EPTPlanets that can potentially support life... - Page 26
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Miyoshino
314 Posts
| ||
|
summerloud
Austria1201 Posts
On May 01 2012 19:10 Miyoshino wrote: Read my post before you insult me. I did a lot of explaining. Then someone who doesn't accept mainsteam science somes and just says something blunt. because as we all know mainstream science as known today is 100% accurate and everyone who is outside of the mainstream in any view should be burned at the stake for being a heretic... as someone who sees self-assembling nanobots as a solution to all problems you should maybe try to be a little bit more open minded. im very close to scientific mainstream in most of my views anyways. you just seem to be one of the people that pick one theory and accuse everyone not following this line of thought of stupid. you should always remember that no matter what side you take in an argument there will always be a lot of people way more knowledgeable on the subject that disagree with you. all im asking for is a little humility really. neither of us is coming up with any world-shattering research obviously. you are just repeating thoughts that other people thought first, and you shouldnt try to be so convinced of a single line of thought | ||
|
Miyoshino
314 Posts
Von Neumann probes are something different. They are, probes. Don't know why you are so aggressive over such a non-issue. Why you want to pick a fight? Just because I couldn't understand why you said you believe the universe is designed? If you make such a strange statement in a post without even explaining or arguing for it, people are going to express their surprise. Don't be so butthurt over it you embarrass yourself later. I can tell you are scientifically illiterate or lying. | ||
|
summerloud
Austria1201 Posts
On May 01 2012 19:21 Miyoshino wrote: Others have thought of it too because it is logical. But I naturally came up with it myself. And you should do too. If you want to seed other planets with human life, you do it that way. No reason to transport fragile bags of water. Von Neumann probes are something different. They are, probes. Don't know why you are so aggressive over such a non-issue. Why you want to pick a fight? Just because I couldn't understand why you said you believe the universe is designed? If you make such a strange statement in a post without even explaining or arguing for it, people are going to express their surprise. Don't be so butthurt over it you embarrass yourself later. I can tell you are scientifically illiterate or lying. self-replicating machines are called von-neumann machines. please at least read the wikipedia article i just posted before making wrong statements hereis the wikipedia article about fine-tuned universe theory, maybe it helps you understand my design argument the rest of your post is coming down to plain trolling so im not going to respond to you any more, sorry | ||
|
Miyoshino
314 Posts
Von Neumann never called all self replicating nanobots 'Von Neumann machines'. The universe isn't fine tuned. You can change the parameters and it will be dfferent but similar. It is also not tuned for life because life can't live in most of the universe that is the result of this 'deliberate' tuning. If it is indeed tuned it is tuned for a lot of vacuum, a lot of dark matter and dark energy and some speckling with groups of stars. | ||
|
horsebanger
141 Posts
On May 01 2012 05:39 eXigent. wrote: That is like the worst counter argument I've ever read. What is this, 4th grade debate? Why is that "like the worst counter argument" you've ever read? The only flaw in that argument would be my assumption that you were (ever so slightly) informed about the topic. A lightyear is the distance that light can travel in one year. Light travels at a speed of 299 792 458 m/s (approximately 300 000 000 m/s) in vacuum. Now, imagine that we could reach the incredible velocity of 300 000 00 m/s (a tenth of the speed of light) in the future. It would take us over 200 years to reach Gliese 581 c, an exoplanet which is located 20.4 lightyears away from Earth and is very reminecent to Earth. Based on your first reply I take it you're not the sharpest tool in the shed, but I think even you can put the pieces together now. | ||
|
horsebanger
141 Posts
On May 01 2012 17:29 Miyoshino wrote: People are grown from DNA everyday. Is there another way to get a person? As a biologist I have never heard of another way. You don't need to send tons of equipment. Copper, silicon, whatever element you need, it can all be found on the destination planet. So why bother transporting what is already on the destination planet if transporting mass is so so expensive? Care to share a source? I've never heard of someone grown from DNA. You're thinking about human cloning, which has never been conducted. | ||
|
summerloud
Austria1201 Posts
Poll: will interstellar colonization ever be possible for us? no, because we will all kill each other or be wiped out by some cataclysm before we could (5) no, because it is not technologically possible (5) yes, we will be able to actually transport people with cryogenic freezing (5) yes, and by the time it happens the border between man and machine will have become blurry anyways (3) no, because technologically superior aliens will keep us from spreading (2) yes, but only using machines (1) yes, we will build new humans at the destination using a genetic template (1) 22 total votes Your vote: will interstellar colonization ever be possible for us? (Vote): no, because we will all kill each other or be wiped out by some cataclysm before we could | ||
|
horsebanger
141 Posts
