Alien life found (possibly)

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Steve steveson**

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/jul/06/philae-comet-could-be-home-to-alien-life-say-top-scientists

Philae comet could be home to alien life, say scientists

Astronomers say features of comet landed on by spacecraft in November, such as black crust and icy lakes, suggest living micro-organisms beneath surface

The comet landed on by the spacecraft Philae could well be home to an abundance of alien microbial life, according to leading astronomers.

Features of the comet, named 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko, such as its organic-rich black crust, are most likely explained by the presence of living organisms beneath an icy surface, the scientists have said.

Rosetta, the European spacecraft orbiting the comet, is also said to have picked up strange clusters of organic material that resemble viral particles.

The European Space Agency pulled off a sensational feat of engineering and captured the imagination of space-travel enthusiasts across the world when Philae landed on the comet in November. Since then, the lander has undergone a period of hibernation from which it awoke in June, having recharged its solar panels.

Neither Rosetta nor Philae are equipped to search for direct evidence of life after a proposal to include this in the mission was allegedly laughed out of court. Maverick astronomer and astrobiologist Prof Chandra Wickramasinghe, who was involved in the mission planning 15 years ago, believes people should be more open to the possibility of alien life.

Wickramasinghe said: “Five hundred years ago it was a struggle to have people accept that the Earth was not the centre of the universe. After that revolution our thinking has remained Earth-centred in relation to life and biology. It’s deeply ingrained in our scientific culture and it will take a lot of evidence to kick it over.”

Prof Wickramasinghe’s views are regarded as several steps outside the scientific mainstream. He has previously suggested that the SARS virus arrived to Earth from space and that airborne spores that caused rainfall in Kerala to turn a reddish hue had an extraterrestrial origin.
Advertisement

He and colleague Dr Max Wallis, from the University of Cardiff, believe 67P and other comets like it could provide homes for living microbes similar to the “extremophiles” that inhabit the most inhospitable regions of the Earth.

Comets may have helped to sow the seeds of life on Earth and possibly other planets such as Mars, they argue.

The scientists have carried out computer simulations that suggest microbes could inhabit watery regions of the comet. Organisms containing anti-freeze salts could be active at temperatures as low as -40C, their research shows.

The comet has a black hydrocarbon crust overlaying ice, smooth icy “seas” and flat-bottomed craters containing lakes of re-frozen water overlain with organic debris.
Wickramasinghe said data coming from the comet seems to point to “micro-organisms being involved in the formation of the icy structures, the preponderance of aromatic hydrocarbons, and the very dark surface”.

“These are not easily explained in terms of prebiotic chemistry. The dark material is being constantly replenished as it is boiled off by heat from the sun. Something must be doing that at a fairly prolific rate.”

The astronomers present their case for life on 67P at the Royal Astronomical Society’s National Astronomy Meeting in Llandudno, Wales.

I'm sure there is much more work to be done, and many possibilities for this to be something else, but (as far as I am aware) this is the first credible evidence of exo-life. This could be game changing on how we view the universe and one of the most important scientific discoveries ever.It could also turn out to be something else entirely.

**jasper76**

Steve steveson wrote:

I'm sure there is much more work to be done, and many possibilities for this to be something else, but (as far as I am aware) this is the first credible evidence of exo-life. This could be game changing on how we view the universe and one of the most important scientific discoveries ever.It could also turn out to be something else entirely.

IME, most people who are familiar with probabilities lean toward the idea that since life was able to occur on Earth, and there are billions of stars per galaxy multiplied by billions of galaxies, that life elsewhere is inevitable. I remember reading in a Dawkins book, that if (a) there were only 1 billion stars per galaxy, (b) there were only 1 billion galaxies, and (c) the chances of life occurring in any given star system and evolving into life roughly as intelligent as homo sapiens were only 1 in a billion, that would mean there would be 1 billion star systems with intelligent life. On the flip-side, since so far we only have actual evidence of life on our own planet, the possibility that life only ever occurred once must be taken seriously. Finding microbial life (or any life at all) within our own star system would certainly lend to the idea that the occurence of life is much more common than we would have thought otherwise, and would dramatically alter the probabilities.

