What is "Earth-like"?

[Forty Two]

In a few short years we've gone from exoplanets as a theoretical possibility to an earth-like world orbiting our nearest neighbor. If that ain't a massive, major discovery then I don't know what is.

Exactly.

[Forty Two]

I think they are barking up the wrong tree in any case. Just because our version of 'life' is carbon/water based means nothing. Given the sheer number of possibilities out there - more stars than grains of sand on earth, it is anybody's guess what forms so called life might take. Some of it may be extraordinarily different.

Prezactly.

If life is considered inevitable by the laws of thermodynamics, then there is no reason to suppose that those laws only apply to carbon/water systems.

Nobody supposes anything of the kind. However, what is known is that the carbon/water based system works in the one instance where we know anything works.

[Forty Two]

I think they are barking up the wrong tree in any case. Just because our version of 'life' is carbon/water based means nothing. Given the sheer number of possibilities out there - more stars than grains of sand on earth, it is anybody's guess what forms so called life might take. Some of it may be extraordinarily different.

Prezactly.

If life is considered inevitable by the laws of thermodynamics, then there is no reason to suppose that those laws only apply to carbon/water systems.

No one considers life "inevitable by the laws of thermodynamics".

Drivel, unless you consider Jeremy England to be a nobody:
http://www.salon.com/2015/01/03/god_is_ ... terrified/

Perhaps when you've read it you might want to reconsider your statement?

Well, I took Thermodynamics in college. Not sure how life is "inevitable" by the laws of thermodynamics." And, I read the article, and it says nothing of the kind. The theory is that under certain conditions, matter takes on the characteristics necessary for life. Well, duh. If you assume life arose naturally, according to the laws of nature, then of course non-living material arranges itself into living matter. So, the idea is that chemistry occurs according the same under the same conditions, and that under certain conditions self-replicating molecules will form, and under certain conditions these molecules will become more complicated, and eventually rNA and DNA form, etc., under the right conditions. Once you've got molecules forming into cells you're off to the races.

Thermodynamics is the area in physics dealing with the relationship between heat and other forms of energy. Most thermodynamic activity in the universe occurs without any life being involved or resulting from it. So, "inevitable" is not accurate, except if you say "physics will result in life when the right conditions occur for non-living matter to organize into complex molecules which eventually become self-replicating (also under the right conditions). Sure, just like a nuclear reaction is "inevitable" under the right conditions, and just like "under the right conditions" coke and Mentos will react.

[rainbow]

I think they are barking up the wrong tree in any case. Just because our version of 'life' is carbon/water based means nothing. Given the sheer number of possibilities out there - more stars than grains of sand on earth, it is anybody's guess what forms so called life might take. Some of it may be extraordinarily different.

Prezactly.

If life is considered inevitable by the laws of thermodynamics, then there is no reason to suppose that those laws only apply to carbon/water systems.

Nobody supposes anything of the kind.

It was wrong the first time it was said. Repeating it doesn't make it right.

However, what is known is that the carbon/water based system works in the one instance where we know anything works.

Yes. Nothing exists outside of our experience.

Om.

[Forty Two]

I think they are barking up the wrong tree in any case. Just because our version of 'life' is carbon/water based means nothing. Given the sheer number of possibilities out there - more stars than grains of sand on earth, it is anybody's guess what forms so called life might take. Some of it may be extraordinarily different.

Prezactly.

If life is considered inevitable by the laws of thermodynamics, then there is no reason to suppose that those laws only apply to carbon/water systems.

Nobody supposes anything of the kind.

It was wrong the first time it was said. Repeating it doesn't make it right.

Dude - nobody "supposes" that the laws of thermodynamics only apply to carbon/water systems. For fuck's sake.

Thermodynamics is the relationship of heat to other forms of energy. It's not limited to carbon/water based systems, and nobody says it does.

Also, nobody suggests that ONLY carbon/water based systems can have life. What they fucking suppose is that in the one instance where we know there is life, it's a carbon/water based system, so it makes sense to look for other carbon/water based systems under the basic assumption that we're not a miracle or a freak occurrence. That doesn't mean other systems like silicon based systems or something might not also work in some way.

