Why Doesn't the Moon Have Life?

quote:

---

You start with the belief that evolution is fact and that life arose from non-life here on Earth. Logically following would be that life spontaneously popped up elsewhere in the universe.

---

If by spontaneously you mean according to the laws of physics and chemistry operating in the environment similar to that of the early earth, then sure. But we would expect this to have happened in places where the conditions were similar to that of the early earth.

-

quote:

---

Life has never been observed elsewhere in the universe.

---

No, life has never been observed where we've so far looked in our corner of the universe. Basically in our Solar System. That's a pretty small fraction of the entire universe.

---

Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine

Perhaps your starting assumptions are wrong. You start with the belief that evolution is fact and that life arose from non-life here on Earth. Logically following would be that life spontaneously popped up elsewhere in the universe. Life has never been observed elsewhere in the universe. Why is it that when the evidence contradicts the theory it’s not the theory that changes?

Certainly the fact that abiogenesis has taken place on one planet suggests that life should be found on Earthlike planets of other solar systems if we were able to go and look for it.

But we aren't able to go and look for it.

In the same way, tectonic plate theory tells me that if we dug a tunnel to the earth's core, it would be very hot. But the fact that no-one has made this observation is not evidence against the tectonic plate theory, but a consequence of our inability to sink a mineshaft several thousand miles deep.

Was that too hard to understand? I can hardly see how anything could be simpler.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

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.

Abiogensis and evolution are two entirely different disciplines.

True but you can’t have one with out the other. If one were to be disproven the other would be disproven as well.

Have you ever taken chemistry or physics in high school?

Yes actually I took 2 physics and 2 chemistry courses in high school along with several physics and chemistry courses in college, where I earned a BS in Aerospace Engineering. Please, it’s not necessary to insult my intelligence to prove your point. That’s a logical fallacy known as argument ad hominem. That’s like saying you’re wrong because you smell bad. ;)

you want to claim that the entire universe is void of life except for Earth?

I didn’t claim that, but to date there is no evidence to prove otherwise. Are you saying that even though there is no evidence to support your belief, that there is life elsewhere in the universe? For lack of a better word are you saying you have “faith” in aliens?

Let me guess, your next step is to want to claim that god created the universe in 6 days, correct?

Actually He did, but not because I say He did. He says He did in His word, the Bible. You should check it out sometime. It's a pretty good book and it's the all time best seller.

True but you can’t have one with out the other. If one were to be disproven the other would be disproven as well.

Nope. Evolution with life originating by Divine poofing works fine (that's the belief of some theistic evolutonists).

Just to remind them. Their version of divine "poofing" ala Gen 2:7 is also abiogenesis.

jjsemsch writes: True but you can’t have one with out the other. If one were to be disproven the other would be disproven as well.

Let me repeat myself. Abiogenesis and evolution are two entirely different disciplines. Even if god "poofed" life into existence, evolution would not be disproven, and vice versa.

Yes actually I took 2 physics and 2 chemistry courses in high school along with several physics and chemistry courses in college, where I earned a BS in Aerospace Engineering. Please, it’s not necessary to insult my intelligence to prove your point. That’s a logical fallacy known as argument ad hominem. That’s like saying you’re wrong because you smell bad.

Noone is insulting your intelligence. I only responded to what you wrote. You wanted to make a cosmic judgement on the existence of life based on the 4 measley datapoints we have (Earth, moon, mars, and venus). I don't know about you, but to me this is arrogance beyond imagination.

I didn’t claim that, but to date there is no evidence to prove otherwise. Are you saying that even though there is no evidence to support your belief, that there is life elsewhere in the universe? For lack of a better word are you saying you have “faith” in aliens?

Since when did I say such thing? Again, you want to judge the whole universe based on the 4 datapoints we've looked at with 1 positive result? If I were you, I'd hold out on judgement until at least we get to explore other regions of the universe first.

There's this thing called "I don't know" that I tend to use everytime I don't have enough data to make a call either way. You should try it sometimes... makes you look less arrogant.

Actually He did, but not because I say He did. He says He did in His word, the Bible. You should check it out sometime. It's a pretty good book and it's the all time best seller.