**Easy E**

Isn't there a theory that the first amino acids that form the building block sof DNA probably got here by hitching a ride on a comet that crashed into the Earth?

If I am remebering that theory correctly, it would make sense that other Comets would also have some of the component building blocks needed for basic life to exist.

**jasper76**

Easy E wrote:
Isn't there a theory that the first amino acids that form the building block sof DNA probably got here by hitching a ride on a comet that crashed into the Earth?

If I am remebering that theory correctly, it would make sense that other Comets would also have some of the component building blocks needed for basic life to exist.

Yes, this hypothesis is called panspermia. It used to be presented as a kind of fringe hypothesis, but I'm not so sure anymore since scientists have learned more about extremophiles.

From Wikipedia:
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transpermia )

Panspermia (from Greek πᾶν (pan), meaning "all", and σπέρμα (sperma), meaning "seed") is the hypothesis that life exists throughout the Universe, distributed by meteoroids, asteroids, comets,[1][2] planetoids[3] and, also, by spacecraft in the form of unintended contamination by microorganisms.[4][5]

Panspermia is a hypothesis proposing that microscopic life forms that can survive the effects of space, such as extremophiles, become trapped in debris that is ejected into space after collisions between planets and small Solar System bodies that harbor life. Some organisms may travel dormant for an extended amount of time before colliding randomly with other planets or intermingling with protoplanetary disks. If met with ideal conditions on a new planet's surfaces, the organisms become active and the process of evolution begins. Panspermia is not meant to address how life began, just the method that may cause its distribution in the Universe.[6][7][8]

Pseudo-panspermia (sometimes called "soft panspermia" or "molecular panspermia") argues that the pre-biotic organic building blocks of life originated in space and were incorporated in the solar nebula from which the planets condensed and were further —and continuously— distributed to planetary surfaces where life then emerged (abiogenesis).[9][10] From the early 1970s it was becoming evident that interstellar dust consisted of a large component of organic molecules. Interstellar molecules are formed by chemical reactions within very sparse interstellar or circumstellar clouds of dust and gas.[11] The dust plays a critical role of shielding the molecules from the ionizing effect of ultraviolet radiation emitted by stars.[12]

Several simulations in laboratories and in low Earth orbit suggest that ejection, entry and impact is survivable for some simple organisms.

**Steve steveson**

jasper76 wrote:

IME, most people who are familiar with probabilities lean toward the idea that since life was able to occur on Earth, and there are billions of stars per galaxy multiplied by billions of galaxies, that life elsewhere is inevitable.

Depends. I believe most people in the field say either the conditions for life are easy to fulfill and we should find it everywhere (in galactic terms, but the galaxy is mindbogglingly big), or that the conditions for life are so narrow and the barriers to creating life so high that we are unique, or almost unique.

Finding microbial life (or any life at all) within our own star system would certainly lend to the idea that the occurrence of life is much more common than we would have thought otherwise, and would dramatically alter the probabilities.

And thats what makes this so exciting. If we found something basically on our first time of looking then the universe is probably covered in germs.

**Skinnereal**

Steve steveson wrote:
.... the universe is probably covered in germs.

Is this why lots of comets get referred to as dirty snowballs?

So, the War of the Worlds ending is less likely, as most other lifeforms are resistant.
And, zombie infestation or Tyranids.

**Ghazkuul**

Its the Ork infestation I KNEW IT!

**Scrabb**

Skinnereal wrote:
Steve steveson wrote:
.... the universe is probably covered in germs.

Is this why lots of comets get referred to as dirty snowballs?

So, the War of the Worlds ending is less likely, as most other lifeforms are resistant.
And, zombie infestation or Tyranids.

Well I could've told you that!

**ScootyPuffJunior**

This dude has a history of making outrageous claims: https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=site:http:%2F%2Fwww.slate.com%2Fblogs%2Fbad_astronomy+wickramasinghe&cad=h

"An extraordinary claim requires extraordinary proof." -Marcello Truzzi

**BeAfraid**

Easy E wrote:
Isn't there a theory that the first amino acids that form the building block sof DNA probably got here by hitching a ride on a comet that crashed into the Earth?

