Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

NASA study finds life-sparking energy source and molecule at Enceladus

phys.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 212 posts

Re: NASA study finds life-sparking energy source and molecule at Enceladus

#41

Post by malfist »

superposeur wrote: post #23
idlewords wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would turn your logic around and say, everywhere we are able to look, we find evidence that life is more likely than expected. Until the 1990's it was an open question whether any other star had planets; as soon as we got the tools to test that, we found they were ubiquitous. As soon as we got the right instruments to Mars, we found signs of moving water, methane sources, and complex organic molecules in what is ba…

These factors are what I call the “trappings of life”. It is a completely open question (and I mean completely ) how likely life is to arise spontaneously when these factors are present. One single instance of life elsewhere or successful abiogenesis in the lab would change that, but we have neither.

We've barely started looking. It's like picking up one piece of hay, not finding a needle and declaring there's no needle in the haystack.

Re: NASA study finds life-sparking energy source and molecule at Enceladus

#42

Post by DennisP »

robofanatic wrote: post #38
superposeur wrote: post #6

This is intriguing and I’m very happy this exploration is being done. But, for decades, I’ve been reading reports of the discovery of evidence for the trappings of life elsewhere: water and organics and “habitable” exoplanets. These are valuable discoveries, but the tone of the reports suggest they imply life is about to turn up. It’s worth remembering that there is not one single shred of evidence that life has ever…

But the other possibility that some intelligent super being created life on Earth is even bizarre. If that’s what you believe then who created that creator? You can go on and on, there is no end to this question. That very first creator must have come out from a “non living” thing.

Your parent comment isn't suggesting creationism, just pointing out that the beginning of life could be an astronomically rare event.

Re: NASA study finds life-sparking energy source and molecule at Enceladus

#43

Post by superposeur »

malfist wrote: post #41
superposeur wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These factors are what I call the “trappings of life”. It is a completely open question (and I mean completely ) how likely life is to arise spontaneously when these factors are present. One single instance of life elsewhere or successful abiogenesis in the lab would change that, but we have neither.

We've barely started looking. It's like picking up one piece of hay, not finding a needle and declaring there's no needle in the haystack.

No is declaring that there is no needle in the haystack. Please actually read my post.

Re: NASA study finds life-sparking energy source and molecule at Enceladus

#44

Post by spenczar5 »

superposeur wrote: post #36
spenczar5 wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How many exoplanets would you say we have proven have no life? You imply 10^40 exoplanets are known to harbor no life. That is probably vastly more than the number of planets in the observable universe (something in the wide region of 10^20 to 10^25). Something like 5,000 exoplanets have even been discovered. We can’t cross off many of those as certainly lacking life.

I’m certainly not claiming the actual probability is 10^-40 , only using this as an example consistent with an upper limit, which probability would imply life has not arisen a second time in the observable universe. Actually this is way overkill — as you say, even if the probability is as high as 10^-25, life on Earth is still probably the only instance in observable universe. The point is that we have no idea what t…

Our upper limit is something like 10^-1. After all, there is life on earth! Our lower limit is 10^-25 or so.

Why pick the lower limit? Existence of life on earth is extremely powerful evidence.

Re: NASA study finds life-sparking energy source and molecule at Enceladus

#45

Post by superposeur »

swingingFlyFish wrote: post #37
superposeur wrote: post #6

This is intriguing and I’m very happy this exploration is being done. But, for decades, I’ve been reading reports of the discovery of evidence for the trappings of life elsewhere: water and organics and “habitable” exoplanets. These are valuable discoveries, but the tone of the reports suggest they imply life is about to turn up. It’s worth remembering that there is not one single shred of evidence that life has ever…

"It’s worth remembering that there is not one single shred of evidence that life has ever existed anywhere in the observable universe but Earth" Dude considering we're barely scratching the surface of the scratch on the scratch of the surface, I'd say this is really arrogant. We haven't found anything because our universe is a haystack and we're looking for the quark of a needle in that haystack. Perspective.

This is true. It is also true that we have found “not one single shred of evidence that life has ever existed anywhere in the observable universe but Earth”.

