Extraterrestrial life may look nothing like life on Earth
− so astrobiologists are coming up with a framework to study how complex systems evolve
December 13, 2024
spac.com
(I just shake my head anymore reading this garbage.
Its just so easily refuted.)
"How do you look for alien life when you don’t know what alien life might look like?"
(Why are you even bothering, when everything we observe points to just how unique our planet, our solar system and even our galaxy are all fine tuned for life here are? That's what we observe. That is what science is supposed to be based on. Throw in our genetic code that WE KNOW exist, and knowing that ANY kind of code doesn't self create, and that 17 separate Quantum fields didn't just randomly decide to create life and its pretty easy to come to the conclusion that life here simply wasn't an accident.
To assume there is life somewhere else? Is to assume life here was an accident, therefore the accident could have happened somewhere else in the vastness of space.
Faulty assumptions never yield truthful conclusions. The entire field of Astrobiology is built on a faulty premises. Besides all of that? If these types are so smart about everything?
THEN EXPLAIN WHAT WE ARE SEEING IN NJ?
NEW YORK ETC.
These nitwits can not explain what we see in our world but they wanna convince you life exist somewhere else?
WHY DO YOU EVEN BOTHER LISTENING TO THEM
Explain UAP first.)
"We have only one example of biology forming in the universe – life on Earth.
(Because it wasn't an accident. There is a book playing out right now just like it said it would almost 2000 years ago Accident? Hardly.)
"But what if life can form in other ways?"
(What if your entire premises is wrong?
(violates Bayesian probability BTW)
Based on empirical observations,
which is what science is supposed to be
based on.
This premises
"what if life can form in other ways"
is 100% incorrect.
What if monkeys could fly out of my butt?
Its the 100% the same exact preposterous logic:
"Just because we haven't seen it yet
doesn't mean it couldn't be.")
"How do you look for alien life when you don’t know what alien life might look like?"
"These questions are preoccupying astrobiologists,
who are scientists"
(No they are not.
They are the societal priest of the day,
telling the masses what they want to hear.
Preaching to the choir as it were.)
"who look for life beyond Earth. Astrobiologists have attempted to come up with universal rules that govern the emergence of complex physical and biological systems both on Earth and beyond."
"I’m an astronomer"
(Thats your first clue right there
why not to believe theses people.
They are not biologist who study life.
Dont go to the plumber for a haircut people!)
"who has written extensively about astrobiology. Through my research, I’ve learned that the most abundant form of extraterrestrial life is likely to be microbial, since single cells can form more readily than large organisms. "
(HE CAN NOT PROVE THAT
NOR CAN ANY BIOLOGIST.
We have never seen one form.
Ever.
Nobody who has ever lived
has
OBSERVED
a single cell
"Forming"
They always come from splitting.
This is what anybody who has ever lived has ever seen.
"Observed", as it were.
The biologist can not even tell you how the first cells arrived HERE, on our planet, but an astronomer is going to tell you how they could have arrived on another?
Its beyond ridiculous.
NEWSFLASH EACH AND EVERY
ASTROBIOLOGIST:
EVERY CELL WE HAVE EVER SEEN?
HAS COME FROM ANOTHER CELL.
Chuck Missler Genesis Commentary Session Four
46:44 mark
(Thats a Biochemist
not an astronomer BTW.
Theses astronomers think you are stupid.
Cause you would literally have to be
to believe theis nonsense.)
"the simple cell its unparalleled complexity and it has:
an Adaptive design
it has
a central Memory Bank
Central Library where the information is held
it's filled with
assembly plants
and processing units
it has repacking
and shipping centers
it has Robot machines
in the form of protein molecules
that typically consists of about three thousand atoms
in three-dimensional configurations
and there are hundreds of thousands of different types specific types of these things
it also has
an elaborate communication system
with quality control procedures
and repair mechanisms
(How did the single cell know
it was going to need that ahead of time huh?)