If I am remebering that theory correctly, it would make sense that other Comets would also have some of the component building blocks needed for basic life to exist.

Yes, there is such a hypothesis.

MB

Automatically Appended Next Post:
The guy who is trying to suggest that the comet must have life is apparently forgetting the Miller-Urey experiments, where simple energy added to the right "soup" produced animo acids.

So... That the surface is covered in complex hydrocarbons could just be a product of a reaction like the Miller-Urey experiments.

And, yes... This could be one way that Organics got to earth, and with the right geological scaffolding produced self-replicating (or assisted replicating) molecules, which eventually became "Life."

One of the qualifications of "Life" is that it be Self-Replicating, and produce a metabolism that drives the replication.

One of the intermediary steps between inanimate matter and life is organic molecules, which have a "Mediated Replication" (they don't produce their own energy for replication, but when energy is added from another source, they produce copies of themselves, with variation - so evolution has begun to play a part).

Eventually, so the hypothesis goes, another energy producing sub-unit was introduced to one of these "Mediating Reproducers" that resulted in it being able to self-replicate.

Introduce maniacal laughter here, screaming "LIIIFFFEEEE!"

And from there... here we are.

MB

**jasper76**

BeAfraid wrote:
One of the qualifications of "Life" is that it be Self-Replicating, and produce a metabolism that drives the replication.

Says who?

Self-replication would certainly be a helpful characteristic to help us determine diagnostically whether something is "alive", but its possible to conceive of a lifeform that does not replicate itself.

**ScootyPuffJunior**

jasper76 wrote:
BeAfraid wrote:
One of the qualifications of "Life" is that it be Self-Replicating, and produce a metabolism that drives the replication.

Says who?

Self-replication would certainly be a helpful characteristic to help us determine diagnostically whether something is "alive", but its possible to conceive of a lifeform that does not replicate itself.

Says biologists?

Self-replications is most definitely one of the characteristics of life, but not the only one. Right now, there are seven key characteristics that can be used to judge whether something is considered life: homeostasis, metabolism, organization (the cell), growth, reproduction, adaptation, and response to stimuli. What can and can't be considered "life" is sometimes ambiguous. Viruses carry genetic material, reproduce, and evolve through natural selection (all things that are checks in the "life" column) but they lack things like cellular structure. They exist in a gray area between life and inanimate and are sometimes just considered replicators.

As to your second point... it is highly speculative to conceive of an organism that does not replicate (either sexually or asexually). Simple viruses have been manufactured from non-living material by scientists, but like I mentioned above, viruses are not considered living organisms. Reproduction is pretty much a fundamental feature of life.

**jasper76**

ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
jasper76 wrote:
BeAfraid wrote:
One of the qualifications of "Life" is that it be Self-Replicating, and produce a metabolism that drives the replication.

Says who?

Self-replication would certainly be a helpful characteristic to help us determine diagnostically whether something is "alive", but its possible to conceive of a lifeform that does not replicate itself.

Says biologists?

Self-replications is most definitely one of the characteristics of life, but not the only one. Right now, there are seven key characteristics that can be used to judge whether something is considered life: homeostasis, metabolism, organization (the cell), growth, reproduction, adaptation, and response to stimuli. What can and can't be considered "life" is sometimes ambiguous. Viruses carry genetic material, reproduce, and evolve through natural selection (all things that are checks in the "life" column) but they lack things like cellular structure. They exist in a gray area between life and inanimate and are sometimes just considered replicators.

As to your second point... it is highly speculative to conceive of an organism that does not replicate (either sexually or asexually). Simple viruses have been manufactured from non-living material by scientists, but like I mentioned above, viruses are not considered living organisms. Reproduction is pretty much a fundamental feature of life.

It is also highly speculative to conceive of an organism that must necessarily conform to these 7 characteristics scientists set using life on Earth as the basis. I get what you're saying, but when I hear scientists talking about SETI, they invariably constrain their searches to life as they know it. Of course, this is their best bet since we have a total sample size of 1 (DNA-based life on Earth), but is seems to me to be a smallish, parochial view of the possibilities for forms of life in the universe.