On May 01 2012 19:50 summerloud wrote: poll time! Poll: will interstellar colonization ever be possible for us? no, because we will all kill each other or be wiped out by some cataclysm before we could (5) no, because it is not technologically possible (5) yes, we will be able to actually transport people with cryogenic freezing (5) yes, and by the time it happens the border between man and machine will have become blurry anyways (3) no, because technologically superior aliens will keep us from spreading (2) yes, but only using machines (1) yes, we will build new humans at the destination using a genetic template (1) 22 total votes Your vote: will interstellar colonization ever be possible for us? (Vote): no, because we will all kill each other or be wiped out by some cataclysm before we could Why do you insist on ruining discussions with your polls? | ||
|
Miyoshino
314 Posts
He didn't seem to understand what was said so he made a strange statement. | ||
|
summerloud
Austria1201 Posts
 | ||
|
Heh_
Singapore2712 Posts
On May 01 2012 19:51 Miyoshino wrote: You are 'grown from DNA'. The arugments he made should hold vs any person created using DNA. He didn't seem to understand what was said so he made a strange statement. You're taking synthetic biology to a whole new level. I don't understand what you're saying either. If you think you can "make" a cell from scratch, think again. When you finally "make" a cell (hint: eukaryotic, not prokaryotic), think about how you can make a multicellular organism. Please explain how "you are grown from DNA". If you're talking about "growing from cells", then please read the last 2-3 pages of the thread before you make misinformed, ignorant posts. | ||
|
Miyoshino
314 Posts
You can speculate on certain methods on how to travel interstellar. If you do the physics it is clear that superlow mass is the way to go. Also, if life can do something, technology can as well. It is already proven to be possble. FTL travel or warp gates or bending space-time, reducing mass is not proven. | ||
|
archonOOid
1983 Posts
| ||
|
NadaSound
United States227 Posts
On May 01 2012 07:30 Littlemuff wrote: Just say there was another earth exact same as ours with the equivalent of us humans on it. I wonder how different they would have evolved to us. Like how much different they would look, talk and behave. kinda interesting. I love thinking about this question. I don't think they would be too terribly different. They would need eyes, which have to be close to the brain, thus they would have a head. They would also need limbs with fingers so they could make and handle tools. I have learned that biologist are being to find that evolution isn't strictly random, but finds particular and convenient solutions to problems. The evidence they see is that certain types of eyes like our refractive corona eyes and also compound eyes have independently evolved several times. This implies that life seems to prefer those arrangements, whether that is because they are easier to produce or because the necessary materials are abundant I am not sure. Here is a nice documentary on the subject What We Still Don't Know. The relevant episode will be the first one, but it is defiantly worth while to watch them all. | ||
|
Heh_
Singapore2712 Posts
On May 01 2012 23:00 Miyoshino wrote: Ok this is just pure stubborn stupidity. You can speculate on certain methods on how to travel interstellar. If you do the physics it is clear that superlow mass is the way to go. Also, if life can do something, technology can as well. It is already proven to be possble. FTL travel or warp gates or bending space-time, reducing mass is not proven. What? Who are you talking to? Who's speculating what? Some concrete examples instead of general statements please. You've done nothing to prove your point (if you have one). Edit: (ON TOPIC DISCUSSION) On May 02 2012 00:36 NadaSound wrote: I love thinking about this question. I don't think they would be too terribly different. They would need eyes, which have to be close to the brain, thus they would have a head. They would also need limbs with fingers so they could make and handle tools. I have learned that biologist are being to find that evolution isn't strictly random, but finds particular and convenient solutions to problems. The evidence they see is that certain types of eyes like our refractive corona eyes and also compound eyes have independently evolved several times. This implies that life seems to prefer those arrangements, whether that is because they are easier to produce or because the necessary materials are abundant I am not sure. Here is a nice documentary on the subject What We Still Don't Know. The relevant episode will be the first one, but it is defiantly worth while to watch them all. I would say that lifeforms with comparable intelligence/ability to humans might be pretty difficult. Evolution doesn't guide you to be the "best" at everything, it just favors traits which are better than the ancestor. A good example would be the human eye. The light-sensitive cells are behind a bunch of stuff, in contrast to cephalopods (squids) which have a more intelligently designed eye. Wikipedia source. What happens is that evolution tunes the phenotype of an organism to a local maxima, and once this occurs, it's stuck there. It may not be the best, but it's better than all the other similar phenotypes. Therefore, the appearance of the lifeform might be vastly different (eg multiple tentacles instead of fingers to provide the same flexibility), but the overall functions are similar. | ||
|
NadaSound
United States227 Posts
