Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 79 (8961 total)
368 online now:
AZPaul3, caffeine, DrJones*, jar, JonF, PaulK, Percy (Admin), Stile, Thugpreacha (AdminPhat) (9 members, 359 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 869,401 Year: 1,149/23,288 Month: 1,149/1,851 Week: 273/320 Day: 45/87 Hour: 0/17


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why Doesn't the Moon Have Life?
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20474
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 12 of 97 (115200)
06-14-2004 10:31 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Coragyps
06-14-2004 11:03 AM


what Coragyps said about what Mark said ... with a little additional factor that the atmosphere provides a filter for UV radiation, and this may be needed to buffer against too much energy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Coragyps, posted 06-14-2004 11:03 AM Coragyps has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20474
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 33 of 97 (394500)
04-11-2007 7:04 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by jjsemsch
04-11-2007 5:05 PM


Re: Life on the Moon?
welcome to the fray jjsemsch

Life has never been observed elsewhere in the universe. Why is it that when the evidence contradicts the theory ...

What theory has been invalidated by the failure to observe life on (a) the moon (to keep this vaguely on topic) and (b) elsewhere?

Just curious ...

Enjoy.

ps -- type [qs]quote boxes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:

quote boxes are easy


Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by jjsemsch, posted 04-11-2007 5:05 PM jjsemsch has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by jjsemsch, posted 04-12-2007 3:22 PM RAZD has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20474
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 42 of 97 (394729)
04-12-2007 9:37 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by jjsemsch
04-12-2007 3:22 PM


Re: Life on the Moon?
In this particular example the theory is that life accidentally came from non-life here on Earth. If that were true, it would be logically consistent to believe that life came from non-life elsewhere. The evidence to date shows that there is no life elsewhere in the universe.

This is the theory of abiogenesis (not evolution), and you are correct that it would be logically consistent to consider that life would also begin by similar processes on other planets where the conditions are favorable.

The evidence to date shows (1) we don't know what those favorable conditions were for earth (so it is difficult to compare earth to other planets) and (b) that what we know of other planets is not enough to rule out life on them yet.

Thus the evidence is at best inconclusive and at worst very incomplete, and as such does not invalidate the theory of life forming by natural means on planets with even remotely similar conditions to what existed on an early earth.

You’ll have to forgive me for going off topic, but another example of the evidence not changing the theory is transitional forms.

That is the theory of evolution, not abiogenesis, and it is off-topic. I'll be happy to discuss how this also does not invalidate the theory on MACROevolution vs MICROevolution - what is it? (which is about the definitions of micro and macro evolution and where they fit in the theory of evolution). Pay particular attention to Message 18 and Message 38 on that thread. Also see Plausible Evolutionary Chains for Educational Use for some examples of the evidence you think doesn't exist.

Another off topic example is Tyrannosaurus Rex soft tissue. ...but it’s hard to believe soft tissue could last through the process of fossilization, much less last 65 million years!

This has been discussed on another thread already, and your argument from incredulity notwithstanding, it discusses why they found what they found. See Blood in dino bones (closed, but could be re-openned to continue this discussion, note that "simple" and "whisper" are the same person, and I trust you don't follow his example ...) and T. rex thigh reveals chicken family ties which has some new information from this find (and that shows how limited it was).

BUT

This "evidence" you have presented in your post also does not invalidate any theory. To invalidate a theory you have to provide evidence that contradicts it: this has not been done by your "evidence" (unlike the evidence for say an old earth, that invalidates the concept for a young earth ... but that too is off topic and would be better discussed on Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Version 1 No 3 (formerly Part III) where sufficient evidence is provided to invalidate that concept).

Enjoy.


Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by jjsemsch, posted 04-12-2007 3:22 PM jjsemsch has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20474
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 90 of 97 (425616)
10-03-2007 7:46 AM
Reply to: Message 89 by Scoopy
10-03-2007 7:39 AM


Everybody keeps saying that. What if that maximum distance of 152.5 million km was changed to 153 million km. That's what I'm talking about.

Quick exercise: the energy from the sun that is usable is proportional to 1 over the square of the distance, so the change in energy available at any point would be changed by 152.52/1532 = 99.35% on the average. A rather minuscule change, and you can see that the climate on the earth varies by more than that from globe to the equator.

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : missing test


Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by Scoopy, posted 10-03-2007 7:39 AM Scoopy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by Scoopy, posted 10-03-2007 7:49 AM RAZD has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20474
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 92 of 97 (425619)
10-03-2007 8:07 AM
Reply to: Message 91 by Scoopy
10-03-2007 7:49 AM


Not only did you understand what I was asking you just answered it simply in terms I can understand.

But this is just the beginning of the issue, as it assumes that things remain the same for the change in orbits. We know from venus and mars and our own global warming that climate can over-ride the direct relationship with systems that retain heat energy or systems that reflect it or let it escape.

The only conclusion we can make from the available data is that the "possible life band" around our sun encloses the orbit of the earth and extends to somewhere between here and venus on one side and from here to mars on the other, and that's a pretty big swath and a fairly large uncertainty eh?

There may also be a question that if venus had less gravity and mars had more if they would be able to support life.

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : gravity


Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Scoopy, posted 10-03-2007 7:49 AM Scoopy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by Scoopy, posted 10-03-2007 8:09 AM RAZD has not yet responded
 Message 94 by EighteenDelta, posted 10-03-2007 10:29 AM RAZD has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20474
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 95 of 97 (425657)
10-03-2007 3:46 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by EighteenDelta
10-03-2007 10:29 AM


I have to disagree with the idea of Venus supporting life if it had less gravity. ... Venus already has lower gravity than the earth at .904 g.

I am aware of this, however it also has too much atmosphere, and that is one of the reasons for the run-away greenhouse effect that causes it to be hotter than mercury. Thin atmosphere would reduce that temperature back down to something habitable.

Some people think it may have had life before the atmosphere went acidic:

quote:
Habitable Zones (Textbook Chapters 9&10)
http://odin.physastro.mnsu.edu/~eskridge/astr115/week10.html

The Earth is the only planet in the Solar System with liquid water on its surface now. This might suggest that the habitability zone of our own Solar System is very narrow. However we have direct evidence that liquid water used to exist on Mars, and very good indirect evidence that it also used to exist on Venus. Thus both of those planets at least were at one time in our Sun's habitability zone.

Venus

Venus's atmosphere is very different than Earth's. For one thing, there's a LOT more of it. The surface pressure on Venus is about 90 times higher than it is on Earth. The composition is also quite different:


... (so it could do with less atmosphere without loss of habitability), and life may already exist there:

quote:
A Sulfur-Based Survival Strategy for Putative Phototrophic Life in the Venusian Atmosphere
http://www.liebertonline.com/doi/abs/10.1089/153110704773600203

Several observations indicate that the cloud deck of the venusian atmosphere may provide a plausible refuge for microbial life. Having originated in a hot proto-ocean or been brought in by meteorites from Earth (or Mars), early life on Venus could have adapted to a dry, acidic atmospheric niche as the warming planet lost its oceans. The greatest obstacle for the survival of any organism in this niche may be high doses of ultraviolet (UV) radiation. Here we make the argument that such an organism may utilize sulfur allotropes present in the venusian atmosphere, particularly S8, as a UV sunscreen, as an energy-converting pigment, or as a means for converting UV light to lower frequencies that can be used for photosynthesis. Thus, life could exist today in the clouds of Venus.


Time may tell eh?

Enjoy


Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by EighteenDelta, posted 10-03-2007 10:29 AM EighteenDelta has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020