Humans vs other species

Originally posted by KellyJay
You think that is a good thing?
Kelly

Not necessarily.
B.

Originally posted by googlefudge
actually all the evidence suggests that life is almost certain to form wherever conditions are right.

What evidence?
We have only ONE example of life to go by - life on Earth.

Originally posted by amannion
What evidence?
We have only ONE example of life to go by - life on Earth.

Most biochemicals form spontaneously under "early earth" conditions.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Most biochemicals form spontaneously under "early earth" conditions.

Simple amino acids maybe, but no-one's ever demonstrated more complex molecules - proteins and nucleic acids - forming spontaneously.
I'm not saying it can't happen - obviously it did or we wouldn't be here - but we still don't know the process and so can't say with anything approaching definitively, that the process will occur anywhere else.

Personally I think it probably will (or has) but we can't be sure.

Originally posted by amannion
Simple amino acids maybe, but no-one's ever demonstrated more complex molecules - proteins and nucleic acids - forming spontaneously.
I'm not saying it can't happen - obviously it did or we wouldn't be here - but we still don't know the process and so can't say with anything approaching definitively, that the process will occur anywhere else.

Personally I think it probably will (or has) but we can't be sure.

Nucleic acids will spontaneously form chains, under reducing conditions. The basic requirements for all these things can be found freely in space (see http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/starsgalaxies/spitzer-20051220.html). I don't see any big problem here.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Nucleic acids will spontaneously form chains, under reducing conditions. The basic requirements for all these things can be found freely in space (see http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/starsgalaxies/spitzer-20051220.html). I don't see any big problem here.

I think you're mistaking what I'm saying maybe.
I don't see any problem with it either since we're here and so it must've happened.

However, the exact conditions that existed on the early Earth are not known. And while nucleic acid chains might form from nucleic acids, we've never seen nucleic acids form spontaneously from simpler organic molecules.
The steps in the process from simple compounds - CO2, CH4, H2O, HCN, and so on - to self-replicating molecules has not yet been demonstrated.
So, again, clearly these steps occured - somehow - to produce life on earth. But given that we can't detail such steps - yet - I think it's a bit premature to spout off about these thingsw happening again anywhere else ...

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Nucleic acids will spontaneously form chains, under reducing conditions. The basic requirements for all these things can be found freely in space (see http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/starsgalaxies/spitzer-20051220.html). I don't see any big problem here.

You misunderstand me.
I don't see any big problem either - in the sense that we're here so obviously it happened.

But, the steps in the process from simple organic compounds - CO2, CH4, HCN, and so on - to self-replicating molecules have not been determined, nor have the conditions of the early earth been definitively calculated.

So, merely pointing to the existence of complex organic molecules does not then automatically lead to a presumption of extraterrestrial life.

Originally posted by amannion
You misunderstand me.
I don't see any big problem either - in the sense that we're here so obviously it happened.

But, the steps in the process from simple organic compounds - CO2, CH4, HCN, and so on - to self-replicating molecules have not been determined, nor have the conditions of the early earth been definitively calculated.

So, merely pointing ...[text shortened]... organic molecules does not then automatically lead to a presumption of extraterrestrial life.

Oops.
Sorry scott - posted once - then thought it had failed and posted again.
Now I'm replying to myself.
I'm becoming RS ...

Originally posted by Halitose
So you would first have to “experience” empirical proof of ET before you would assign them the property of existence?

Yes, or accept a belief that they existed from sources it would seem irrational to distrust. I imagine that I would be incredibly sceptical at first, but put more belief in the event as time and further experiences accumulated. I cannot say at what point I would hold enough belief to dispel general scepticism about it entirely.

Originally posted by Starrman
Yes, or accept a belief that they existed from sources it would seem irrational to distrust. I imagine that I would be incredibly sceptical at first, but put more belief in the event as time and further experiences accumulated. I cannot say at what point I would hold enough belief to dispel general scepticism about it entirely.

But, from your own analysis, what would be more likely, the existance of alien lifeforms (with all of the physical reality that entails), or the existance of a metaphysical god?

Originally posted by scottishinnz
But, from your own analysis, what would be more likely, the existance of alien lifeforms (with all of the physical reality that entails), or the existance of a metaphysical god?

I'm guessing that was rhetorical.

Originally posted by vistesd
How are you doin’, Hal?

[b]My problem lies in the (metaphysical) a priori exclusion of the supernatural from any given system of reality (AFAIK there isn't any metaphysical stance that precludes the supernatural as a logical necessity without committing the fallacy of circular reasoning).

You might want to take a look a the discussion of the cosmol ...[text shortened]... necessary first cause by fiat. (Again, look at the discussions re the cosmological argument.)[/b]

How are you doin’, Hal?

Well, thanks. Unfortunately, due to a growing number of commitments (my sudden disappearance from the "beatitudes" thread being case in point), I will be taking an extended (if not indefinite) leave of absence from the site. The final move of my final game merely awaits my execution (if my opponent would hurry up and make theirs 😠) .

You might want to take a look a the discussion of the cosmological argument going on in the “But Marge...” thread.

*Whistles to himself* Heh, it kinda makes my input to this thread a redundant exercise in futility. 😉 Thanks for the heads up: I'll leave the serious discussion to the two of ya -- that debate seems to be well developed.

Cheers. All the best and that sort of thing. 🙂

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Pedantics. Smoke and mirrors, nothing more. Tell us exactly what you mean in the future Hal, and quit being obfuscatory.

Don't forget scott -- it takes two to tango.

Cheers. 😀

Originally posted by scottishinnz
STRAWMAN!

And I've explained why to you on many occassions - stop being disingenious Freaky.

Sorry, I must have been sleeping before. Wherefore art thou... line!

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Sorry, I must have been sleeping before. Wherefore art thou... line!

Evolution DOES NOT make single leaps of this type. It might make a big enough leap to make a word, or a number of words. The best of these words is conserved, replicated (with some inherrent error) and the best of the new generation conserved and so on. In Dawkin's Bilnd Watchmaker he has a computer program which throws out random combinations of letters, but then selects the one closest to a predefined phrase, and uses that as its base stock for its next round of mutations and replications. Obviously, real life evolution has no predefined goal, the best of each generation simply reproduce and the worst do not, but Dawkins discusses this at length in his book. You should read it.