But I am not a scientist.

**Wyrmalla**

jasper76 wrote:
Steve steveson wrote:

I'm sure there is much more work to be done, and many possibilities for this to be something else, but (as far as I am aware) this is the first credible evidence of exo-life. This could be game changing on how we view the universe and one of the most important scientific discoveries ever.It could also turn out to be something else entirely.

IME, most people who are familiar with probabilities lean toward the idea that since life was able to occur on Earth, and there are billions of stars per galaxy multiplied by billions of galaxies, that life elsewhere is inevitable. I remember reading in a Dawkins book, that if (a) there were only 1 billion stars per galaxy, (b) there were only 1 billion galaxies, and (c) the chances of life occurring in any given star system and evolving into life roughly as intelligent as homo sapiens were only 1 in a billion, that would mean there would be 1 billion star systems with intelligent life. On the flip-side, since so far we only have actual evidence of life on our own planet, the possibility that life only ever occurred once must be taken seriously. Finding microbial life (or any life at all) within our own star system would certainly lend to the idea that the occurence of life is much more common than we would have thought otherwise, and would dramatically alter the probabilities.

And a sister theory to that is that if the universe is so old, and so big, how come we haven't seen anything? As though there's some big Cthulhu-ish reason why the rest of the universe seems to dark, and well, maybe we aught to stop sending out those probes and hush up...

**jasper76**

Wyrmalla wrote:
jasper76 wrote:
Steve steveson wrote:

I'm sure there is much more work to be done, and many possibilities for this to be something else, but (as far as I am aware) this is the first credible evidence of exo-life. This could be game changing on how we view the universe and one of the most important scientific discoveries ever.It could also turn out to be something else entirely.

IME, most people who are familiar with probabilities lean toward the idea that since life was able to occur on Earth, and there are billions of stars per galaxy multiplied by billions of galaxies, that life elsewhere is inevitable. I remember reading in a Dawkins book, that if (a) there were only 1 billion stars per galaxy, (b) there were only 1 billion galaxies, and (c) the chances of life occurring in any given star system and evolving into life roughly as intelligent as homo sapiens were only 1 in a billion, that would mean there would be 1 billion star systems with intelligent life. On the flip-side, since so far we only have actual evidence of life on our own planet, the possibility that life only ever occurred once must be taken seriously. Finding microbial life (or any life at all) within our own star system would certainly lend to the idea that the occurence of life is much more common than we would have thought otherwise, and would dramatically alter the probabilities.

And a sister theory to that is that if the universe is so old, and so big, how come we haven't seen anything? As though there's some big Cthulhu-ish reason why the rest of the universe seems to dark, and well, maybe we aught to stop sending out those probes and hush up...

There's also another monkey-wrench. If ET intelligent life (or any ET life really) ever existed, its more likely that it has already become extinct than it is that it exists simultaneously with homo sapiens.

**Wyrmalla**

Hmn, actually is there a rough number for how much intelligent life could have existed in our galaxy up to this point? Then we work out how much of it could still be out there. As we put in the factors of them destroying themselves , being hit by some natural disaster or not having space fairing capabilities. If the probability for life even forming is so low, it becomes pretty minute for it to even get to where are now considering our own history. We ourselves can't even travel to our nearest planet, and for all we send out probes they're hardly advanced enough to detect everything.

...That and intelligent life could well be out there, but it exists in a form so alien that we wouldn't consider it life. Star Trek's always portraying its aliens that look and act just like us. Hell even the ones in that series that are off the wall sci-fi are still bound by human assumptions. Alien life could be something so weird that we could find it difficult to even comprehend how it works or acts (...you could even call it alien to us).

*Dammit Jasper I just read your post about that last bit!

**ScootyPuffJunior**

jasper76 wrote:
It is also highly speculative to conceive of an organism that must necessarily conform to these 7 characteristics scientists set using life on Earth as the basis.

No, it isn't.

Still, those seven and broad characteristics leave lots of room for variation and there is still room for alternatives. The general consensus is that for something to be truly alive, it must meet all or most of those characteristics.