"it even can muster armies to attack Invaders"
"The actual cell has a plasma membrane
which has gateways for for exchanges
it has signal receptors
so it can get message traffic
there's a cytoplasm
which is a fancy word for
when we don't know what it's made of
we have a nucleus
which is the information center
and that's where the master library is
that everybody else will consult inside
there's the nucleus which is the automated factories
and that's where they do the product Manufacturing
then you've got these power plants
which provide the energy for the city to work it's like a miniature City
and then you have the Golgi apparatus
which processes packages handles the shipping and prepares for export
and then you have all these little vesicules which storage transport
do trash disposal they all have functions
this is a veritable City")
"But just in case there’s advanced alien life out there,
(Tell us where the first cells
THAT ARE HERE RIGHT NOW
RIGHT IN FRONT OF US
IN US
ON US
ECT
came from first why don't ya?)
"I’m on the international advisory council for the group designing messages to send to those civilizations."
(First of all?
Nobody gives a shit about that but you.
Explain the UAP in the northeast
why don't ya first jack ass.
Since you are an astronomer and all.
You cant even explain that.
But you want us to believe you
about life somewhere else?
GET A CLUE.
What a absolute crock of shit,
waste of time and money etc.
And?
Even if extraterrestrial life did exist?
(And it doesn't)
and even if they did form
"Civilizations"?
What makes you think they would not have invented a brain smarter than their own and got wiped out by it, just like were about to be?
That is no more fanciful a conjecture than saying Alien civilizations exist to start with.
In fact? One assertation
has a basis in the reality
we are currently witnessing,
The other one doesn't have a basis in anything except fairytales in mens minds.
Figure it out.
"Detecting life beyond Earth
Since the first discovery of an exoplanet in 1995,
over 5,000 exoplanets,
or planets orbiting other stars, have been found.
Many
(How many?
Out of 5000?
Why not give the number?)
of these exoplanets are small and rocky, like Earth,
and in the habitable zones of their stars.
(Has to be a star like ours.
To big?
To much radiation.
To small?
have to be to close to it,
ame problem
to much radiation.
Like I said, you never hear of molecular biologist getting excited about exoplanets. Thats because they know how difficult it is to get life here,
let alone get it anywhere else.)
"The habitable zone is the range of distances between the surface of a planet
and the star it orbits
(Has to be a star like ours.
90-97% can be IMMEDEATLY ruled out.
They never tell you that.
Never.
None of these people ever
even bring it up.
WHY?)
"that would allow the planet to have liquid water,
and thus support life as we on Earth know it."
(Wrong.
It doesn't just take chemistry to get and support
life as we know it.
It takes information.
8 billion character codes
(DNA)
don't generate themselves.
PERIOD.
So find me a exoplanet,
orbiting a star like ours
with two gas giants in the outer reaches of its solar system
and you still don't have anything.
BECAUSE YOU CAN NOT ACCOUNT
FOR THE INFORMATION NEEDED
TO CREATE LIFE.
17 QUANTUM FIELDS
DIDNT JUST RANDOMY DECIDE TO CREAT LIFE.
NEITHER HERE.
NOR ANYWHERE ESE.
Queue Brother Brain:
Its not complicated!)
"The sample of exoplanets detected so far projects 300 million potential biological experiments in our galaxy – or 300 million places, including exoplanets and other bodies such as moons, with suitable conditions for biology to arise.
(Completely 100%
PURPOSELY
misleading.
They
(exoplanets)
are not all orbiting
stars like ours.)
The biologist don't get nearly as excited about any of that as the astronomers do and its with good reason, one group KNOWS just how hard it is to get life on this planet, the other group BELIEVES it can just happen anywhere.
HERE IS WHAT HE DIDNT TELL YOU:
"over 5,000 exoplanets, or planets orbiting other stars, have been found."
