A very basic question...

"Mark McIntyre" wrote:

I don't think anybody will disagree. What they /will/ say however is
that as yet we have no evidence for any life outside Earth, and hte
only places we could reasonably expect life to evolve are earth-like
planets, of which we have so far detected exactly zero.

One was discovered this week and that's what brought this on, Mark.
So far different types of media have already reported that it's unlikey to
have any lifeforms on it.


Marcel

In ,
Marcel Kuijper typed:

If it were just ordinary humans making these claims I wouldn't think
anything of it, but when scientists start saying stuff like that I
feel anger swell up inside me. Lots of different scientists from lots
of different countries stand behind the same claim.


No, they don't.

You need to check out what the current thinking on this is before
criticising it. I mean scientific thinking, not newspaper distortions of
"Boffins said...". You might be surprised.


So what are they basing their claims on?


As above. Check out current scientific thought before wading in.

Why is it they throw humans into the equation whenever a new planet is
discovered?


Scientists don't.


Do I believe in life elsewhere? You betcha!


As do many scientists, in principle. None has been detected so far. Any
scientist would admit that the current lack of evidence does not rule out
other life elsewhere.



Life started over after the dinosaurs


No, it didn't.

and we are that life.


We evolved from small mammals that were around at the time of the dinosaurs
and which survived whatever caused the dinosaur extinction.

It might even be possible that the asteroid that killed the dinosaurs
was carrying a microscopic, single-celled organism deep inside it and
when the dust settled, life began once again.


No, you have it wrong. The dinosaurs and some other species became extinct.
Many other species survived and continued to evolve. There have been several
mass extinctions, but none of them resulted in the extinction of *all*
life...as far as we know. Of course, it is possible that there were some
early complete extinctions that occurred before any fossil record could be
laid down.


Maybe it was the asteroid after that, or maybe even the one after
that. If so, that microscopic, single-celled organism had to have
come from somewhere inside the universe. Maybe it even came from a
universe outside our own. Who knows for sure?


Currently, the origin of life is not understood, although subsequent
evolution is. This is basic science that all scientists understand and they
would all agree that the mechanism of abiogenisis is not yet understood.

But until we get actual proof of that,


Proof of what ?

it's my belief that scientists
around the globe should stop saying that life outside planet Earth is
not possible due to factors that we humble humans could not possibly
endure.


Again, you have it wrong. They are not doing that. They are saying that
extraterrestial life has not been detected...so far. Where are you getting
your information from ???

Jo

In ,
Marcel Kuijper typed:

One was discovered this week and that's what brought this on, Mark.
So far different types of media have already reported that it's
unlikey to have any lifeforms on it.


No, it was not an earth-like planet.


Smallest extrasolar planet revealed by microlensing

* 18:00 25 January 2006
* NewScientist.com news service
* Maggie McKee
Astronomers have found an extrasolar planet that may be just 5.5 times as
massive as the Earth - that would make it the smallest exoplanet ever
detected around a normal star. The find suggests Earth-like planets are
abundant in the galaxy and validates a technique that should be able to find
them.

What media are saying "it's unlikey to have any lifeforms on it." ?

Jo

"Martin Brown" wrote:

"Marcel Kuijper" wrote:
If we evolved in a certain way to survive on Earth's gentle surface,
don't
you think that other, more toxic, planets harbour different lifeforms
that evolved
differently than we did because they have to survive on a more harsh
surface?
Isn't that how it works?

After a fashion yes. But you still need a source of energy to drive the
system - either from the sun or from vulcanism for instance.

Planets themselves are never fully dead, are they?


Not much of an atmosphere on Mercury. Mars is more challenging. I'd
still be prepared to go 50:50 for life on Mars if we looked hard enough.

Because of possible traces of former rivers?


I don't know where you get the idea that anyone is claiming this apart
from a few fundamentalist religious nutcases. The scientific position is
that we have yet to find conclusive evidence of life elsewhere. Although
personally I believe that the methane in the Mars atmosphere may well be
a smoking gun.

Press.
I let myself get a little carried away after reading yet another article in
the
newspapers, which was written by a person who either misunderstood or
misquoted the scientist he interviewed.
So I guess I owe everyone in this newsgroup my sincere apologies.


