Why Habitable Exoplanets Are Bad News

Doc Dutch said:
Agreed it's artificial. Since we only have one example of life in the Universe, our set of examples is very limited. The fact scientists have shown it could possibly work is interesting, albeit not definitive. Similarly, we've found amino acids in meteors but no life.

Still, in a universe as large as ours, even if it's just one in a billionth chance, it's still a chance.
Click to expand...

Yes, nothing is impossible. But it is a very reasonable inference to surmise silicon-based life seems to be highly unlikely.
 
Cypress said:
Yes, nothing is impossible. But it is a very reasonable inference to surmise silicon-based life seems to be highly unlikely.
Click to expand...

Based on the evidence, life off Earth seems to be highly unlikely. :)

I will agree that carbon-based life is more likely than silicon-based life but we only have one example to go by. Not a very scientific analysis. LOL
 
Cypress said:
Yes, nothing is impossible. But it is a very reasonable inference to surmise silicon-based life seems to be highly unlikely.
Click to expand...

Just because you've sampled 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% of the universe you have decreed likelihood!

Are you familiar with Type II errors?
 
Cypress said:
Synthetically substituting Si for C in a molecule under controlled laboratory conditions is light years away from actual Si based life.
Click to expand...

Why would you simply substitute Si for C? Why not look at silicones? Those don't substitute Si for C?

SI and C have some chemical similarities, but substantial differences too. Si is a metalloid, while C is a nonmetal; C is more reactive than Si; and C is capable of forming many more types of complex molecules and polymers than Si.
Click to expand...

Si and C are both in Group IV on the periodic table. That means that they chemically have a lot in common. The differences are more around the fact that Si has another energy level for electrons and because of the nature of these electrons and the size of the atom it doesn't self-catenate like C.

But it is still tetravalent and forms long chains and branched networks of Si-O.

But the clincher for me is that we have never see Silicon-based biology anywhere on Earth, even though all the chemical ingredients, neccessary geologic time, and diverse thermal and chemical environments are all here
Click to expand...

Argument from incredulity.

You sample 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% of the universe and draw a conclusion about probability.

Type II error is now far more probable.

(If you don't understand some of the points in this post please feel free to ask me to explain them. I will be glad to.)
 
Doc Dutch said:
Thanks.

I do every day. You should learn to be less defensive. Perhaps more confidence would cure your bullying issues.
Click to expand...

I haven't seen you post much in the way of science. So you actually know some? Cool. What science is your "specialty"? And why do you not talk about it?
 
NovoJank said:
I haven't seen you post much in the way of science.

So you actually know some? Cool. What science is your "specialty"? And why do you not talk about it?
Click to expand...
That's because you like to leap to conclusions. You have a habit of preforming what you want to say instead of absorbing more data then drawing an updated conconclusion.

Yes. Behaviorism. I do all time, Perry. Again, you are displaying your premature ejaculation problem with differing opinions.
 
NovoJank said:
Behaviorism??? What is that?

So you just take your impressions of people and call it "science"?

I can see why you seem to live in the Type II error region. Seems you like it there.
Click to expand...
LOL Now I can see why you didn't do well in college, Jank. Thanks for the input.

If you were really interested, you can read here:
https://www.simplypsychology.org/behaviorism.html
Behaviorism, also known as behavioral psychology, is a theory of learning which states all behaviors are learned through interaction with the environment through a process called conditioning. Thus, behavior is simply a response to environmental stimuli.
Click to expand...

https://www.psychologistanywhereany...hologists/psychologist_famous_b_f_skinner.htm
B. F. Skinner was one of the most influential of American psychologists. A behaviorist, he developed the theory of operant conditioning -- the idea that behavior is determined by its consequences, be they reinforcements or punishments, which make it more or less likely that the behavior will occur again. Skinner believed that the only scientific approach to psychology was one that studied behaviors, not internal (subjective) mental processes.
Click to expand...
 
Doc Dutch said:
Maybe. Define "armchair psychologist".
Click to expand...

