Methane implies Biology ??

[John Cuthber]

"Why is the "simplest" explanation a non-Biological one? What is so "complicated" about "hey, man, Martian microbes make Methane" ?"

 

Because rocks are much more simple than life forms.

Was that meant to be a serious question?

[Widdekind]

..

Yes, we see life on Earth.

 

There is the possibility of life on Mars, yes. However, you have implicitly engaged a cyclical argument that we should view the methane as good evidence of life on Mars because life is probably abundant in the universe.

 

I never said that.

 

I said, "all the evidence available, at present, is completely consistent w/ Life being abundant".

 

That's all I said, nothing more.

 

The abundance of organic chemicals is irrelevant. Sure, they demonstrate that the raw materials for life are abundant, but until we understand the mechanism of abiogenesis in detail we cannot know whether its origin is inevitable, or unique.

 

So, Life could be inevitable & frequent...

 

and, if it were inevitable & frequent...

 

then things would look exactly like they do look ("the raw materials for Life are abundant").

 

Again, the available evidence is completely consistent w/ Life being abundant. Again again, that's all I said.

 

Who's assigning specific probabilities ? All I said was, "if Life was frequent across the Cosmos, then the first few primitive observations to appear would be Life on Earth, possible Life on Mars, & copious quantities of Organics across the Cosmos". This is precisely what we do see, completely consistent w/ Life being common across the Cosmos.

 

Er go, in the absence of any understanding of Abiogenesis as you said, we have no A Priori reason to prefer "Life-Phobic" positions.

 

For example, our primitive & puny present comprehension of our position is completely consistent with their being Microbial Life, in at least trace amounts, on every single planet in the whole Universe. Even the Hot Jupiter Exoplanets could support some sort of Extremophiles in their Atmospheres -- we don't know.

 

I mention this example, b/c it's equally consistent with their being no Microbial Life, on any planet in the Universe, beyond Earth. So, see what I'm saying ?

 

Even so, in loose language limited by keyboard & ASCII, our presently-known Data Set looks like this:

 

Life, Life?, Life

???, ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

 

All I'm saying, is that is completely consistent with an "Objective Truth" of:

 

Life, Life, Life, Life, Life, Life, Life, Life, Life, Life, Life, Life, Life, Life, Life, Life, Life, Life, Life, Life, Life, Life, Life, Life, Life, Life, Life, Life...

 

And, it is slightly, but importantly (you agree, yes?) more consistent with all that Life, than the diametrically opposite "Objective Truth" of:

 

barren world, barren world, barren world, barren world, barren world, barren world, barren world, barren world, barren world, barren world...

 

 

SUMMARY:

 

Completely Barren Cosmos Hypothesis:

barren world, barren world, barren world, barren world, barren world, barren world, barren world, barren world, barren world, barren world...

Life-is-Everywhere Hypothesis:

Life, Life, Life, Life, Life, Life, Life, Life, Life, Life, Life, Life, Life, Life, Life, Life, Life, Life, Life, Life, Life, Life, Life, Life, Life, Life, Life, Life...

Primitive Present Observations:

Life, Life?, Life

???, ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

 

 

CONCLUSION:

 

• We can already exclude the Completely Barren Cosmos Hypothesis.
  
• We cannot yet exclude the Life-is-Everywhere Hypothesis.
  
• Present Observations infinitesimally favor Life being everywhere (or at least quite common).
  

Edited June 14, 2009 by Widdekind

[Ophiolite]

In your opening post you say this:

"If all Methane comes from Biological processes, and if Methane is common across the Cosmos, then perhaps Biology is common across the Cosmos."

 

In your last post you say this:

"Present Observations infinitesimally favor Life being everywhere (or at least quite common)."

 

You appear to be a native English speaker with a good command of the language. You will recognise that these two statements are different in an important way. I have no objection to you changing your position, but it would be helpful if you made it clear - as you did in your thread on Martian plate tectonics - when you have done so.

 

Who's assigning specific probabilities ? All I said was, "if Life was frequent across the Cosmos, then the first few primitive observations to appear would be Life on Earth, possible Life on Mars, & copious quantities of Organics across the Cosmos". This is precisely what we do see, completely consistent w/ Life being common across the Cosmos.

I don't think I suggested you were assigning a specific probability, but you were assigning a significant probability. You have now modified this to there being an infinitesimal balance of probability in favour of life. Now I don't see that an infinitesimal balance of probability in favour of life merits any discussion, or argument, or debate - well perhaps an infinitesimally small one.

[D H]

I never said that.

 

I said, "all the evidence available, at present, is completely consistent w/ Life being abundant".

Backtracking a bit, are we? The above is a measured statement. Your opening post was anything but measured.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

• We can already exclude the Completely Barren Cosmos Hypothesis.
  
• We cannot yet exclude the Life-is-Everywhere Hypothesis.
  
• Present Observations infinitesimally favor Life being everywhere (or at least quite common).
  

You are once again leaping to conclusions based a sample size of one and you are once again employing logical fallacies. The "completely barren cosmos hypothesis" is either a red herring (fallacy) or a straw man of the rare Earth hypothesis (a different fallacy). You failed to mention the rare Earth hypothesis, a fallacy of omission. Finally, you made a bare assertion in claiming present observations infinitesimally favor life being everywhere. Three fallacies in one short list. Nice.