On May 02 2012 00:39 Heh_ wrote: + Show Spoiler + On May 01 2012 23:00 Miyoshino wrote: Ok this is just pure stubborn stupidity. You can speculate on certain methods on how to travel interstellar. If you do the physics it is clear that superlow mass is the way to go. Also, if life can do something, technology can as well. It is already proven to be possble. FTL travel or warp gates or bending space-time, reducing mass is not proven. What? Who are you talking to? Who's speculating what? Some concrete examples instead of general statements please. You've done nothing to prove your point (if you have one). Edit: (ON TOPIC DISCUSSION) On May 02 2012 00:36 NadaSound wrote: I love thinking about this question. I don't think they would be too terribly different. They would need eyes, which have to be close to the brain, thus they would have a head. They would also need limbs with fingers so they could make and handle tools. I have learned that biologist are being to find that evolution isn't strictly random, but finds particular and convenient solutions to problems. The evidence they see is that certain types of eyes like our refractive corona eyes and also compound eyes have independently evolved several times. This implies that life seems to prefer those arrangements, whether that is because they are easier to produce or because the necessary materials are abundant I am not sure. Here is a nice documentary on the subject What We Still Don't Know. The relevant episode will be the first one, but it is defiantly worth while to watch them all. I would say that lifeforms with comparable intelligence/ability to humans might be pretty difficult. Evolution doesn't guide you to be the "best" at everything, it just favors traits which are better than the ancestor. A good example would be the human eye. The light-sensitive cells are behind a bunch of stuff, in contrast to cephalopods (squids) which have a more intelligently designed eye. Wikipedia source. What happens is that evolution tunes the phenotype of an organism to a local maxima, and once this occurs, it's stuck there. It may not be the best, but it's better than all the other similar phenotypes. Therefore, the appearance of the lifeform might be vastly different (eg multiple tentacles instead of fingers to provide the same flexibility), but the overall functions are similar. I never said anything about anything being "better" than anything else. What I said was a particular or convenient solution to a problem. What is your angle on this and on the fact that compound and refractive eyes are quite common and have independently evolved several times? | ||
|
Chytilova
United States790 Posts
| ||
|
Heh_
Singapore2712 Posts
On May 02 2012 01:42 NadaSound wrote: I never said anything about anything being "better" than anything else. What I said was a particular or convenient solution to a problem. What is your angle on this and on the fact that compound and refractive eyes are quite common and have independently evolved several times? Well, what I meant was that there are multiple solutions to a single problem. My example about tentacles is pretty ridiculous, so let's take another example: cellulose digestion. Cellulose is difficult to digest and animals that feed on cellulose require special adaptations. Cows have four stomachs while rabbits have only one. To compensate for this, rabbits have two types of shit: hard and soft. Rabbits re-ingest the soft shit in order to extract the maximal amount of nutrients from it. Therefore, as long as function is preserved, there are multiple solutions to a single problem. Therefore, the lifeform might look really different. They do not necessarily need to have a humanoid shape. I agree that there are certain things that are particularly advantageous to have. For motile organisms, vision is particularly important. That's why sight and particularly, eyes, independently evolved so many times because it confers a strong evolutionary advantage over others without vision. That is to say, this lifeform would probably have an organ with a similar function to eyes, but it's structure, anatomical location, quantity and other factors might differ, making this lifeform look pretty different from humans. | ||
|
NadaSound
United States227 Posts
On May 02 2012 01:52 Chytilova wrote: This is cool and all, but does anyone really believe that intelligent life like us exists? I'm still skeptical. I'm sure life exists on another planets like these, but it's probably just bacteria and such. I'll have to see evidence before I believe there is a life form even close to our intelligence somewhere in the universe. I like to think about it like this, the universe is big enough that rare things happen all the time. There are an estimated 10^24 stars in the visable universe, that is a 1 with 24 zeros behind it. Even if intelligence arises around .00000001% of these stars your looking at 10^14 intelligent civilizations spread out across the stars and galaxies that we can see, but of course they will most likely not be anywhere near us. On May 02 2012 02:00 Heh_ wrote: + Show Spoiler + On May 02 2012 01:42 NadaSound wrote: I never said anything about anything being "better" than anything else. What I said was a particular or convenient solution to a problem. What is your angle on this and on the fact that compound and refractive eyes are quite common and have independently evolved several times? Well, what I meant was that there are multiple solutions to a single problem. My example about tentacles is pretty ridiculous, so let's take another example: cellulose digestion. Cellulose is difficult to digest and animals that feed on cellulose require special adaptations. Cows have four stomachs while rabbits have only one. To compensate for this, rabbits have two types of shit: hard and soft. Rabbits re-ingest the soft shit in order to extract the maximal amount of nutrients from it. Therefore, as long as function is preserved, there are multiple solutions to a single problem. Therefore, the lifeform might look really different. They do not necessarily need to have a humanoid shape. I agree that there are certain things that are particularly advantageous to have. For motile organisms, vision is particularly important. That's why sight and particularly, eyes, independently evolved so many times because it confers a strong evolutionary advantage over others without vision. That is to say, this lifeform would probably have an organ with a similar function to eyes, but it's structure, anatomical location, quantity and other factors might differ, making this lifeform look pretty different from humans. Yes, of course there is more than one way to skin a cat. This is not what I am getting at. I am just stating that there is evidence that evolution might not be a random process of mutations but that there is an underlying order to the mutations that follow certain parameters and possibly show patterns, all outside of the context of ancestry. | ||
| ||