Re: NASA study finds life-sparking energy source and molecule at Enceladus

#46

Post by tshaddox »

notjoemama wrote: post #31
tshaddox wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It’s worth remembering that there is not one single shred of evidence that life has ever existed anywhere in the observable universe but Earth. I’m curious how your epistemology is working here. It seems to me that this will also be true in the future if we have found life on a hundred other planets. There still won’t be a shred of evidence of life anywhere else , and we still won’t have the faintest estimate of ho…

Using this same logic (in an ad absurdum context) we could also say you will never die because no one anywhere has any evidence that you have. That doesn’t falsify your statement, but using ad absurdum shows a statement is not true in every context. I tend to think that shows less conclusion and more investigation may be warranted. That’s how I think of it, but I could be off base and I’m open to being mostly if not…

We have pretty good explanations for why people die and why we expect everyone alive today to die unless we acquire new knowledge that enables us to prevent it.

Re: NASA study finds life-sparking energy source and molecule at Enceladus

#47

Post by njoubert »

idlewords wrote: post #22
superposeur wrote: post #6

This is intriguing and I’m very happy this exploration is being done. But, for decades, I’ve been reading reports of the discovery of evidence for the trappings of life elsewhere: water and organics and “habitable” exoplanets. These are valuable discoveries, but the tone of the reports suggest they imply life is about to turn up. It’s worth remembering that there is not one single shred of evidence that life has ever…

I would turn your logic around and say, everywhere we are able to look, we find evidence that life is more likely than expected. Until the 1990's it was an open question whether any other star had planets; as soon as we got the tools to test that, we found they were ubiquitous. As soon as we got the right instruments to Mars, we found signs of moving water, methane sources, and complex organic molecules in what is ba…

Great comment! Indeed there is a recent Nature paper that's causing a lot of discussion that is investigating that missing link between the physics of matter and the emergence of the natural selection and evolution processes that give rise to life. this is a really fascinating area! https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-023-06600-9

Re: NASA study finds life-sparking energy source and molecule at Enceladus

#48

Post by hossbeast »

zvmaz wrote: post #30
superposeur wrote: post #6

This is intriguing and I’m very happy this exploration is being done. But, for decades, I’ve been reading reports of the discovery of evidence for the trappings of life elsewhere: water and organics and “habitable” exoplanets. These are valuable discoveries, but the tone of the reports suggest they imply life is about to turn up. It’s worth remembering that there is not one single shred of evidence that life has ever…

> It’s worth remembering that there is not one single shred of evidence that life has ever existed anywhere in the observable universe but Earth. It is hard for me to believe that in the mind boggling vastness of space and time, we are the sole singularity in the history of the universe.

Many things which are hard to believe are nevertheless true.

Re: NASA study finds life-sparking energy source and molecule at Enceladus

#49

Post by [deleted] »

superposeur wrote: post #36
spenczar5 wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How many exoplanets would you say we have proven have no life? You imply 10^40 exoplanets are known to harbor no life. That is probably vastly more than the number of planets in the observable universe (something in the wide region of 10^20 to 10^25). Something like 5,000 exoplanets have even been discovered. We can’t cross off many of those as certainly lacking life.

I’m certainly not claiming the actual probability is 10^-40 , only using this as an example consistent with an upper limit, which probability would imply life has not arisen a second time in the observable universe. Actually this is way overkill — as you say, even if the probability is as high as 10^-25, life on Earth is still probably the only instance in observable universe. The point is that we have no idea what t…

[deleted]

Re: NASA study finds life-sparking energy source and molecule at Enceladus

#50

Post by stouset »

superposeur wrote: post #43
malfist wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We've barely started looking. It's like picking up one piece of hay, not finding a needle and declaring there's no needle in the haystack.

No is declaring that there is no needle in the haystack. Please actually read my post.

“I just want to be clear that we’ve definitely not actually found life. We’ve found likely precursors everywhere, habitable bodies everywhere, have plausible theories on how to go from precursors to bootstrapping, and see life in every corner of the planet we have explored. But just to be clear we haven’t actually found life anywhere else yet.”

Yeah, we know. So what then was the point of your post?

Post reply on HN