Evidence for ET is mounting daily, but not prove

Dec 08, 2010 By SETH BORENSTEIN , AP Science Writer
This image, released Nov. 12, 1996, by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif., shows Jupiter's ice-covered moon, Europa. Every new discovery makes it seem more likely that we are not alone. The case for some kind alien life somewhere else in the universe is steadily building. In the past few days, scientists have revealed there are three times as many stars as they previously thought and that a bacteria can live on arsenic, expanding our understanding of how life can thrive under the harshest and strangest environments. Those came on the heels of the first discovery of a potentially habitable planet. (AP Photo/Jet Propulsion Lab)

(AP) -- Lately, a handful of new discoveries make it seem more likely that we are not alone - that there is life somewhere else in the universe.

In the past several days, scientists have reported there are three times as many stars as they previously thought. Another group of researchers discovered a microbe can live on arsenic, expanding our understanding of how life can thrive under the harshest environments. And earlier this year, astronomers for the first time said they'd found a potentially habitable planet.

"The evidence is just getting stronger and stronger," said Carl Pilcher, director of NASA's Astrobiology Institute, which studies the origins, evolution and possibilities of life in the universe. "I think anybody looking at this evidence is going to say, 'There's got to be life out there.'"

A caveat: Since much of this research is new, scientists are still debating how solid the conclusions are. Some scientists this week have publicly criticized how NASA's arsenic-using microbe study was conducted, questioning its validity.

Another reason not to get too excited is that the search for life starts small - microscopically small - and then looks to evolution for more. The first signs of life elsewhere are more likely to be closer to slime mold than to ET. It can evolve from there.

Scientists have an equation that calculates the odds of civilized life on another planet. But much of it includes factors that are pure guesswork on less-than-astronomical factors, such as the likelihood of the evolution of intelligence and how long civilizations last. Stripped to its simplistic core - with the requirement for intelligence and civilization removed - the calculations hinge on two basic factors: How many places out there can support life? And how hard is it for life to take root?

What last week's findings did was both increase the number of potential homes for life and broaden the definition of what life is. That means the probability for alien life is higher than ever before, agree 10 scientists interviewed by The Associated Press.

Seth Shostak, senior astronomer at the SETI Institute in California, ticks off the astronomical findings about planet abundance and Earthbound discoveries about life's hardiness. "All of these have gone in the direction of encouraging life out there and they didn't have to."

Two new studies published online Wednesday in the journal Nature add to the interest in weird planets outside our solar system, though they don't exactly make a stronger case for life. One study found a super-hot planet much bigger than Jupiter that seems to be full of carbon in its atmosphere. In the other study, astronomers found a star with at least four large young planets, challenging past assumptions that there's a limit to how many huge planets a star system could have.

Scientists who looked for life were once dismissed as working on the fringes of science. Now, Shostak said, it's the other way around. He said that given the mounting evidence, to believe now that Earth is the only place harboring life is essentially like believing in miracles. "And astronomers tend not to believe in miracles."

Astronomers, however, do believe in proof. They don't have proof of life yet. There's no green alien or even a bacterium that scientists can point to and say it's alive and alien. Even that arsenic-munching microbe discovered in Mono Lake in California isn't truly alien. It was manipulated in the lab.

But, says NASA astrobiologist Chris McKay, who has worked on searches for life on Mars and extreme places on Earth, "There are real things we can point to and show that being optimistic about life elsewhere is not silly."

First, there's the basic question of where such life might exist. Until a few years ago, astronomers thought life was only likely to be found on or around planets circling stars like our sun. So that's where the search of life focused - on stars like ours.

That left out the universe's most common stars: red dwarfs, which are smaller than our sun and dimmer. Up to 90 percent of the stars in the universe are red dwarf stars. And astronomers assumed planets circling them would be devoid of life.

But three years ago, NASA got the top experts in the field together. They crunched numbers and realized that life could exist on planets orbiting red dwarfs. The planets would have to be closer to their star and wouldn't rotate as quickly as Earth. The scientists considered habitability and found conditions near these small stars wouldn't be similar to Earth but would still be acceptable for life.

That didn't just open up billions of new worlds, but many, many times that.

