[ukmicky (OP)]

- But we know meteorites have traveled between Earth and Mars, so they are not entirely independent.

That's a good point.  Even if Martian rock-samples showed evidence of life, it might be argued that the life originated on Earth.  And was merely transferred to Mars by ancient meteorites which collided with Earth, and blasted bits of life-bearing Earth rocks to Mars.

As far as I’m aware the Martian rock only showed  signs of something that may have been life. So far it has never been determined if life has ever existed on Mars.

[Zer0]

@Kryptid
Thanks for being so prompt & answering to the point...
👍
Precision & Clarity Appreciated!
🙏

Now to take this further, step by step...

1) Would it be Wrong/Incorrect to hypothesize that Inanimate Objects/Matter took Less than a Billion years to come Alive?

2) Would it be an Error to Assume that Intelligent, Self Aware & Conscious life(say humans) took almost 3 billion years to evolve to a specific level of Science & Understanding?

&
3) Could there have been a Different anaerobic or silicon based or Entirely Different branch of Animate Life evolving parallely besides US during the first billion years which probably had No DNA/RNA specifics..could there be a possibility that happened..say a 00.00001% chance of MayBe that happened, but We do Not have any documented proofs for the same?

Anyone???
✌️

[ukmicky (OP)]

@Kryptid
Thanks for being so prompt & answering to the point...
👍
Precision & Clarity Appreciated!
🙏

Now to take this further, step by step...


3) Could there have been a Different anaerobic or silicon based or Entirely Different branch of Animate Life evolving parallely besides US during the first billion years which probably had No DNA/RNA specifics..could there be a possibility that happened..say a 00.00001% chance of MayBe that happened, but We do Not have any documented proofs for the same?

Anyone???
✌️

it’s possible just like somewhere in the universe there is a planet called Traal which is inhabited by Ravenous Bugblatter Beasts.. 

I’m not making fun of your question because in theory just like there being a silicon based life form the above is possible and there is such a planet with such beasts but would you argue there was without any evidence .

[charles1948]

Zer0, you make valuable points in your post.

When we we look for evidence of "life" in the Universe, we may be taking an unduly "Carbon-centric" approach.

We're making the assumption that because Carbon is the basis of life on Earth, so it must be throughout the Universe.  But is this assumption justified. 

Other elements than Carbon, may have the potential to generate life.  An example is Silicon.

This element is the basis of all computers.  And don't these computers qualify as "living" beings?

They consume energy, in the form of electric current, excrete waste, in the form of excess heat, perform behaviours, such as running apps and displaying pixels on screens.  And reproduce themselves all over the planet.

Admittedly, they require a "host" to reproduce - in the form of Apple and other companies.  But does that disqualify them from being "alive".

Fleas and lice and viruses require hosts. 

[Kryptid]

1) Would it be Wrong/Incorrect to hypothesize that Inanimate Objects/Matter took Less than a Billion years to come Alive?

It very probably did happen faster than that, yes.

2) Would it be an Error to Assume that Intelligent, Self Aware & Conscious life(say humans) took almost 3 billion years to evolve to a specific level of Science & Understanding?

At least 3.7 billion years, since we still trace our lineage back to the earliest microbes.

3) Could there have been a Different anaerobic or silicon based or Entirely Different branch of Animate Life evolving parallely besides US during the first billion years which probably had No DNA/RNA specifics..could there be a possibility that happened..say a 00.00001% chance of MayBe that happened, but We do Not have any documented proofs for the same?

It's certainly possible, but we don't have any evidence for it at the moment. That's not to say that couldn't change in the future. However, silicon-based life wouldn't be favorable on Earth. Silicon tends to lock itself up in highly-stable forms like minerals when exposed to oxygen. That doesn't tend to lend itself towards complex chemistry. There is far more silicon on Earth than carbon, and yet carbon-based life forms are the only ones we see.

One plausible alternative lineage of life I've seen proposed is "mirror" life, where the amino acids and carbohydrates are chirally-reversed from the life that we currently know of. It's possible that such life did exist early on, but that it became extinct and we are only have the version we see today. Or maybe abiogenesis somehow always produces our particular version of life for as-yet unknown reasons.