I get what you're saying, but when I hear scientists talking about SETI, they invariably constrain their searches to life as they know it. Of course, this is their best bet since we have a total sample size of 1 (DNA-based life on Earth), but is seems to me to be a smallish, parochial view of the possibilities for forms of life in the universe.

You also have to remember that life as we know it fits into our understanding of the physical universe quite well. Carbon is unique and fundamental to life on Earth because of the way it interacts with other elements; it's flexible with creating covalent chemical bonds with non-metallics, especially with nitrogen, oxygen, and hydrogen. Carbon dioxide and water aide in the storage of solar energy through sugars and starches (like glucose) and the oxidation of glucose fuels all biochemical reactions. All of these things are abundant in the Universe so it makes sense that life (even though it may be very different than us) would utilize a similar chemistry.

SETI and others fully recognize that alien life my very well be vastly different from life on Earth, but there is a reason why they work they way they do. It's a lot easier to start searching for what we understand and what makes logical sense than it is for what we might not be able to even recognize.

But I am not a scientist.

Then I find it rather odd that you so easily discount the entire wealth of knowledge that actual scientists have on what life is.

It's also important to remember that there is no unequivocal definition of life. Scientists and philosophers have been pondering this question for our entire existence. However, on a chemical level life is fundamentally a self-replicating reaction, so to say that something could truly be considered "life" but doesn't reproduce in some way is impossible.

**jasper76**

ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
Then I find it rather odd that you so easily discount the entire wealth of knowledge that actual scientists have on what life is.

I simply object to the notion that something must necessarily be self-replicating to be alive (for example, if there was a life form that never died, it would have no need to replicate to survive). I don't dismiss the entire wealth of scientific knowledge in the issue. At the same time, I don't recognize that there is or has ever been a scientist that coiud claim to be an expert on extra terrestrial life, because no one has ever encountered or found evidence for extra terrestrial life.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

It's also important to remember that there is no unequivocal definition of life. Scientists and philosophers have been pondering this question for our entire existence. However, on a chemical level life is fundamentally a self-replicating reaction, so to say that something could truly be considered "life" but doesn't reproduce in some way is impossible.

There are plenty of people that do not reproduce, yet they are alive. There are plenty of mutated animals that cannot reproduce, yet they are alive. They are just dead ends of the DNA family tree, but I don't think any scientist would claim that if a being can't reproduce, it is not alive.

One could also think of a species that used to reproduce, but transcended the need to do so through evolution or technology. One can even imagine this happening to homo sapiens. If our SET I friend came into contact wih such a being, would she recognize it as a life form?

**ScootyPuffJunior**

jasper76 wrote:
I simply object to the notion that something must necessarily be self-replicating to be alive (for example, if there was a life form that never died, it would have no need to replicate to survive).

You are confusing "immortal" with "immune to death." There are animals on this planet that are biologically immortal, yet they can still get eaten, crushed, burned, poisoned, shot, stabbed, etc. The longer an animal lives, the higher the chance that something will kill it. That is why even biologically immortal creatures still make babies.

I don't dismiss the entire wealth of scientific knowledge in the issue.

...he says, while dismissing science.

At the same time, I don't recognize that there is or has ever been a scientist that coiud claim to be an expert on extra terrestrial life, because no one has ever encountered or found evidence for extra terrestrial life.

No one is claiming to be an expert on extraterrestrial life. Like I said, we have a pretty good grasp on how life works here on Earth so it makes sense to look what we recognize.

There are plenty of people that do not reproduce, yet they are alive. There are plenty of mutated animals that cannot reproduce, yet they are alive. They are just dead ends of the DNA family tree, but I don't think any scientist would claim that if a being can't reproduce, it is not alive.

Now you are confusing concept of "life" with the act of "being alive." Infertile people and animals are still biologically equipped to reproduce just like any other member of their species, however extenuating circumstances prevent them from achieving it (disease, injury, mutations, etc.)

One could also think of a species that used to reproduce, but transcended the need to do so through evolution or technology. One can even imagine this happening to homo sapiens. If our SET I friend came into contact wih such a being, would she recognize it as a life form?