Last week, a Yale University astronomer said he estimates there are 300 sextillion stars - triple the previous number. Lisa Kaltenegger of Harvard University says scientists now believe that as many as half the stars in our galaxy have planets that are two to 10 times the size of Earth - "super Earths" which might sustain life.

Then the question is how many of those are in the so-called Goldilocks zone - not too hot, not too cold. The discovery of such a planet was announced in April, although some scientists are challenging that.

The other half of the equation is: How likely is life? Over the past decade and a half, scientists have found Earth life growing in acid, in Antarctica and other extreme environments. But nothing topped last week's news of a lake bacterium that scientists could train to thrive on arsenic instead of phosphorous. Six major elements have long been considered essential for life - carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, phosphorus and sulfur. This changed that definition of life.

By making life more likely in extreme places, it increases the number of planets that are potential homes for life, said Kaltenegger, who also works at the Max Planck Institute in Germany.

Donald Brownlee, an astronomer at the University of Washington, is less optimistic because he believes what's likely to be out there is not going to be easy to find - or that meaningful. If it's out there, he said, it's likely microbes that can't be seen easily from great distances. Also, the different geologic and atmospheric forces on planets may keep life from evolving into something complex or intelligent, he said.

If life is going to be found, Mars is the most likely candidate. And any life is probably underground where there is water, astronomers say. Other possibilities include Jupiter's moon Europa and Saturn's moons Enceladus and Titan.

There's also a chance that a telescope could spot a planet with an atmosphere that suggests photosynthesis is occurring, Kaltenegger said. And then there's the possibility of finding alien life on Earth, perhaps in a meteorite, or something with an entirely different set of DNA.

And finally, advanced aliens could find us or we could hear their radio transmissions, McKay said. That's what the SETI Institute is about, listening for intelligent life.

That's where Shostak puts his money behind his optimism. At his public lectures, Shostak bets a cup of coffee for everyone in the audience that scientists will find proof of alien life by about 2026. The odds, he figures, have never been more in his favor.

Explore further: SpaceX continues to expand facilities, workforce in quest for space

More information:
NASA Astrobiology Institute: http://astrobiology.nasa.gov/

SETI Institute: http://www.seti.org/

Nature: http://www.nature.com/nature

4.5 /5 (32 votes)
add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Probing Question: What is a Near Earth?

Sep 27, 2010

In the 1997 movie "Contact" (based on the novel by Carl Sagan), actress Jodie Foster plays an astrophysicist devoted to SETI -- the Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence. Despite doubting colleagues, she ...

Avatar's moon Pandora could be real

Dec 17, 2009

In the new blockbuster Avatar, humans visit the habitable - and inhabited - alien moon called Pandora. Life-bearing moons like Pandora or the Star Wars forest moon of Endor are a staple of science fiction. ...

SETI may be looking in the wrong places: astronomer

Aug 24, 2010

(PhysOrg.com) -- A senior astronomer with the Search for ExtraTerrestrial Intelligence (SETI) Institute, Dr Seth Shostak, has reported in an article published online that perhaps we should be seeking alien ...

Cool Stars Have Different Mix of Life-Forming Chemicals

Apr 07, 2009

(PhysOrg.com) -- Life on Earth is thought to have arisen from a hot soup of chemicals. Does this same soup exist on planets around other stars? A new study from NASA's Spitzer Space Telescope hints that planets ...

Recommended for you

India launches biggest ever rocket into space

54 minutes ago

India successfully launched its biggest ever rocket on Thursday, including an unmanned capsule which could one day send astronauts into space, as the country ramps up its ambitious space programme.

Image: Sunset over the Gulf of Mexico

21 hours ago

From the International Space Station, Expedition 42 Flight Engineer Terry W. Virts took this photograph of the Gulf of Mexico and U.S. Gulf Coast at sunset and posted it to social media on Dec. 14, 2014.

User comments : 47

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Deft
5 / 5 (11) Dec 08, 2010
I am not a brainy scientist, but I suspect that all the algorithms and ideas are based upon an existing model and may not apply. Afterall, they just discovered that life-forms can be arsenic-based which is a killer to humans.

I suspect that it is more like the understanding of habitats. You can take ten species of plants from the High Sierras in California and plop them down in the middle of the Arizona desert and probably one, maybe two, will survive with assistance. Even on our own planet, species to species, do not survive outside their own habitat.

