Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Asha'man · 10-14-2002, 07:58 AM

<a href="http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/space/1616042" target="_blank">Life on Venus may be microbe clouds</a>

Quote:

The team's theory is that microbes could be living in clouds 30 miles up in the Venusian atmosphere, where conditions are relatively balmy -- water droplets are present, the temperature is 158 degrees Fahrenheit and the atmosphere is similar to what it is on Earth. Using data from the Russian Venera space missions and the U.S. Pioneer Venus and Magellan probes, the team found chemical oddities there that could be explained by the presence of living microbes.

Expecting to find high levels of carbon monoxide created by sunlight and lightning, the researchers instead found hydrogen sulphide and sulphur dioxide, gases normally not found together unless something is producing them. They also found carbonyl sulphide, a gas so difficult to produce by inorganic chemistry that it is generally considered to be a marker for living organisms.

Hmm, if true, this could really weaken some of the fine-tuning arguments....

gsx1138 · 10-14-2002, 08:12 AM

My theory is that life is easy. Some scientists like to make it out to be near impossible and creationist like to make it out like some miracle of god. I believe nature just moves in the direction of organic life. Of course I came to the conclusion from extensive study in the "We ain't all that" philosophy.

Shadowy Man · 10-14-2002, 10:21 AM

gsx1138: I tend to agree with you, somewhat. I don't necessarily think that life is "easy", but it is certainly natural, and didn't develop "randomly" like a lot of people want to argue. The development of life in our universe is as natural as the development of any chemical. We may not fully understand all the necessary conditions and interactions, but that doesn't mean it isn't natural, or possibly even inevitable.

gsx1138 · 10-14-2002, 02:59 PM

I guess I did kind of simplify my answer. "Easy" is a bad word to use and I tend to keep it reserved for creationist arguments. I do think that organic life moves in a more cohesive manner than some think. A very crude example would be any of the bondings of atoms. I even think the adhesion between one H2O compound and another H2O is a natural process. While there is more involved with making an organ system or much less a cell I think the principles are basically the same. There is no miracle involved because it is the natural order of things. I hope that makes some kind of sense. I find visual illustrations are easier and sometimes I'm horrible at explaining my own theories.

edited to fix 2nd grade spelling errors

[ October 14, 2002: Message edited by: gsx1138 ]

beausoleil · 10-14-2002, 07:29 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Asha'man:
<a href="http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/space/1616042" target="_blank">Life on Venus may be microbe clouds</a>

Hmm, if true, this could really weaken some of the fine-tuning arguments....

No, because it would still be life as we know it requiring all the same supposed 'fine tuning' of the universe that life on Earth requires.

Looking at this in its (scientific) politcal context, astrobiology is a field with a whole load of money and absolutely nothing to work on. There are a lot of people looking for the next place to speculate that life might be found, which explains this constant dribble of daft notions about Venus's or Jupiter's atmospheres and so on.

It is equally likely that life is quite a rare occurrence relying on an obscure coincidence of a few unlikely events. What we see on the Earth is of course selected for by an anthropic principle - if it hadn't happened we wouldn't be here. Success here doesn't mean success is inevitable or even likely elsewhere.

Doubting Didymus · 10-14-2002, 07:42 PM

This shouldn't be so flippantly dismissed. As a hypothesis, it explains certain chemical compositions in the venusian atmosphere quite well.

If true, I think it would prove that life is easy. At the moment, it is possible that life is extremely unlikely to occur, and therefore so sparse that we will never encounter it in the lifespen of our species. However, if it is so likely as to happen twice in the one planetary system, then we can give a better estimate of its probability, and say that it is likely to be found wherever there is at least an appropriate sun.

echidna · 10-14-2002, 08:57 PM

<a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=57&t=000548&p=1" target="_blank">http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=57&t=000548&p=1</a>
Is there life on Venus ?

Late_Cretaceous · 10-15-2002, 11:03 AM

This topic has come up a couple of times before. One book I would highly recommend is <a href="http://www.funkyscience.net/" target="_blank">Venus Revealed (David Grinspoon)</a> where he discusses this idea at some length (plus there are nice pictures).

Asha'man · 10-15-2002, 02:22 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by beausoleil:
No, because it would still be life as we know it requiring all the same supposed 'fine tuning' of the universe that life on Earth requires.

