BBC News - Tantalising sign of possible life on faraway world

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-66786611

 

It may have detected a molecule called dimethyl sulphide (DMS). On Earth, at least, this is only produced by life. 

Edited September 15, 20232 yr by martin-w

Perhaps, somewhere, someone is saying the same about Earth:

https://www.space.com/james-webb-telescope-detect-life-on-earth-from-across-the-galaxy 

For me, this field of study is starting to be more interesting than all this "alien" stuff.

 

14 hours ago, dmwalker said:

Perhaps, somewhere, someone is saying the same about Earth:

 

Or perhaps, somewhere, someone is saying "Earth is a dangerous planet, I sure hope they don't discover us".

4 hours ago, stans said:

Or perhaps, somewhere, someone is saying "Earth is a dangerous planet, I sure hope they don't discover us".

 

If, from such an immense distance, they are so technologically advanced as to be able to determine that we are dangerous, I'm thinking that they wouldn't be too bothered about our puny technology and would be aware that we are nowhere near the incredible breakthroughs that would be required to visit them. 

What any hypothetical scientists might see would be our past history of course, which could be several centuries up to many thousands of years ago!

Well over the course of the Modern Era there have been many tantalizing signs of life elsewhere in the universe. If future observations can confirm that there is indeed DMS in the atmosphere of K2-18 b then I'd be willing to concede that would be the most compelling evidence of life on another planet to date but just because the only known mechanism for producing DMS is life doesn't mean there aren't unknown inorganic natural processes that produce DMS. I'd be willing to beat that if DMS is confirmed, the headline on the front page of the New York Slime will read Proof of life on another Planet  instead of  DMS only produced by Organic Processes falsified. My own inclination would be to consider the latter more plausible.🤪

50 minutes ago, FBW737 said:

Proof of life on another Planet  instead of  DMS only produced by Organic Processes falsified. My own inclination would be to consider the latter more plausible.

If the presence of DMS is confirmed, there would then be pressure to prove that it can only be produced biologically. I imagine nobody has tried really hard to do that yet. I think there must be non-biological pathways but we don't know enough about the environment on K2-18 b to say whether or not they would be possible there. In the meantime, it would be fair to say that the confirmed presence of DMS on K2-18 b could indicate possible biological activity there.

As much interest as I've always had in Astronomy, I'm just not all that "wowed" by the possible discovery of a tiny organic molecule on another planet.

I know that scientists would love to find an organic molecule, or even better a bacteria or amoeba, on Mars, for example, but I just don't get why that would be so darned exciting.

Now, finding evidence of intelligent life, even just the ruins of a civilization that flourished thousands of years ago, would be very exciting for me, however, it would not surprise me.

It might have something to do with the fact that I believe in Creation, that is, lifeforms were designed and created purposefully by a super intelligent omnipotent creator.  I do believe that life evolves over time, but I'll never believe that the extraordinarily complex and amazing lifeforms here on Earth were just the result of molecules randomly combining billions of times over billions of years.  Hence, I won't be very surprised if life is found on other planets, as I believe that many different lifeforms were created and seeded throughout the universe.

Dave

Edited September 17, 20232 yr by dave2013

44 minutes ago, dave2013 said:

Now, finding evidence of intelligent life, even just the ruins of a civilization that flourished thousands of years ago, would be very exciting for me, however, it would not surprise me.

We do the best with the technology we have. I would assume that, just as on Earth, intelligent life would exist together with lower forms of life and even bacteria, regardless of how they all came to be. Maybe some day we'll have optical telescopes which can see vague planetary features. Meanwhile, the Earthly ruins of ancient civilisations are pretty exciting if you visit in the off-season.

1 hour ago, dave2013 said:

As much interest as I've always had in Astronomy, I'm just not all that "wowed" by the possible discovery of a tiny organic molecule on another planet.

I know that scientists would love to find an organic molecule, or even better a bacteria or amoeba, on Mars, for example, but I just don't get why that would be so darned exciting.

Now, finding evidence of intelligent life, even just the ruins of a civilization that flourished thousands of years ago, would be very exciting for me, however, it would not surprise me.

It might have something to do with the fact that I believe in Creation, that is, lifeforms were designed and created purposefully by a super intelligent omnipotent creator.  I do believe that life evolves over time, but I'll never believe that the extraordinarily complex and amazing lifeforms here on Earth were just the result of molecules randomly combining billions of times over billions of years.  Hence, I won't be very surprised if life is found on other planets, as I believe that many different lifeforms were created and seeded throughout the universe.

Dave

Ditto! and today scientific evidence REALLY favours intelligent design over 1 in ∞ chance of the Universe being the way it is . However I believe that its far from a forgone conclusion that life exists elsewhere in the universe. I'll cite the very short period of time in the early formation of the universe that determined the balance between helium and hydrogen and its fine tuning that would have lead to a universe with either only heavy element i.e. Iron and above existing or Silicon and below had it gone the other way. (I'm sure I don't have the details of this exactly right) but it's not only that life would not exist at all if the periodic table looked any differently (and it definitely probably should have been very different by chance alone) the abundance or scarcity of all or any one and all of the elements in a region space for life to exist is extremely precise also. So if you look at the abundance or scarcity of any one of the elements in one small region of space say a planet the odds of that abundance or scarcity of all 103 elements being precisely matched somewhere else in the universe is statistically very close to zero and yet at the same time those abundances and scarcities are extremely finely tuned for life to exist. Think about that one. I'm sure I've got some of the details skewed but that's the main gist of the argument. Look it up!🤔🤪

Edited September 17, 20232 yr by FBW737

That is not only not right; it is not even wrong. 

(Wolfgang Pauli)

24 minutes ago, qqwertz said:

That is not only not right; it is not even wrong. 

If I'm not right and I'm not wrong then I must be confused.

(Me)

I hope you will expand on your quotation.

I'm sorry, I should Have asked how your situation is regarding tropical storm Lee. You are in Nova Scotia, aren't you?

Edited September 17, 20232 yr by dmwalker

3 hours ago, FBW737 said:

So if you look at the abundance or scarcity of any one of the elements in one small region of space say a planet the odds of that abundance or scarcity of all 103 elements being precisely matched somewhere else in the universe is statistically very close to zero and yet at the same time those abundances and scarcities are extremely finely tuned for life to exist.

I would say the reverse is true, that life on Earth is finely tuned to the abundance and scarcity of the elements. First came the elements then came life based on these elements. We don't have enough knowledge to say that a different balance of elements couldn't result in a different form of life.

Edited September 18, 20232 yr by dmwalker

2 hours ago, dmwalker said:

If I'm not right and I'm not wrong then I must be confused.

(Me)

I hope you will expand on your quotation.

I'm sorry, I should Have asked how your situation is regarding tropical storm Lee. You are in Nova Scotia, aren't you?

Thanks for asking about Lee, Dugald. It was fine in our area. Lots of short power outages and two longer ones, but no damage.

Pauli was very critical of statements that do not make scientific sense. For a hypothesis to be of scientific value, it should be falsifiable. That means, it must make a prediction that one can test experimentally, and if the experiment disagrees, the hypothesis is not valid. Of course, you can make hypotheses that are not falsifiable, there is nothing wrong with that. It will just not be a scientific hypothesis. 

The falsifiability criterion was proposed by Sir Karl Popper. Pauli's quote predates it, but is often considered as a concise way of saying that something is not a scientific hypothesis.