An individual (likely an older man) who thinks they know all about "people" and will dispense their opinions regardless of how tired and uninformed they are. They fancy themselves better than those they "judge" but are, in fact, just pitiful old dudes.

It makes me happy. See, Jank? Who is the real bully here?
Click to expand...

You are.

Lots of things, Jank. Why do you care?
Click to expand...

Ahhh, so YOU are the "college drop out" you accused me of being. more "projection" (there's some armchair psychology for you!)
 
NovoJank said:
Just because you've sampled 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% of the universe you have decreed likelihood!

Are you familiar with Type II errors?
Click to expand...

The laws of physics and chemistry are the same everywhere in the observable universe.

If we have never seen silicon-based biology on Earth, despite having the appropriate chemistry, the neccessary ample geologic time, and a wide array of localized thermal and chemical conditions that is a strong clue to me that Si based life just doesn't a good chance of evolving and propagating.
 
NovoJank said:
Why would you simply substitute Si for C? Why not look at silicones? Those don't substitute Si for C?



Si and C are both in Group IV on the periodic table. That means that they chemically have a lot in common. The differences are more around the fact that Si has another energy level for electrons and because of the nature of these electrons and the size of the atom it doesn't self-catenate like C.

But it is still tetravalent and forms long chains and branched networks of Si-O.



Argument from incredulity.

You sample 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% of the universe and draw a conclusion about probability.

Type II error is now far more probable.

(If you don't understand some of the points in this post please feel free to ask me to explain them. I will be glad to.)
Click to expand...

Talk about believing in invisible elephants and ghostly vunicorns.

Here's a poster holding forth the strong possiblity of silicon-based life, without a shred of evidence and not one single observation to support the claim.
 
NovoJank said:
An individual (likely an older man) who thinks they know all about "people" and will dispense their opinions regardless of how tired and uninformed they are. They fancy themselves better than those they "judge" but are, in fact, just pitiful old dudes.

You are.

Ahhh, so YOU are the "college drop out" you accused me of being. more "projection" (there's some armchair psychology for you!)
Click to expand...
Thanks, Jank. I'm almost as impressed that you were able to formulate an answer as I am in your projections about the knowledge and experiences of others. IMO, your anger and jealousy are driving you to false conclusions.

You and I can agree to disagree on who is the bigger bully here.

Wrong again, Perry. Unlike you, I am not angered by people believing I didn't graduate college. The "Sticks and Stones" rule always applies on forums.
 
Cypress said:
Talk about believing in invisible elephants and ghostly vunicorns.

Here's a poster holding forth the strong possiblity of silicon-based life, without a shred of evidence and not one single observation to support the claim.
Click to expand...

He believes in invisible silicon elephants. :thup:
 
Cypress said:
Talk about believing in invisible elephants and ghostly vunicorns.

Here's a poster holding forth the strong possiblity of silicon-based life, without a shred of evidence and not one single observation to support the claim.
Click to expand...

Why are you afraid to talk actual science? Do you feel intimidated that a non-scientist appears to know more about science than you do? I haven't seen you say much of any technical value.



(At least your buddy/sock Doc Dutch can be counted on to always have your back. He doesn't talk science either.)
 
NovoJank said:
Why are you afraid to talk actual science? Do you feel intimidated that a non-scientist appears to know more about science than you do? I haven't seen you say much of any technical value.



(At least your buddy/sock Doc Dutch can be counted on to always have your back. He doesn't talk science either.)
Click to expand...

I leave you to ponder the mysteries of the invisible silicon unicorns.

It's not an interesting scientific question, since there is no science or tangible evidence to support it.
 
Cypress said:
I leave you to ponder the mysteries of the invisible silicon unicorns.

It's not an interesting scientific question, since there is no science or tangible evidence to support it.
Click to expand...

Ironically for the only person on here to claim any scientific background you sure don't seem to know much science.

I wonder why that is. You seem to know EXACTLY as much science as Doc Dutch does! Hmmmmmmm.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top