NOT A ONE OF THEM IS IN A SOLAR SYSTEM LIKE OURS
REVOLVING AROUND A STAR LIKE OURS
WITH TWO GAS GIANTS IN THE OUTER REACHES
OF ITS SOLAR SYSTEM.
NOT ONE.
I WONDER WHY HE DOESNT BRING THAT UP?
You already know why.
It violates the central Dogma
of the religion of our time:
ANYTHING IS POSSIBLE.
JUST NOT GOD.)
"NASA defines life as a “self-sustaining chemical reaction capable of Darwinian evolution.” That means organisms with a complex chemical system that evolve by adapting to their environment. Darwinian evolution says that the survival of an organism depends on its fitness in its environment."
(None of any of that explains any of the information needed for life.
Everything that has ever lived on this planet has had DNA in it.
Everything that has ever had DNA in it:
Plants, Fungi, Animals, Humans
has processed oxygen to live.
And Darwinian Evolution has been discredited.
The fossil record simply does not support it.
IF
Darwinian evolution hadn't been discredited?
The biologist wouldn't have come up with Neo-Darwinism,
which as also been discredited.
Otherwise?
The biologist wouldnt have come up with:
Extended Evolutionary Synthesis.
TRY TO PUT A ROUND PEG
IN A SQUARE HOLE MUCH?
Dude is an astronomer remember.)
"The evolution of life on Earth has progressed over billions of years from single-celled organisms to large animals and other species, including humans."
Statement is 100% false.
This is their
"faith-based" believe system that
they want you to believe.
NOTHING EXPLAINS HOW SINGLE CELL ORGANISMS
GOT HERE TO BEGIN WITH,
THIS VIEW IS ALSO NOT
SUPPORTED BY THE FOSSIL RECORD,
AND AS STATED EARLIER?
17 QUANTUM
FIELDS
DIDNT JUST DECIDE TO INVENT LIFE ONE DAY.
AND
EVEN IF THEY DID?
THEY COULD NOT HAVE PRODUCED THE
INFORMATION NECESSARY TO HAVE DONE SO.
Case closed on this nonsense.
"The community"
knows better.
"Astronomers can inspect the atmospheres and surfaces of Earth-like exoplanets using a method called spectroscopy to look for chemical signatures of life.
Spectroscopy might detect signatures of oxygen in a planet’s atmosphere, which microbes called blue-green algae created by photosynthesis on Earth several billion years ago, or chlorophyll signatures, which indicate plant life.
NASA’s definition of life leads to some important but unanswered questions. Is Darwinian evolution universal? What chemical reactions can lead to biology off Earth?
(None.
Because we know
it takes more than:
chemical, biological
or physical processes
to get life here.)
"Two researchers present argued that complex systems of chemicals or minerals, when in environments that allow some configurations to persist better than others, evolve to store larger amounts of information."
Why do they need to?
Information is always a sign of a sentient intellect. It is 100% the opposite of randomness.
It never creates itself.
Not physically, biologically, or chemically.
There is always something behind the information trying to give you a message.
None of these Brainiac's even try to get at:
WHERE DID THE INFORMATION COME FROM?
I don't care about what
might have happened to store it.
WHERE DOES IT COME FROM?
Crickets...
Astronomers, Biologist,
from everybody...Just crickets.
Cause they don't have an answer.
THATS WHY THEY DONT EVER BRING UP:
"WHERE DID THE INFORMATION COME FROM?"
And they don't even want you to know that
or to even think about it.
NEWSFLASH NITWITS:
John 1:1
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(What's the word again?
Oh yeah...information.
Laugh all you want.
Go explain UAP first
before you even try to explain
this garbage presented here.)
"As time goes by, the system will grow more diverse and complex, gaining the functions needed for survival, through a kind of natural selection."
(Okay...and?
Where does the information come from it needs?
Hum?)
"In biology, information refers to the instructions stored in the sequence of nucleotides on a DNA molecule, which collectively make up an organism’s genome and dictate what the organism looks like and how it functions."