[bearnard1212]

Could there be life on other planets.

If you go by earths example then shouldnt the anwser be,unlikely.

The earth has been around for about 5 billion years, and yet life has only started here once, as all life on earth is related.

once in 5 billion years would mean life must be so hard to start in the first instance that maybe life on earth is just a fluke[]

There are also many other factors that have got be taken into account which has aided life and complex life on our planet to survive.

Like our position in our galaxy,our type and size of our sun and the fact that its not a binary. Jupiter handy for removing the odd comet that comes our way. the moon. the tilt of our planet very handy that. the size of our planet and its position in our solar system ,it's molten core , magnetisphere. oxygen nitrogen mix. the list could go on for ever.

May be our planet is unique and the life on it is unique. is it so unlikley that we are alone,could we be the first.[]

Michael                                     

I assume that threr is a possibility that some sorts of life can exists on Mars. To be more accurate, scientists found frozen water on Mars.There is a possibility that we can find in that ice some sorts of life that existed on the red planet billions years ago.

[ukmicky (OP)]

Could there be life on other planets.

If you go by earths example then shouldnt the anwser be,unlikely.

The earth has been around for about 5 billion years, and yet life has only started here once, as all life on earth is related.

once in 5 billion years would mean life must be so hard to start in the first instance that maybe life on earth is just a fluke[]

There are also many other factors that have got be taken into account which has aided life and complex life on our planet to survive.

Like our position in our galaxy,our type and size of our sun and the fact that its not a binary. Jupiter handy for removing the odd comet that comes our way. the moon. the tilt of our planet very handy that. the size of our planet and its position in our solar system ,it's molten core , magnetisphere. oxygen nitrogen mix. the list could go on for ever.

May be our planet is unique and the life on it is unique. is it so unlikley that we are alone,could we be the first.[]

Michael                                     

I assume that threr is a possibility that some sorts of life can exists on Mars. To be more accurate, scientists found frozen water on Mars.There is a possibility that we can find in that ice some sorts of life that existed on the red planet billions years ago.

Yes it’s possible .

In my original post I said maybe life is so hard to start that it occurring on earth was a fluke . The logical answer to that is even if it was a fluke of nature it happening in the first instance allows for the right conditions to occur again.

 But it’s also possible that the conditions required are so unique (as we only have one example of it ever happening in over 3 billion years ) that a second occasion hasn’t occurred yet and this planet is still the only place in the universe with life .

Think about a 3 billion year plus experiment  that only returns evidence of one positive result .

To ignore the possibility that the earth is currently the only place in the universe with life which most seem to do isn’t very scientific when you consider the evidence ,or should I say the lack of evidence we have so far .


Ps, I’m not a fan of the quoting system we use on the forum.

[Zer0]

@charles1948
Even thou your thoughts or Your definition of " Life " might sound absurd & weird to others...
I cannot help but Agree with You!
👍

@Kryptid
Exactly what i expected...Bang on Target...Good Job!
👍

@bearnard1212
Very Good & Valid Assumption Indeed!
👍

@ukmicky
Perhaps We both are traveling on the same boat..in the same direction..Just that We both sit at opposite ends of the boat..& there is a brick walled sail between Us.
Hence, We are not able to see thru it & see each other as fellow travellers.
🙏

     As Important Evidence sounds to You...lemme Assure you, it is equally as important to me as well.
👍
Science without proof of evidence does not remain Science, but transcends into Religion.
✌️

We have different perspectives of looking at the same thing, just like different frames of reference.

IMHO...We have gathered half a glass of sample from the swimming pool...Others might Rightfully debate it ain't even half glass, more of like half a tablespoon out of the swimming pool.

Now...to discard the whole pool by simple assumption sayin, there ain't anything substantial in the collected sample...hence there won't be anything within the pool would be a lil egoistically careless of Us.
🙏
Please try to Understand..We need Evidence & Proofs..They Only way We would Obtain Or Relinquish them, is to look for them.
We won't find anything except our own ignorance, until & unless We do not Seek!
✌️

[yor_on]

Yes, I think it's one of the main purposes of a universe. To create life. The thread is old but so is the question. Darwin had this idea of it starting in pools bathed in sunlight. It seems he might be correct.

