Have we just discovered aliens?

[SteyrAUG]

Sorry, if this all sounds a bit disjointed. Just waking up, and trying to respond before taking off.

So comes down to this.

Something happened. We keep coming up with a something that relates to what we see about life after the fact. But we don't know anything really about what that something was. And statistical odds are kind of meaningless when we don't even know what the something was. But something DID happen.

We clearly have not been able to get organic goo to come to life in a lab so something is still not there.

[SteyrAUG]

All life has certain things in common, for it to be considered "life." According to NASA, those things are: Cellular organization, the ability to reproduce, growth & development, energy use, homeostasis, response to their environment, and the ability to adapt.

For those things to come into existence abiogenically, they have to overcome all the same obstacles, and here's the absolutely critical part: they have to do so simultaneously! Obstacles that are, for all practical purpose, statistically insurmountable. And for that to happen, not just once, but "thousands or millions" of times is simply fantasy.

We don't know that either. Because clearly something happened. All "life began like this" theories so far are pretty improbable.

[WillBrink]

We don't know that either. Because clearly something happened. All "life began like this" theories so far are pretty improbable.

N = 1 planet with life on it we know of, any attempt at statistical likelihood is a WAG at best. It's not even worth discussing at this point. The claim abiogenesis is "statistically impossible" is offset by the fact we are here. Same thing we get to every time we go down this road, three choices:

Abiogenesis
God(s) did it
Panspermia (1)

I try to remian open to all three, understand why it's assumed by the sci/med community it's the first one until evidence suggests otherwise.

(1) For those interested: https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics...ces/panspermia

[SteyrAUG]

N = 1 planet with life on it we know of, any attempt at statistical likelihood is a WAG at best. It's not even worth discussing at this point. The claim abiogenesis is "statistically impossible" is offset by the fact we are here. Same thing we get to every time we go down this road, three choices:

Abiogenesis
God(s) did it
Panspermia (1)

I try to remian open to all three, understand why it's assumed by the sci/med community it's the first one until evidence suggests otherwise.

(1) For those interested: https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics...ces/panspermia

That's pretty much where I arrive at every single time, just leaving the door open for some "fourth option" that we can't even conceptualize at this point. I tend to lean towards panspermia / cosmic seeding because statistically it would best explain how life could be found on all those disparate planets if in fact life is found widely distributed throughout the universe because it seems like our planet isn't fantastically unique from many others that should exist out there. Of course that is based upon completely unsubstantiated belief only.

It would just strike me as terribly odd if we were in fact IT and the only thing happening in the entire universe and here I'm talking about life at the biological level, not space ship operators. But many places should be loaded with bacteria and similar life forms and if we are very, very lucky possibly algae or plankton.

Technically the moon hosted life for a time, but we did it unintentionally so that's actually 2 for panspermia.

[WillBrink]

That's pretty much where I arrive at every single time, just leaving the door open for some "fourth option" that we can't even conceptualize at this point. I tend to lean towards panspermia / cosmic seeding because statistically it would best explain how life could be found on all those disparate planets if in fact life is found widely distributed throughout the universe because it seems like our planet isn't fantastically unique from many others that should exist out there. Of course that is based upon completely unsubstantiated belief only.

It would just strike me as terribly odd if we were in fact IT and the only thing happening in the entire universe and here I'm talking about life at the biological level, not space ship operators. But many places should be loaded with bacteria and similar life forms and if we are very, very lucky possibly algae or plankton.

Technically the moon hosted life for a time, but we did it unintentionally so that's actually 2 for panspermia.

Of course panspermia can mean an alien intelligence did it, or some combination there of, such as the 2001 scenario, and so forth.

[SteyrAUG]

Of course panspermia can mean an alien intelligence did it, or some combination there of, such as the 2001 scenario, and so forth.

All kinds of things are possible, including those we can't even imagine. But it's hard enough to explain how simple life might have self materialized one day, some place, some where for the first time. Prime movers that put them into place are even more difficult to explain.

[WillBrink]

All kinds of things are possible, including those we can't even imagine. But it's hard enough to explain how simple life might have self materialized one day, some place, some where for the first time. Prime movers that put them into place are even more difficult to explain.

Just brings us back to our usual problem of speculating based on n = 1 we have. It may be under the right conditions (distance from a star, liquid water, various substrates needed for life that are quite common, etc) and enough time *, life is virtually inevitable and common, or it's rare under any condition but exists elsewhere (view I favor), or so rare we are all alone. It can't be answered at this time regardless of the WAG bantered around as to probabilities.

* Human mind can't process numbers that large, be it trillions of galaxies containing trillions of planets, billions of years, etc and is rejected.

[SteyrAUG]

Just brings us back to our usual problem of speculating based on n = 1 we have. It may be under the right conditions (distance from a star, liquid water, various substrates needed for life that are quite common, etc) and enough time *, life is virtually inevitable and common, or it's rare under any condition but exists elsewhere (view I favor), or so rare we are all alone. It can't be answered at this time regardless of the WAG bantered around as to probabilities.

* Human mind can't process numbers that large, be it trillions of galaxies containing trillions of planets, billions of years, etc and is rejected.

Yep, I really don't see any argument there. Pretty much where I keep landing too. I've long accepted that we probably won't be getting these answers but it's always fun to think about and while speculation is limited to the point of being almost pointless, it's an entertaining topic.