping in that raises the probability for abiogenesis happening elsewhere. Ask any astrobiologist and they will say that the probability is greater than 0.

You're not following me. As you observe, we have evidence that things fall, and that they do so regularly. That is evidence for the belief that things will fall again in the future. But if we only ever had a single instance of something falling, it would not be evidence that anything will ever fall again in the future. See what I mean?

The fact that life has sprung from unlife once is not evidence that it can or will ever happen again. You need real evidence to base such a belief on. Until then you're still resorting to faith. I mean, look at your last several posts, they sound like any other religious dogmatists. You have no evidence, just a tired insistence that you are right in the face of the absence of evidence.

Like I said before, I understand why you would want to believe in aliens. They are very cool. But it is not science.