(Where did it come from?
Cake recipes
(or any other kinds of instructions)
Just don't create themselves.
Letters in an alphabet don't just arrange themselves to make a word
all on their own.
It takes an intellect to put a word together
.
That's all with just 26 characters
in English.
Our Genetic Code?
8 Billion characters.
I am going to just keep hammering these people,
like a pole barn nail
with these arguments.
ITS JUST SO STUPID.)
"If you define complexity in terms of information theory, natural selection will cause a genome to grow more complex as it stores more information about its environment."
(DUDE?
We don't fuckin care.
WHERE DOES THE INFORMATION COME FROM?
HOW?
Does it imbed itself in the cell?
IM GONNA HAVE GRADE SCHOOLERS
MAKIN THIS CASE.
IM TELLING YA
THERE IS GONNA BE AN ARMY
SAYING EXACTLY
THE ARGUMENTS I AM PRESENTING HERE.
I DIDNT BRING IT UP.
I DIDNT WRITE THIS ARTICLE.
IM NOT PURPOSELY
PROMOTING FALSEHOOD.
BUT YOU CAN BET YOUR SWEET ASS
ILL SHOOT IT DOWN IN A HEART BEAT.
IN FRONT OF EVERYBODY.
GO EXPLAIN UAP OFF THE EAST COAST.
YOU ARE AN ASTRONOER
NOT A BIOLOGIST.
THIS SHIT IS BEYOND STUPID AT THIS POINT.)
"Biological information
(That comes from where?
And gets in the cell how?)
increases with genome size, but
evolutionary information density drops."
(Once again:
That comes from where?
And gets in the cell how?
The biologist concede they don't know.
Let alone these nitwit astronomers.)
"Evolutionary information density"
(These people...
That came from where?
Got there how?
The biologist concede they don't know.
GO WORK ON UAP PLEASE.
They are here right now and
people want answers.
You are an astronomer correct?
How about you work on something useful
for a change?)
"is the fraction of functional genes within the genome, or the fraction of the total genetic material that expresses fitness for the environment.
Organisms that people think of as primitive, such as bacteria, have genomes with high information density
(Something outside of physical,
chemical and biological processes created that.
I wonder what it could be?
See John 1:1 above.)
"and so appear better designed..."
(Thanks for the opening BTW:
Design implies a designer yo.
Blueprints don't just
spontaneously materialize
all by themselves.)
"than the genomes of plants or animals.
"A universal theory of life is still elusive."
(Maybe for you.)
"Such a theory would include the concepts of complexity and information storage, but it would not be tied to DNA or the particular kinds of cells we find in terrestrial biology."
(DUDE?
You are missing the entire point.
We don't care about
the "information storage"
mechanism.
WE WANT TO KNOW
YOUR OPPION ON
THE SOURCE OF THE INFORMATION ITSELF.
BECAUSE INFORMATION
IS THE OPPOSITE OF RANDOMNESS.
IT NEVER JUST
"spontaneously materializes"
all by itself.
AN INTELLECT CREATES IT.
ALWAYS.
Cells come from cells.
Life comes from life.
Brains come from things
that already have them.
Its what everybody
who has ever lived
has ever...drum role please...
OBSERVED!
Which is what "science"
is supposed to be based on.
Its pretty simple really.
"If you couldn't tell?
The entire point of this article
was to try and find a work around
for DNA.
Opps.
Try again.)
"Implications for the search for extraterrestrial life
Researchers have explored alternatives to terrestrial biochemistry. All known living organisms, from bacteria to humans, contain water, and it is a solvent that is essential for life on Earth. A solvent is a liquid medium that facilitates chemical reactions from which life could emerge. But life could potentially emerge from other solvents, too."
(You don't just need water and chemistry.
You need information.
No Information?
(Which only comes from an intellect.)
None of it ever works.