Other than the sci-fi-ness of what you are trying to say, creatures can't evolve to not reproduce because evolution requires some kind of reproduction (a way to pass down genetic material). As far as technological entities go, they would still need to "reproduce,' albeit just probably not sexually. This goes back to my original statement that there is no unequivocal definition of what constitute "life."

**jasper76**

You are confusing words I didn't use with other words I didn't use.

If a genetic germ line evolved (or was engineered) to produce a phenotype that for all intents and purposes was "immune from death", it could transcend its biological need to reproduce in order to survive, and lose its ability to do so through deleterious mutations.

Also, one could imagine a form of life that is specifically engineered not to be self-replicating, but rather created from scratch every time, and I don't think this would mean that such beings would not be alive.

Would you tell poor Weyoun that he's not alive?

**Jimsolo**

I wouldn't, but Garak might.

**ScootyPuffJunior**

jasper76 wrote:
You are confusing words I didn't use with other words I didn't use.

Are you fething serious? That's what you're going with?

Let's backtrack for a moment, shall we? Someone said that the ability to reproduce is a characteristic of life. You said, "Says who?" I replied, "Biologists." After continuing to argue that well established idea, I closed with the fact that, on a chemical level, life is fundamentally a self-replicating reaction. You countered that with, "There are plenty of people that do not reproduce, yet they are alive," as if I was saying that infertile people are somehow not considered alive. I hope by now you see how ridiculous of a logical jump you committed with that asinine reasoning, never mind the fact that even an infertile person is still self-replicating as in they continue to grow and their cells reproduce.

If a genetic germ line evolved (or was engineered) to produce a phenotype that for all intents and purposes was "immune from death", it could transcend its biological need to reproduce in order to survive, and lose its ability to do so through deleterious mutations.

I already explained to you that there are organisms alive, on Earth as we speak, that are biologically immortal. Immunity to death is impossible and there is no evolutionary reason for it.

Also, one could imagine a form of life that is specifically engineered not to be self-replicating, but rather created from scratch every time, and I don't think this would mean that such beings would not be alive.

Again, you are combining two distinct ideas (spontaneous abiogensis and artificially engineered organisms) in one wrong idea. You also are stuck on the idea that self-replication is the only characteristic of life even though I have said time and time again that it is not. For instance, viruses reproduce, yet they are not alive.

Would you tell poor Weyoun that he's not alive?

I don't know or care who that is, but I'm guessing it's a Star Trek character and fictional so it doesn't really matter in the context of this conversation.

**generalgrog**

So much speculation in this article....

Comets may have helped

carried out computer simulations that suggest microbes could

data coming from the comet seems to point to

Until they have proof it's all science fiction as normal.

GG

**TheMeanDM**

Kardashians
Kanye
Honey Boo Boo
Jerry Springer

Just a few reasons intelligent extraterrestrial life has avoided making contact.

**Iron_Captain**

Microbes are so boring...
Please call me again when they have find intelligent life. Preferably with tentacles...

**Pete Melvin**

Wyrmalla wrote:
Hmn, actually is there a rough number for how much intelligent life could have existed in our galaxy up to this point?

http://xkcd.com/384/

Automatically Appended Next Post:

jasper76 wrote:

There's also another monkey-wrench. If ET intelligent life (or any ET life really) ever existed, its more likely that it has already become extinct than it is that it exists simultaneously with homo sapiens.

Theres also the question of how they are communicating. As we switch to more digital communication, the amount of comms traffic that is "leaking" out into space is decreasing rapidly. If any nearby civs got to this stage as rapidly as we did, we could potentially be sat right next to each other and yet miss each other totally.

**Pacific**

It's a shame ScootyPuffJunior that you can't convey your thoughts on this/discussion without coming across so aggressively and demeaning. Not sure if that was your intent, but it's certainly how it reads.

Kardashians
Kanye
Honey Boo Boo
Jerry Springer

Just a few reasons intelligent extraterrestrial life has avoided making contact.

Think that's definitely one possibility.

Fermi's Paradox is pretty interesting concerning this (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox)

One thing that would explain this is that, as Carl Sagan opined, eventually intelligent life destroys itself, or at least the level of civilisation necessary to make interstellar travel or communication possible.