If you can demonstrate some "life as we do not know it" then you are in
line for a Nobel prize. But there are some pretty tight constraints on
how chemical based life can behave based on the relative abundances of
elements in the universe and their chemical properties.

It is just possible that extremely slow chemistry at low temperatures
could produce spectacular results over the lifetime of the universe.

That's what I like to hear! Positivity!
And that's exactly the right attitude.
I once worked with a guy who lots of people thought was not from this
planet,
but that's beside the point. But what a story that would make, huh? :-)


What they do say is we have not seen evidence of life elsewhere. People
are at this moment preparing new experiments to look for life on Mars
and Europa. Both thought to be good candidates in our solar system.

What makes Ganymede and Callisto lesser candidates for that matter?
Even Io would be fun to send a probe to.


I think you ought to look at the Drake equation then. Many scientists
will haggle about the coefficients but non that I know would ever be so
rash as to say the only life in the universe is on the Earth. Most
professional astronomers believe the exact opposite but we cannot
prove it.

When archaeologists found "the Hobbit" on Flores, this sent pretty big
shockwaves to lots of different people around the globe.
An unknown species of human said to have lived just 12.000 years ago?
That's how much we know about life on our own planet.
Science deserves to score a few points on some other planets.
I just hope I live to see that day.


http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/origins/drake.html

This isn't a bad introductory resource either:

http://www.resa.net/nasa/xlife_intro.htm

I've bookmarked them both and will look into them this weekend.


Marcel

"Mark McIntyre" wrote:

I'd like to take a moment here to point out that scientists /are/
ordinary human beings.

I meant as opposed to non-scientists.
I thought of using the word "civilians", but it's such an ugly word.


What, you think we're all androids, or martians?

That would be something....


Marcel

On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 20:12:25 +0100, in uk.sci.astronomy , "Marcel
Kuijper" wrote:

"Mark McIntyre" wrote:


only places we could reasonably expect life to evolve are earth-like
planets, of which we have so far detected exactly zero.

One was discovered this week and that's what brought this on, Mark.

Not earth-like, despite poor reporting by the BBC amongst others. What
the astronomers meant by earth-like was "not a gas giant like all the
other planets we found so far".

Of course, you may consider an average temperature of 50K to be
earth-like. By the same criteria as these reports, Neptune and
Ganymede are 'earth-like'. :-)

So far different types of media have already reported that it's unlikey to
have any lifeforms on it.

Any alien examining only Wapping, Fleet Street and White City would be
forced to the same conclusion about London.
Mark McIntyre
--

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 20:01:18 +0000 (UTC), in uk.sci.astronomy , "Jo"
wrote:

What media are saying "it's unlikey to have any lifeforms on it." ?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4647142.stm

Ignore the idiot headline.
Mark McIntyre
--

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 23:13:50 +0100, in uk.sci.astronomy , "Marcel
Kuijper" wrote:

"Martin Brown" wrote:

After a fashion yes. But you still need a source of energy to drive the
system - either from the sun or from vulcanism for instance.

Planets themselves are never fully dead, are they?

Yes - some planets have absolutely no internal heat engines, either
because they're too small, or because their composition is wrong.

I don't know where you get the idea that anyone is claiming this apart
from a few fundamentalist religious nutcases.

Press.

You might want to read actual scientific journals then, rather than
the Sun and Express... :-)
Mark McIntyre
--

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

In ,
Mark McIntyre typed:
On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 20:01:18 +0000 (UTC), in uk.sci.astronomy , "Jo"
wrote:

What media are saying "it's unlikey to have any lifeforms on it." ?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4647142.stm


I understand that, at a surface temperature of 50K, the sort of chemical
reactions that we recognise as supporting life are happening very slowly.
And water is a solid. And other solvents may not be suitable etc. But
virtually nothing is known about this planet apart from its mass and its
distance from the red dwarf, so how can we say anything about the likelihood
or not of life there ?

As others have said...we don't even know about (extraterrestial) life in our
own solar system, except that none has been detected so far. Of course,
there may be life on Mars now, transported there by various none-sterile
spacecraft from Earth as hardy spores.

Ignore the idiot headline.


Done :-)

Jo

In ,
Marcel Kuijper typed:

Because of possible traces of former rivers?


There are also traces of salty shallow oceans. Do a Google on
NASA+mars+rover and read some of the fascinating stuff there that *never*
seems to get reported in the popular press.

Jo