[bearnard1212]

Rather interesting thread. That is a piece of good information. But still, we can only presume that life can exist there because these planets are too far. I think probably such space missions like James Webb Space Telescope the most expensive and the most advanced telescope by NASA or Ariel space telescope ( recently I found an article about that telescope on a website ) and, it has the same purpose as James Webb Space Telescope to search for planets found beyond our solar system, otherwise known as exoplanets or extrasolar planets. I guess such technology will give us a hint at where life can exist and open more exoplanets.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Webb_Space_Telescope

[Zer0]

@bearnard1212


For some odd reason, You seem to be Transfixed with (SPAM)
🤔

Just pure Enthusiasm i guess.
🤷
Nice!



P.S. - i Hope Hidden Links & Shadowed URLs are being Checked/Verified constantly by the Mods.
😇
(Thank You for keeping US Safe & for providing a Secure browsing experience.)
🍭

[CliffordK]

Are any optical telescopes able to directly view exo planets?

Most of what we know about them has been looking at other phenomena including transits and interactions with stars.

[ukmicky (OP)]

Yes, I think it's one of the main purposes of a universe. To create life. The thread is old but so is the question. Darwin had this idea of it starting in pools bathed in sunlight. It seems he might be correct.

Apart  from the need to conserve energy I don’t believe there is a purpose to the universe. I believe everything that has happened since day one has been the result of luck . Anything else would mean there would need to have been a basic pre written plan with a set  of rules .

But where could that plan have come from ,don’t say a cosmic planner.

[charles1948]

The Universe does seem to be governed by a set of rules. One particular rule should attract our attention:

The Pauli Exclusion Principle. Which proposes that no two electrons in an atom, can be in the same state or configuration at the same time.  This principle, when followed through, prevents all matter from collapsing into itself. So instead of the Universe vanishing within a nanosecond of its creation, it can continue to exist for billions of years.

The question is, where did the "Exclusion Principle" come from?  It doesn't seem an obvious kind of rule.  I mean, why shouldn't two electrons have the same state within an atom. What's wrong with that? Is seems natural enough.

Isn't the obvious answer,  that the exclusion principle is an unnatural rule.  Not arising from mere "luck".

But intentionally set up, in order to allow the Universe to exist long enough to develop life?

[Kryptid]

Isn't the obvious answer,  that the exclusion principle is an unnatural rule.

I don't see how that's obvious at all. Something being unintuitive is not the same thing as being unnatural.

[charles1948]

Isn't the obvious answer,  that the exclusion principle is an unnatural rule.

I don't see how that's obvious at all. Something being unintuitive is not the same thing as being unnatural.

Yes, but it seems like something you wouldn't naturally expect.  Was it Fermi who complained, in another context involving the discovery of an unexpected new nuclear particle -  "Who ordered that?"

[Kryptid]

A lot of scientific discoveries weren't expected.

[charles1948]

A lot of scientific discoveries weren't expected.

Yes, I think you nail the essential point.  Most scientists are content with existing long-established theories.  They don't like unexpected disruptions to the peaceful status quo.

So if an upstart scientist puts forward a new theory that disturbs the peace, he/she is likely to get hammered.

That's just human nature, isn't it?

[Professor Mega-Mind]

Bulging-Skulls ,
Here's the thing ; life on Earth started just as soon as the red-hot rock cooled down , not 1-billion years after , not 4-billion years after , but immediately !
The likelihood then is that life is likely to gestate quickly , if the conditions are amenable .
Would the initial form be complete cells or even DNA ? Not a chance , as those would have to evolve from precursors .
The most likely candidate is a simple  protoprion , able to utilize the organic compounds abundant in the chemical stew that birthed it .
*It is of course , possible that this occurred on Mars , and then panspermia blasted the infestation over to Earth .
**The Martian Chronicles are we ! .🤓

[Kryptid]

They don't like unexpected disruptions to the peaceful status quo.

Says who?

So if an upstart scientist puts forward a new theory that disturbs the peace, he/she is likely to get hammered.

Unless there is compelling evidence that the new theory is correct.