Not true. Many of the fine tuning arguments add in factors such as the presence of a large moon and the orbital distance of the planet. Hugh Ross's list has at least two dozen items that are clearly specific just to Earth. Life on Venus would clearly knock those factors out of the equation.

galiel · 10-15-2002, 04:34 PM

Actually, given the fact that chunks of terrestrial material blasted away by meteors have landed on the Moon and Mars, (and I see no astro-mechanical reason the same might not be true of Venus), even if life is found on Mars or on Venus, it may be terrestrial in orgiin. Until its DNA (or whatever analog it has) is analyzed, we won't know for sure.

As for the chemical processes in Venusian clouds, there may be simpler explanations that don't require biological processes, and Occam's Razor would strongly argue in their favor. Similarity does not imply causality. We learned that lesson when looking at what seemed to be evidence of recent gullies and other apparent water erosion on Mars. While this may still prove true, an equally plausible and more probable explanation identifying CO2 ice as the cause has been posited.

Emotionally, of course, I would LOVE it to be true, in both cases. But science must follow results, not desires, however heartfelt

10-14-2002, 02:59 PM	#4
gsx1138 Regular Member Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Bremerton, Washington Posts: 379	I guess I did kind of simplify my answer. "Easy" is a bad word to use and I tend to keep it reserved for creationist arguments. I do think that organic life moves in a more cohesive manner than some think. A very crude example would be any of the bondings of atoms. I even think the adhesion between one H2O compound and another H2O is a natural process. While there is more involved with making an organ system or much less a cell I think the principles are basically the same. There is no miracle involved because it is the natural order of things. I hope that makes some kind of sense. I find visual illustrations are easier and sometimes I'm horrible at explaining my own theories. edited to fix 2nd grade spelling errors [ October 14, 2002: Message edited by: gsx1138 ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-14-2002, 08:12 AM	#2
gsx1138 Regular Member Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Bremerton, Washington Posts: 379	My theory is that life is easy. Some scientists like to make it out to be near impossible and creationist like to make it out like some miracle of god. I believe nature just moves in the direction of organic life. Of course I came to the conclusion from extensive study in the "We ain't all that" philosophy.

10-14-2002, 10:21 AM	#3
Shadowy Man Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: A Shadowy Planet Posts: 7,585	gsx1138: I tend to agree with you, somewhat. I don't necessarily think that life is "easy", but it is certainly natural, and didn't develop "randomly" like a lot of people want to argue. The development of life in our universe is as natural as the development of any chemical. We may not fully understand all the necessary conditions and interactions, but that doesn't mean it isn't natural, or possibly even inevitable.

10-14-2002, 07:42 PM	#6
Doubting Didymus Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: East Coast. Australia. Posts: 5,455	This shouldn't be so flippantly dismissed. As a hypothesis, it explains certain chemical compositions in the venusian atmosphere quite well. If true, I think it would prove that life is easy. At the moment, it is possible that life is extremely unlikely to occur, and therefore so sparse that we will never encounter it in the lifespen of our species. However, if it is so likely as to happen twice in the one planetary system, then we can give a better estimate of its probability, and say that it is likely to be found wherever there is at least an appropriate sun.

10-14-2002, 08:57 PM	#7
echidna Veteran Member Join Date: May 2001 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 2,832	<a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=57&t=000548&p=1" target="_blank">http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=57&t=000548&p=1</a> Is there life on Venus ?

10-15-2002, 11:03 AM	#8
Late_Cretaceous Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Alberta Posts: 1,049	This topic has come up a couple of times before. One book I would highly recommend is <a href="http://www.funkyscience.net/" target="_blank">Venus Revealed (David Grinspoon)</a> where he discusses this idea at some length (plus there are nice pictures).

10-15-2002, 04:34 PM	#10
galiel Banned Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Eastern Massachusetts Posts: 1,677	Actually, given the fact that chunks of terrestrial material blasted away by meteors have landed on the Moon and Mars, (and I see no astro-mechanical reason the same might not be true of Venus), even if life is found on Mars or on Venus, it may be terrestrial in orgiin. Until its DNA (or whatever analog it has) is analyzed, we won't know for sure. As for the chemical processes in Venusian clouds, there may be simpler explanations that don't require biological processes, and Occam's Razor would strongly argue in their favor. Similarity does not imply causality. We learned that lesson when looking at what seemed to be evidence of recent gullies and other apparent water erosion on Mars. While this may still prove true, an equally plausible and more probable explanation identifying CO2 ice as the cause has been posited. Emotionally, of course, I would LOVE it to be true, in both cases. But science must follow results, not desires, however heartfelt

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.