How would it know how to?
"But life could potentially emerge from other solvents, too."
(The biologist cant explain it here?
But the Astronomer has other ideas about how it might have developed somewhere else?
And with that statement?
this guy is
violating
Simple terms:
Absent new data,
What we are likely to see in the future
can be based on what we have observed in the past .
"Astrobiologists Willam Bains and Sara Seager have explored thousands of molecules that might be associated with life. Plausible solvents include sulfuric acid, ammonia, liquid carbon dioxide and even liquid sulfur."
(Where is the information needed
(which is what we have seen to date
in every form of life
we have ever encountered)
coming from?
Astrobiologist are not molecular biologist.
ITS A MADE UP FIELD.
Molecular Biologist don't get excited about exoplanets
and with good reason.
Neither should anybody else get excited about them.
These people think whatever they want.
THEY CANT EVEN EXPLAIN
UAP FOR GOODNESS SAKES!)
"Alien life might not be based on carbon, which forms the backbone of all life’s essential molecules – at least here on Earth. It might not even need a planet to survive."
(See comment above about violating Bayesian probabilities.)
"Advanced forms of life on alien planets could be so strange that they’re unrecognizable. As astrobiologists try to detect life off Earth, they’ll need to be creative."
(Its more fanciful
than what they are out to disprove.
Remember, the central Dogma
of the religion of our day:
ANYTHING BUT GOD.)
"One strategy is to measure mineral signatures on the rocky surfaces of exoplanets, since mineral diversity tracks terrestrial biological evolution.
(THAT DOESNT EXPLAIN
THE INFORMATION NEEDED
FOR LIFE YO!)
"As life evolved on Earth, it used and created minerals for exoskeletons and habitats. The hundred minerals present when life first formed have grown to about 5,000 today."
(AND?)
"For example, zircons are simple silicate crystals that date back to the time before life started. A zircon found in Australia is the oldest known piece of Earth’s crust. But other minerals, such as apatite, a complex calcium phosphate mineral, are created by biology. Apatite is a primary ingredient in bones, teeth and fish scales."
(I'm sorry?
I must have missed something.
Where did the information needed for life
come from again?
Haven't read your explanation yet.)
"Another strategy to finding life unlike that on Earth is to detect evidence of a civilization, such as artificial lights, or the industrial pollutant nitrogen dioxide in the atmosphere. These are examples of tracers of intelligent life called technosignatures."
(Do you not understand
just how stupid you are sounding?
When you purpose this nonsense?
and yet completely ignore even trying to explain
what is seen in the skies over New Jersey?
You are making yourselves look foolish.
Not me, Im not doing it.
You are,
and doing a really good job at it too I might add.)
"It’s unclear how and when
a first detection of life beyond Earth will happen."
(FIGURE OUT THE UAP FIRST NITWIT.
HOW ABOUT WE START WITH THAT HUH?
YOU ARE AN ASTRONOMER RIGHT?)
"It might be within the solar system,
or by sniffing exoplanet atmospheres,
(The vast majority of which
that don't orbit a sun like ours?
Gotcha...right...)
or by detecting artificial radio signals
from a distant civilization."
(To assume there is life
somewhere else in the Cosmos
Is to assume life here was an accident.
ALL OBSERVABLE EVIDENCE
points to the contrary.)
The search is a twisting road, not a straightforward path. And that’s for life as we know it – for life as we don’t know it, all bets are off.
GOOD DAY.
Chris Impey
Professor of Astronomy at University of Arizona
Email: cimpey@arizona.edu
Chris Impey is a University Distinguished Professor of Astronomy at the University of Arizona, where his research focuses on observational cosmology, galaxies, and quasars. A dedicated astronomer, he loves to study, write, and teach about cosmology and has numerous publications, science books, and teaching awards under his belt. Chris is also the creator of the astronomy learning tool Teach Astronomy.
No comments:
Post a Comment