Bottom line: We are designer species. The designer: Evolution.
Quantum_Conundrum
1.2 / 5 (30) Dec 08, 2010
Bottom line: We are designer species. The designer: Evolution.


Completely idiotic comment.

As for the issue of their being thrice as many stars as thought, I also find that to be meaningless. The ESTIMATE for the number of stars in the milky way alone (currently given by wikipedia as 200 billion to 400 billion,) hasn't narrowed it's margin of error in decades. In fact, the margin of error is greater now than in the past.

Finding life on another planet doesn't prove evolution or abiogenesis either. If I found a computer on a desert island, i'd instantly know it was made by an intelligent creator/inventor. So too, we can see that if we find a life form elsewhere, we'd know it too was created, because complex things do not simply produce themselves from scratch.
alq131
4.6 / 5 (17) Dec 08, 2010
Completely idiotic comment.

...because complex things do not simply produce themselves from scratch.


Complex things DO produce themselves from "scratch" all of the time...clearly you've never looked at snowflakes, fingerprints, a tree growing from a seed, a human from a zygote, river channels from flat land, self assembling nanostructures, etc.

The term "scratch" is what is debated. Surely a human wouldn't grow from nothing, it needs cells, DNA (my son had no creator other than me and my wife). Snowflakes water, cold.

Ultimately the only real question is whether or not the UNIVERSE itself was created from scratch--existence from non-existence...all else EVOLVED from there. Now, the creation of the universe IS still up for debate since neither Metaphysics nor Physics have been able to describe its creation or what was before it.
Resonance
1.4 / 5 (5) Dec 08, 2010
Well it's not really for debate as neither side has any reasonable argument.
I think what Quantum Conundrum was saying is that if we find life on another planet, it doesn't completely determine whether or not an isolated system will produce life over time.
For that, I think we humans need to design an experiment in the lab.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.2 / 5 (10) Dec 08, 2010
For that, I think we humans need to design an experiment in the lab.
You mean like the several we run daily where we "evolve" enzymatic tools from protein debris?
Modernmystic
2.9 / 5 (9) Dec 08, 2010
Life may be "common" in the universe, but complex life is probably going to be pretty rare, and intelligent life is likely EXTREMELY rare (see Fermi paradox).

Finding a bunch of red dwarfs is meaningless unless your looking for microbes...big whoop. Don't get me wrong I'd be interesting to know that life started somewhere else, but I honestly can't get too stoked about microbes.

Show me an alien "dog" and I'll be pretty damned excited.

Show me an alien who writes music and ponders his existence and I'll be excited in the extreme.

Show me an alien who builds technology and tries to break the bonds of his planet, then the bonds of the speed of light and I'll be just about as excited as I can get....

Barring a knock-out red head in her mid-late twenties that is...
Quantum_Conundrum
1 / 5 (19) Dec 08, 2010
alq131:

Ok, now you're being misleading, in that a snowflake is a basic crystalline lattice, and is a far cry from a life form.

Moreover, an existing life form eating or reproducing itself is a far cry from a "new" life form supposedly forming from a cosmic soup or a mud hole or sulfur vent.

Finally, as explained previously, "Self assembly" regarding nano-machines or computer circuitry is a misnomer, because it occurs under precisely DESIGNED and CONTROLED circumstances.

The spontaneous production of a carbon nano-tube or a snow flake is not at all like the creation of a cell or a micro-processor, which are obviously designed, complex mechanisms. It's really sad and pathetic that people like you cannot admit that.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (7) Dec 08, 2010
For that, I think we humans need to design an experiment in the lab.
You mean like the several we run daily where we "evolve" enzymatic tools from protein debris?


No, like the one where we get a single functioning cell...
Skeptic_Heretic
4.3 / 5 (11) Dec 08, 2010
For that, I think we humans need to design an experiment in the lab.
You mean like the several we run daily where we "evolve" enzymatic tools from protein debris?


No, like the one where we get a single functioning cell...