Christ on a fucking bicycle...

However, what is known is that the carbon/water based system works in the one instance where we know anything works.

Yes. Nothing exists outside of our experience.

Om.

Dude, what the fuck are you talking about. It makes sense to look for systems similar to ours because we know that our system works. So, unless you are going to assume we are a miracle or a freak occurrence, it stands to reason that there may well be others like us in situations where the same conditions arose. It makes more sense than looking for systems that we have no idea working -- i mean, we don't look for "uranium/liquid nitrogen" based systems because we don't have a good reason to suspect that it works. We have a good reason to suspect a carbon/water based system works because we fucking see it working.

That is NOT to say that "nothing exists outside of our experience" or that people suppose that the only system that does work is carbon/water. Using the best information we have now is not a suggestion that things we haven't experienced can't or don't exist.

[Brian Peacock]

Carbonist Enabler.

[Forty Two]

Carbon is a tool of the patriarchy, because carbon is a key element of diamonds and diamonds are used by the patriarchy to oppress women.

[Brian Peacock]

[JimC]

I think they are barking up the wrong tree in any case. Just because our version of 'life' is carbon/water based means nothing. Given the sheer number of possibilities out there - more stars than grains of sand on earth, it is anybody's guess what forms so called life might take. Some of it may be extraordinarily different.

Prezactly.

If life is considered inevitable by the laws of thermodynamics, then there is no reason to suppose that those laws only apply to carbon/water systems.

No one considers life "inevitable by the laws of thermodynamics".

Drivel, unless you consider Jeremy England to be a nobody:
http://www.salon.com/2015/01/03/god_is_ ... terrified/

Perhaps when you've read it you might want to reconsider your statement?

The word "inevitable" is the drivel. The beginnings of life may well be likely, but inevitable is simply incorrect. And although the consumption of energy to locally reduce entropy is an important thermodynamic feature of life, it is by no means as fundamental as replication with errors, followed by natural selection.

[Brian Peacock]

Natural selection is not the driver of evolution on Earth. Our true lizard overlords have been directing our planets development for the last billion years, and I for one welcome and applaud their efforts.

[rainbow]

I think they are barking up the wrong tree in any case. Just because our version of 'life' is carbon/water based means nothing. Given the sheer number of possibilities out there - more stars than grains of sand on earth, it is anybody's guess what forms so called life might take. Some of it may be extraordinarily different.

Prezactly.

If life is considered inevitable by the laws of thermodynamics, then there is no reason to suppose that those laws only apply to carbon/water systems.

No one considers life "inevitable by the laws of thermodynamics".

Drivel, unless you consider Jeremy England to be a nobody:
http://www.salon.com/2015/01/03/god_is_ ... terrified/

Perhaps when you've read it you might want to reconsider your statement?

The word "inevitable" is the drivel. The beginnings of life may well be likely, but inevitable is simply incorrect. And although the consumption of energy to locally reduce entropy is an important thermodynamic feature of life, it is by no means as fundamental as replication with errors, followed by natural selection.

OK, so you disagree with Prof England when he says:

Jeremy England, a young MIT professor who’s proposed a theory, based in thermodynamics, showing that the emergence of life was not accidental, but necessary. “nder certain conditions, matter inexorably acquires the key physical attribute associated with life

[JimC]

..."proposed a theory"...

Pardon me if I don't fall over and worship the latest science whippersnapper...

[rainbow]

No need to apologise, as you're entitled to your opinion however wrong it might be.

[JimC]

There is a certain sect of scientists that worship thermodynamics as if it were the only true god...

[Feck]

There are chemical reasons why life is carbon based . Silicon based life is often suggested BUT
Hydrocarbons and organic compounds are abundant in meteorites, comets, and interstellar clouds, while their silicon analogs have never been observed in nature.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_chauvinism
http://www.geek.com/science/geek-answer ... d-1572567/