I've read the bible from cover to cover more times than I can count. I used to believe in the literal genesis account. I used to hold signs in protest of fags and other "sinners". My personal library has at least 15 or so bibles that I've collected over the years. So what? Notice that this is a science forums section of the board and not faith and belief. If you don't have anything beside the bible to contribute, then go away.

---

Disclaimer:

Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.

He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!

Transitionals and the Trex tissue are both OFF TOPIC in this thread. DO NOT RESPOND! (or you'll get a break)

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

You’re right this may be an entirely new topic in itself. 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.

You’ll have to forgive me for going off topic, but another example of the evidence not changing the theory is transitional forms. Charles Darwin believed that simpler life forms evolved into more complex life forms gradually over millions of years. He also believed that the fossil record would show this. To date there are only a handful of disputed transitional forms and every day more of those are shown to either be extinct species or hoaxes. Mainstream science looking at this evidence would never say perhaps evolution is false. Instead the mechanism for evolutionary theory becomes punctuated equilibrium not because of evidence, but because of a lack of evidence.

Another off topic example is Tyrannosaurus Rex soft tissue.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11385533/
http://www.ncsu.edu/news/press_releases/05_03/075.htm
The uniformitarian geological timescale tells us that dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago, but it’s hard to believe soft tissue could last through the process of fossilization, much less last 65 million years! (and before you call me out on this I realize that abiogenesis, biological evolution, and geology are all separate disciplines, but they’re all inter-related and necessary for the entire evolutionary theory) Rather than changing the geological timescale it’s the process of fossilization that is changed. I don’t know about you, but I can’t seem to keep leftovers in the fridge for more than 2 weeks, and that’s in a favorable environment!Top

Edited by AdminNosy, : Topic warning

jjsemsch,

To date there are only a handful of disputed transitional forms and every day more of those are shown to either be extinct species or hoaxes.

Nonsense.

Cladistics & phylogeny works because transitional forms exist.

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

More & more transitional forms are found yearly. Darwin would not have been disappointed.

Mark

Edited by mark24, : No reason given.

Life has never been observed elsewhere in the universe.

So far, no. (We've hardly looked.)

Another way to look at it, though, is that life has been found on 100% of all the Earth-like planets we've ever discovered.

Furthermore, potentially spooky evidence of life on other planets:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wow_signal

I'm just saying, there's hardly any reason to rule out life anywhere else in the universe, when we've hardly been anywhere in the universe to look.

jjsemsch writes: ... the theory is that life accidentally came from non-life here on Earth.

A better word than "accidentally" might be "inevitably" - or at least "probably".

... it would be logically consistent to believe that life came from non-life elsewhere.

Logic produces conclusions, not beliefs.

In the science threads, one should choose one's words carefully.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

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.

I didn’t claim that, but to date there is no evidence to prove otherwise. Are you saying that even though there is no evidence to support your belief, that there is life elsewhere in the universe? For lack of a better word are you saying you have “faith” in aliens?

Tazmanian Devil did not say that there was life elewhere in the universe or that he believed in aliens.

His point, and mine, and everyone else's, was that you can't pretend that absence of evidence for life elsewhere is the same thing as evidence of absence of life elsewhere, because we haven't looked elsewhere.

Evidence of absence would, as you point out, suggest a remarkable and peculiar origin of Earthly life. But you don't have any such evidence.

---

Look at it this way. Suppose I stood your argument on its head, and said: "If abiogenesis is natural, we should expect lots of other solar systems to have life. No-one has ever produced any evidence of a solar system without life. This confirms my ideas about abiogenesis."

Would you be able to see the fallacy then?

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

The sun, I am given to understand, is there to provide the Earth with life and warmth, and to make life possible.

Surely an Intelligent Designer wouldn't bother making all those other stars, whole galaxies worth, unless they served some purpose?

So shouldn't there be life in other solar systems?

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

Perhaps I should explain that when new evidence supports the prevalent theory, it is not necessary to alter the theory.

In this particular case, of extraterrestrial life, there hasn't been any new evidence. This makes it a totally different case from (for example) the multitude of supporting evidence which has come from the fossil record (incidentally, I notice that someone has been telling you a lot of silly lies on this subject); and this is different again from the imaginary evidence contradicting evolution which you guys have been praying for for the last 150 years.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.