Walk before you run sir, walk before you run. It's jsut a matter of time.
Nydoc
4 / 5 (1) Dec 08, 2010
There has been some criticism of NASA study for arsenic-based life, but NASA is standing behind it. I'd like to see some follow up on it.
http://cosmiclog....backlash
Tangent2
2 / 5 (4) Dec 08, 2010
I can't believe that no one has pointed this out yet, but for those that don't know which equation is being discussed in this article, it is the Drake equation. You can read up on it and see the variables of it on Wikipedia.

Cheers!
Modernmystic
1.3 / 5 (12) Dec 08, 2010
For that, I think we humans need to design an experiment in the lab.
You mean like the several we run daily where we "evolve" enzymatic tools from protein debris?


No, like the one where we get a single functioning cell...

Walk before you run sir, walk before you run. It's jsut a matter of time.


Which will prove that an intelligence can direct conditions to produce life :)
ArcainOne
4.3 / 5 (11) Dec 08, 2010
The spontaneous production of a carbon nano-tube or a snow flake is not at all like the creation of a cell or a micro-processor, which are obviously designed, complex mechanisms. It's really sad and pathetic that people like you cannot admit that.


You are unable to see the trees through the forest. The universe is far more beautiful, far more impressive, and far more capable than you give it credit for. If there is truly a god, then you disgrace him, because if I created the universe I would not have spent my time hand building each organism just as I had not hand crafted the continents and mountains. Why do something you do not have to, when I have perfectly good laws of nature to do it for me such as thermodynamics that drive continental development. Simply put if there is a god I cannot be smarter than it. I think it sad the only way to affirm your own existence is to lash out at others when they prove you wrong.
PinkElephant
4.5 / 5 (15) Dec 08, 2010
What Modernmystic and Quatum_Conundrum fail or feign failure to understand, is that cells as we know them today are themselves highly-evolved and very complex organisms.

Modern science estimates that life on Earth emerged as early as just a few hundred million years after the planet formed. Yet, complex multicellular life didn't emerge until 4 billion years into the planet's existence. Why the long pause? It tool literally billions of years, for simple life to attain enough structure and complexity (i.e. build up to eukaryotic single-celled organisms), to enable more complex inter-cell interactions, and eventually multicellular life.

The first life did NOT emerge in any form even close to that of a cell. It couldn't possibly have. The 'design' you see in the structure of single cells -- even the "simplest" ones -- is the same kind of 'design' you see in the structure of multicellular organisms: emergent complexity through variation and natural selection.
PinkElephant
4.5 / 5 (15) Dec 08, 2010
ctd.

So to demand that a lab experiment produce a living cell from a chemical soup, is actually even more ridiculous than demanding that a lab experiment produce a fully formed mammal from a chemical soup. The leap in complexity from basic ingredients to a single living cell, is far greater than the leap from a single living cell to a large multicellular organism.

If you want to learn a bit about current ideas regarding the origins of life, research the topic of "abiogenesis". You might bump into notions such as the "RNA world", or the "autocatalytic chemical networks".

That's the sort of stuff one might eventually see emerging in a lab experiment. Even then, odds are against it. If it takes a hundred million years of continuous random experimentation where a highly varied set of experimental conditions spans the entire surface of a planet, plus a few kilometers above and below the surface, then it's highly unlikely that the same reaction is quickly reproduced in a small beaker.
Glyndwr
4.2 / 5 (5) Dec 08, 2010


Bottom line: We are designer species. The designer: Evolution.


Evolution is not actively trying to design anything which makes it sound like an intelligence...just a complex process
DamienS
4 / 5 (4) Dec 09, 2010
Shostak bets a cup of coffee for everyone in the audience that scientists will find proof of alien life by about 2026. The odds, he figures, have never been more in his favor.

I'd take that bet. The only way proof can be obtained is through a direct physical examination, which means either a sample return mission or a meteorite sample. Long distance observations will always be inconclusive and I seriously doubt there will be any sample return missions in the next fifteen years (and even then, that they would strike it lucky). Therefore, I think it will be a lot longer than this time-frame before we get uncontested proof of exo-life.
resinoth
not rated yet Dec 09, 2010
Physorg, please link to associated articles.
jmcanoy1860
5 / 5 (2) Dec 09, 2010
alq131:

Ok, now you're being misleading


You are the one being misleading. There is no similarity between man made computer components and life. This is simply a weak analogy argument and it's been tried before.