If you think how many times we've come close to knocking ourselves back into the stone-age with nuclear weapons (three or four times - that we know of). Those weapons still exist, while geo-political stability is on decidedly shaky ground. New methods of biological warfare, not to mention our own ability to destroy the natural environment and the repercussions that is probably going to have over the next hundred years, I don't think it's necessarily being pessimistic to imagine that eventually someone will role 'snake eyes'. And, it only has to happen once.

If one is to argue that these methods of warfare are a certain development considering the nature of evolution and intelligence, you could imagine a billion worlds over billions of years disappearing in little mushroom clouds, and none (or perhaps very few) ever pass through a level of self-enlightenment where this prospect of self-inflicted destruction becomes less likely.

**Easy E**

generalgrog wrote:
So much speculation in this article....

Comets may have helped

carried out computer simulations that suggest microbes could

data coming from the comet seems to point to

Until they have proof it's all science fiction as normal.

GG

Not too mention, the guy making the claims is.... iffy.... at best.

I guess this Wahrbriinghzztatyysudfhaoifniofpwqrqprqrop guy has made a lot of speculative claims that have collapsed under any type of scrutiny.

**ScootyPuffJunior**

Pacific wrote:
It's a shame ScootyPuffJunior that you can't convey your thoughts on this/discussion without coming across so aggressively and demeaning. Not sure if that was your intent, but it's certainly how it reads.

It's a shame that pointing out that someone is wrong is considered "aggressive" and "demeaning."

I generally agree with Jasper on most things, but his reluctance to accept the basic principles of biology (while in the same breath claiming he isn't doing it), the twisting of what I said (his accusation that I said "infertile people =/= not alive" is a great example of this), the accusation that I'm the one "confusing words I didn't use with other words I didn't use," and then following it all up with the fallback of, "...but I'm not a scientist," is asinine. Every time I countered one his ridiculous leaps in logic he just moves on to something equally as fantastical, which I then countered bluntly and honestly. So while I make no apologies for not entertaining nonsense like Star Trek characters, I certainly wasn't rude, aggressive, demeaning, or any other violation of Dakka's Number One Rule when explaining how and why he was incorrect.

Easy E wrote:
generalgrog wrote:
So much speculation in this article....

Comets may have helped

carried out computer simulations that suggest microbes could

data coming from the comet seems to point to

Until they have proof it's all science fiction as normal.

GG

Not too mention, the guy making the claims is.... iffy.... at best.

I guess this Wahrbriinghzztatyysudfhaoifniofpwqrqprqrop guy has made a lot of speculative claims that have collapsed under any type of scrutiny.

GG's belief in creationism aside, Chandra Wickramasinghe has made a career of making extraordinary claims about extraterrestrial life, which then get picked up by news organizations looking for click-bait headlines, and then consumed by the unscientific masses on social media.

Here's a good article talking about the kind of gak this guy pulls: http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2015/07/07/comet_life_no.html?wpisrc=burger_bar

**Pacific**

Pretty interesting article!

It would be good if the newspaper followed up with this kind of article, just as a reality check.

ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
Pacific wrote:
It's a shame ScootyPuffJunior that you can't convey your thoughts on this/discussion without coming across so aggressively and demeaning. Not sure if that was your intent, but it's certainly how it reads.

It's a shame that pointing out that someone is wrong is considered "aggressive" and "demeaning."

I generally agree with Jasper on most things, but his reluctance to accept the basic principles of biology (while in the same breath claiming he isn't doing it), the twisting of what I said (his accusation that I said "infertile people =/= not alive" is a great example of this), the accusation that I'm the one "confusing words I didn't use with other words I didn't use," and then following it all up with the fallback of, "...but I'm not a scientist," is asinine. Every time I countered one his ridiculous leaps in logic he just moves on to something equally as fantastical, which I then countered bluntly and honestly. So while I make no apologies for not entertaining nonsense like Star Trek characters, I certainly wasn't rude, aggressive, demeaning, or any other violation of Dakka's Number One Rule when explaining how and why he was incorrect.

You don't have to try and justify it to me, just pointing out how it came across.

Probably something to do with why he hasn't since posted in the thread.