A snow flake is not life as well. We all know that. If it were a perfect analogy it would be life. However, it IS beautiful evidence of something which appears MORE designed than anything life has to offer yet it is produced only by manipulating the environment. All crystals are.

We would all agree that if we found a computer anywhere it would have been produced by a human. This is because we know that computers are made by humans via known processes. The same cannot be said for the non-existent designer or the non-existent process by which he did anything. Arguments from belief and incredulity are meaningless.
Blakut
1 / 5 (1) Dec 09, 2010
Evolutionary debate asside, does the title really make sense to you? Evidence for ET is mounting daily, but not prove. Not prove what???
DamienS
4.6 / 5 (9) Dec 09, 2010
Evolutionary debate asside, does the title really make sense to you?

There really is no debate about evolution.
genastropsychicallst
1 / 5 (3) Dec 09, 2010
... but we have not a same relative biologi realistic a differ psychologi reality a other physici, so whats the life of a scientist fiction movies ...
Quantum_Conundrum
1.3 / 5 (12) Dec 09, 2010
If it takes a hundred million years of continuous random experimentation where a highly varied set of experimental conditions spans the entire surface of a planet, plus a few kilometers above and below the surface, then it's highly unlikely that the same reaction is quickly reproduced in a small beaker.


So you've as much as admitted that evolution and abiogenesis are not science, since they cannot be tested and cannot be falsified.

If you, the intelligent scientist, cannot even accurately describe the steps or processes in your "theory" then how can that even be science? Isn't that the same sort of argument you try to use against creation?

You have nothing but "faith" in your hypothesis of evolution and abiogenesis, because you certainly have no facts or proof to support these insane claims.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.3 / 5 (11) Dec 09, 2010
So you've as much as admitted that evolution and abiogenesis are not science, since they cannot be tested and cannot be falsified.
No, he hasn't admitted that, and your stance is even more foolish for attempting to insinuate he has.
You have nothing but "faith" in your hypothesis of evolution and abiogenesis, because you certainly have no facts or proof to support these insane claims.
You mean other than the millions of books, authoritative research papers, and observations of the natural world, including all medical fields, genetics, biology, chemistry, and on and on and on.

If we're wrong, then why does everything we build based on it work so well?

There has been some criticism of NASA study for arsenic-based life, but NASA is standing behind it. I'd like to see some follow up on it.
The criticism is over the amount of hype involved and hwo the press conference didn't accurately depict the paper.
PinkElephant
4.6 / 5 (11) Dec 09, 2010
Erratum:
to demand that a lab experiment produce a living cell from a chemical soup, is actually even more ridiculous than demanding that a lab experiment produce a fully formed mammal from a chemical soup.
What I actually meant to say, was "more ridiculous than demanding that a lab experiment produce a fully formed mammal from a vat of single-celled organisms." (It was late, and I was tired...)

Anyway, QC:
evolution and abiogenesis are not science, since they cannot be tested and cannot be falsified
Do not confuse evolution with abiogenesis. Evolution has vast quantities of evidence from multiple fields of science. It works mathematically and logically. It is grounded in empiricism. Abiogenesis is a nascent field, in the sense that no concrete theory has formed yet, but there are tons of hypotheses, and most of them are testable and being tested constantly.

What I did say, is that your notion of a "test" in this case, is beyond ludicrous, and just plain ignorant.
Dummy
3.2 / 5 (5) Dec 11, 2010
In my humble opinion I think we will eventually find that life is abundant in the cosmos.
dtxx
4.5 / 5 (8) Dec 11, 2010
If we're wrong, then why does everything we build based on it work so well?


That's really the heart of the matter, isn't it? We didn't get computers, jets, and lasers from discoveries made by biblical scholars.

Maybe science has been it's own undoing with the ID crowd. We grow up in a world where almost everything we interact with was designed - by other humans. They are just incorrectly assuming a metaphor for all things from their limited experience.
Mesafina
5 / 5 (4) Dec 11, 2010
It's really impossible to have an opinion on the topic of extraterrestrial intelligence at this point in time.

I think it's very likely there is extraterrestrial life statistically speaking, but we know almost nothing about the form that life might take, nor how they might communicate if intelligent over cosmic distances.

I look forward to any and all future insights on this topic. The better we understand biology and the conditions of life, the better we will predict and maybe verify the locations of life in the vastness of our universe.
Quantum_Conundrum
1.5 / 5 (8) Dec 12, 2010
If we're wrong, then why does everything we build based on it work so well?


No, no pal.

First of all, don't confuse physics and biology.

Practically nothing has ever been invented based on the false sciences of evolution or abiogenesis.

Antibiotics and vaccines? Nope. Innoculation for small pox dates back at least to the American revolution.

Moreover, modern pharmaceutical companies can't seem to do ANYTHING right, as almost everything they put on the market ends up being recalled because it causes paralysis, heart attack, liver or lung disease, etc.

At any rate, your claims are patently false as evolution and abiogenesis have absolutely nothing to do with the majority of technology.

I mean, you're a damn liar.

Computers, automobiles, electricity, magnetism, chemistry, avionics, even farming are NOT based in any way on the theory of evolution or the theory of abiogenesis.
beelize54
2.3 / 5 (3) Dec 12, 2010
..Evidence for ET is mounting daily, but not prove...
This is just a conjecture. Does some comparative peer-reviewed study of UFO events exists? If yes, where we can read about it? If not, how we can be sure, some flying saucers are of no similar construction or spectrum of light emmited, for example?

The absence of research isn't absence of evidence.
Titto
2 / 5 (1) Dec 12, 2010
But off course!!! Who said that because we live on oxygen, others will also? We think the elements we know is what exist everywhere? We think what we discover here on earth applies somewhere else too?
They talk about helium, hydrogen etc looking at starts, but it could be something else? It just comes to show we still Know absolutely nothing!! They want to explain how a star explodes some billion light years away, but we do not know what life is? How a grasshopper lives and how complicated a flea is?
Husky
5 / 5 (5) Dec 12, 2010
well, if a complex thing cannot evolve in hundreds of millions of years from evolution dynamics but need an intelligent designer, than by the same train of thought, this complex Godlike creator of life, being much more complex than a human designed computerof would itselve need another Godfather to design him before he could shout "let their be light"
PinkElephant
5 / 5 (6) Dec 12, 2010
@QC,
Practically nothing has ever been invented based on the false sciences of evolution or abiogenesis.
Genetically engineered organisms, crops, and drugs don't count? Bioengineering and bioinformatics are the new hot fields, both in science and technology.

More importantly, if you're going to call them "false sciences", then you'll have to apply the same judgment to all science. The same methods are used everywhere.

Something you missed: when dtxx said, "We grow up in a world where almost everything we interact with was designed - by other humans" ... that actually includes your particular religion, as well. (Of course it includes ALL religions, but we know you think yours is the only one in existence.)
Pete83
5 / 5 (6) Dec 13, 2010
It is really quite amazing that in this day and age there are still people who claim that belief in evolution is in itself a faith. Well.. Actually it's pretty amazing that people still believe in any of the old religions at all... Anyway, just on the note of even the old religions agreeing with evolution, even the freaking pope has acknowledged the "much scientific proof in favour of evolution."

I just can't understand why QC would be so dismissive of the evidence. Even forgetting the evidence, evolution is one of those things that is really obvious once it's pointed out to you. I remember when I first got to grips with spacetime, and it just felt right. I had the same experience when learning physics at school, and when I learned newtons laws of motion, I knew the mathematics was correct because it MADE SENSE. Evolution really is the same, if you look at the evidence, it really becomes the only logical conclusion. Any alternative theory would have to be incredibly similar to it.
kevinrtrs
1 / 5 (7) Dec 13, 2010
Genetically engineered organisms, crops, and drugs dont count? Bioengineering and bioinformatics are the new hot fields, both in science and technology.

Sure these fields are HOT. But if you look closely, the theory of evolution has absolutely nothing to do with the advances currently happening in them. Its purely operational science.
I define the theory as evolution not just as the observed small changes happening at the DNA level, but the wholesale development of all currently observed life forms from a single ancestor. It just didn't happen, no matter how you might wish for it.

For any new shape and functionality to arise you need new information - about material usage, material generation, shape formation and finally the functional use of the sub-assemblies[ how does the newly changed animal know how to use a wing for instance?].
It can be quite easily shown that no new information arises from random processes. That is the death-knell for evolutionary theory processes.

kevinrtrs
1 / 5 (7) Dec 13, 2010
@Pete83
Even forgetting the evidence, evolution is one of those things that is really obvious once it's pointed out to you

Design is even more obvious once it's pointed out to you and you let go of your deep belief that there isn't a creator. Looking at the cell, all it's components are obviously designed to PREVENT any interference by random physical processes. Exactly the kind that people are basing evolutionary theory on. Just the whole chemical and physical setup is arranged such that those reactions and arrangements cannot happen by accident. It requires specific enzymes and highly coded and precise processes to get those physical parts exactly as they appear.
There is no random physical event that can make life appear like that. This is why the evolutionists quickly cut off the so-called "abiogenesis" from evolution - they know that life cannot come from random physical processes and so they refused to be responsible for explaining where it came from in the first place.
kevinrtrs
1 / 5 (8) Dec 13, 2010
@pete83 and Pink Elephant:
You don't know where life comes from in the first place so [since you say abiogenesis is not part of evolution] it might just as well have arrived in the forms you see here today - plus minus a few variations within a "kind".
Isn't it interesting that people can look at a simple stone and after examining it's shape come to the conclusion that it's an arrowhead that was created by some person?

Yet when faced with a complexity that FAR exceeds any current human invention and that's obviously running processes that require highly specified steps reminiscent of current software outputs, evolutionists want to ascribe it to random physical events?
Just how gullible do you have to be to accept evolution as the basis of all life?
ArcainOne
4 / 5 (5) Dec 13, 2010
Yet when faced with a complexity that FAR exceeds any current human invention and that's obviously running processes that require highly specified steps reminiscent of current software outputs, evolutionists want to ascribe it to random physical events?
Just how gullible do you have to be to accept evolution as the basis of all life?


Do not try and compare life to software and try and deny evolution. I am a programmer and a software architect, I am also a writer and an artist. I will tell you this, if you are right then god is stupid. The universe is the most beautiful thing in all creation and you belittle it. When I build software the architect and artist demands flexibility and extendability a general solution that can be used repeatedly to product an out come. With millions of stars, planets, and animals a good software developer would NEVER spend his time creating objects for each and every one... you know nothing of software and nothing of god.
PinkElephant
4 / 5 (4) Dec 14, 2010
@kevinrtrs,

Evolution is a direct logical and mathematical consequence of the chemistry and physics at the core of life as we know it.

Your idea that no information is formed by random processes is correct. However, evolution is not a random process. It takes random mutations, and filters them through natural selection: which is inexorably tied to the non-random properties and features of the applicable environment. In the end, any life form adapts to and via its adaptations encodes information about its respective niche.

It's funny you mention software, because these days genetic algorithms are a staple of optimization toolkits. Genetic algorithms can take basic building blocks, and through nothing but random mutation and selection based on some fitness metric, come up with designs and solutions superior to anything a human can build via an analytical approach. For instance, genetic programming is frequently applied to evolve advanced and highly efficient analog circuits.
Ethelred
3.4 / 5 (5) Dec 14, 2010
1/2
You don't know where life comes from in the first place so [since you say abiogenesis is not part of evolution] it might just as well have arrived in the forms you see here today
First is sorta right, but it is more accurate to say that we don't know HOW life started. Abiogenesis is not part of evolution for the simple reason that evolution is about changing LIFE. The last is a crock. We DO KNOW that life did not get started as it is today. The only reason to say that is to support a disproved religious belief. Fossils CLEARLY prove that statement wrong.
Isn't it interesting that people can look at a simple stone and after examining it's shape come to the conclusion that it's an arrowhead that was created by some person?
Arrowheads don't grow. Life does. It is an entirely different process.
Yet when faced with a complexity that FAR exceeds any current human invention
Actually computers and the Space Shuttle are more complex than a lot of organisms.

More
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (6) Dec 14, 2010
and that's obviously running processes that require highly specified steps
The specification comes from the environment.
evolutionists want to ascribe it to random physical events?
No they don't and that has been pointed out to you many times yet you keep pretending that FALSE statement is true. Natural Selection is NOT random. You are no longer ignorant on this unless you are erasing your memory every time you post that falsehood.

So are you that active in your ignorance or is it an intentional lie?

Just how gullible do you have to be to accept evolution as the basis of all life?
I don't have to be gullible. I just go on the evidence. How gullible do YOU have to be to go on a book written long ago by men that were even more ignorant than you are about biology, geology, physics and of course, not being Greeks, logic or geometry.

It is not the fault of science that you have a belief that does not fit the evidence.

Ethelred
Ethelred
5 / 5 (3) Dec 14, 2010
1/3
Design is even more obvious once it's pointed out to you and you let go of your deep belief that there isn't a creator
Nonsense. There is not sign of design in my poor eyesight millions of humans bad backs digestive problems heart problems and on and on things that NO designer would create but can evolve because successful reproduction is all that matters.
Looking at the cell, all it's components are obviously designed to PREVENT any interference by random physical processes.
Nevertheless such things occur. From chemical damage, radiation damage even copying errors despite all the protection. Perfect protection would cost more than its worth since reproduction can occur without perfection. Indeed perfect copies would be bad. In stressful conditions organisms secrete chemicals that increase the odds of errors in copying.

More
Ethelred
5 / 5 (3) Dec 14, 2010
2/3
Exactly the kind that people are basing evolutionary theory on.
Well that would be cool for you except you just made it up. It simply isn't true. We can SEE mutations. Since they occur you are wrong.
It requires specific enzymes and highly coded and precise processes to get those physical parts exactly as they appear.
It is often pretty sloppy. Enzymes drift around waiting for chemicals to drift by. Crap is shoved of into a corner until the cell fails. You are talking about fantasy life not real life.
There is no random physical event that can make life appear like that.
True. Just posts by ignorant people that make up stuff that doesn't match reality. The technical term for inventing fake evidence to support wrong headed ideas is bullshit.

More
Ethelred
5 / 5 (3) Dec 14, 2010
3/3
This is why the evolutionists quickly cut off the so-called "abiogenesis" from evolution
Nonsense. Evolution is about life changing. So it CANNOT occur until there is at least some sort of replicating molecules to work on. Abiogenesis is a different issue from evolution and all the evidence and fossils and lab tests showing the reality of evolution are not going to go poof just because we don't know everything.

The world will not become 7000 years old just because we are not yet able to figure out all the details about how life started billions of years ago.
so they refused to be responsible for explaining where it came from in the first place.
People ARE trying figure out hoe it might have happened so that is just more crap you make up out of whole cloth. Probably linen.

Yes I am doing this from the bottom up. The upper levels of bovine fecal sediment have been dealt with already.

Ethelred
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (3) Dec 14, 2010
No, no pal.

First of all, don't confuse physics and biology.

Practically nothing has ever been invented based on the false sciences of evolution or abiogenesis.
Cladistics, ecology, medication, materials sciences, etc. All based on evolutionary biology.

At any rate, your claims are patently false as evolution and abiogenesis have absolutely nothing to do with the majority of technology.

I mean, you're a damn liar.
No, you're just entirely ignorant of reality.
You don't know where life comes from in the first place so [since you say abiogenesis is not part of evolution] it might just as well have arrived in the forms you see here today - plus minus a few variations within a "kind".
Still waiting on that pre-cambrian rabbit Kev.
alq131
not rated yet Dec 14, 2010
I agree about the amazing complexity that we have. My point earlier that QC tried to shoot down is that evolution is all over.(snowflakes included).

EVOLUTION:
# a process in which something passes by degrees to a different stage (especially a more advanced or mature stage)
# In biology, evolution is the change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms through successive generations.

We see this everywhere (QC and Kev). Your argument about not confusing biology,physics,mechanics, etc is not valid. Evolution takes place in all of these fields. It's naive to say that a snowflake doesn't evolve (from the crystalline structure of the seed/the temp/humidity, etc) It's unique structure is based on what came before it, and what it's current environment is. Just like biology, materials science, mountain building...

Strange that the most "faithful" argue most vehemently against a process that itself could be attributed to God's design rather than just the end product alone.
alq131
not rated yet Dec 14, 2010
I've even evolved to improperly using the contraction "it's" in place of "its".

and writing "all over" which could be confused with meaning "finished" when I actually meant "all around us"...

:(

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.