[John Cuthber]

Widdekind,

Does "infinitessimally favour", practically speaking, mean anything?

The likelihood of life being quite common is (marginally) favoured by our being here.

True, but not news.

 

Also, as D H says, you missed out the possibility that life is quite rare. I think that is the most likely option (I accept that's no more than a hunch) and you seem not to have even considreed it. Why not?

[D H]

My opinion, and I too accept that it is no more than a opinion, is that life in general is a bit rare while intelligent life is very rare. But that is just my opinion. I most certainly am not going to justify my opinion with text in multiple fonts, multiple sizes, multiple colors, and different background colors, or with a boatload of logical fallacies.

[Ophiolite]

To echo Cuthber and DH, the one thing we can be certain of in regard to life in the universe is our uncertainty as to its frequency and character.

[Widdekind]

In your opening post you say this:

"If all Methane comes from Biological processes, and if Methane is common across the Cosmos, then perhaps Biology is common across the Cosmos."

 

In your last post you say this:

"Present Observations infinitesimally favor Life being everywhere (or at least quite common)."

 

There's an important "common" word, shared by both those statements. Please explain to me, how you conclude that they are "importantly" different.

 

You appear to be a native English speaker with a good command of the language. You will recognise that these two statements are different in an important way. I have no objection to you changing your position, but it would be helpful if you made it clear - as you did in your thread on Martian plate tectonics - when you have done so.

 

I don't think I suggested you were assigning a specific probability, but you were assigning a significant probability. You have now modified this to there being an infinitesimal balance of probability in favour of life. Now I don't see that an infinitesimal balance of probability in favour of life merits any discussion, or argument, or debate - well perhaps an infinitesimally small one.

 

I would say, that there is a significant "possibility", not "probability". The very word "probable" / "probably" connotes a likelihood in excess of 50%. Such a claim exceeds the limits of present primitive observations, which can only "hint" & "suggest".

 

But, present observations are completely consistent w/ abundant Life, making the possibility worthy of serious consideration.

 

That's all I said -- "Life is likely to be likely".

 

All the "hints" of which we're aware "suggest" that Life is likely to be likely. That's not an opinion, but a promising possibility suggested by present observations, to anybody w/ an open mind. Adhering stringently to a "Rare Earth" hypothesis, in the face of present observations which (weakly) favor the converse, is a (mildly) pre-judged position.

 

ANALOGY: After one inning (or even 1/2 inning), Life is leading Rare Earth 1-0. So, if you had to bet, you'd (barely) prefer Life. That's all I said.

 

To quote Br. Guy Consolmagno, SJ (Intelligent Life in the Universe -- Catholic belief & the search for extra-terrestrial Intelligent Life), "we don't know, we don't know, we don't know, we don't know" (which words apply both to Alien Life & Alien Intelligent Life). But, it's completely possible, so there's no reason to a priori prefer Rare Earth.

 

That seems be a source of some concern, for other people posting about this important topic. It seems that there is some sort of preference for the position, "bah humbug, we Humans are all there is, in all the Cosmos" (my words). Hypothetically, that position could be the case. It could be correct. But, it could also be incorrect, and present primitive observations, which are witnessing repeated "hints" & "suggestions" for frequent Life, tend to imply the opposite position.

 

 

 

 

ADDENDUM:

 

Just to be blunt, it is my opinion, that if I could get people drunk on a cocktail of Vodka & Truth-serum, I could quickly get them to say, "bah humbug, we Humans have the whole entire complete Cosmos to ourselves, there's nothing doing anywhere else, never has been, never will be, we Humans are the pinnacle of all Creation, somebody has to be Tops and it just so happens to be my species".

 

It is also my opinion -- as I am suspicious of such self-spoken beliefs -- that, as according to Folk Wisdom, "there's always a bigger fish".

 

These are my opinions regarding Intelligent Life, which are only opinions, b/c I cannot conclusively answer Fermi's Paradox (if they [Alien Intelligences & Civilizations] are everywhere, where are they?). But, for basic primitive microbial-caliber Life-forms, I can graduate from "opinions" to "possibilities" based upon "hints & suggestions" of actual observations.

 

Everybody posting so far, seems to mutually agree, that Intelligent Life "should" be less frequent than more primitive types of Life. That, then, seems to be a common ground which everybody here can accept.

[mkruck77]

Titan is a good example when assuming that methane abundance is from biological processes. Titan is filled with methane lakes and has a temperature of about -290 degrees Fahrenheit. Of course I don't think there's any like on titan, but even at that temperature, I don't think there's enough abundance of like that could generate that amount of methane from biological processes. A common process of planets during there stages of development until their cores are cooled is volcanic activity, which most likely causes the majority of methane in the cosmos, not life.

[D H]

I would say, that there is a significant "possibility", not "probability". The very word "probable" / "probably" connotes a likelihood in excess of 50%. Such a claim exceeds the limits of present primitive observations, which can only "hint" & "suggest".

You have been caught, so now you are moving the goalposts. Nice.

 

But, present observations are completely consistent w/ abundant Life, making the possibility worthy of serious consideration.

 

That's all I said -- "Life is likely to be likely".

You are discounting that present observations are also completely consistent with the non-abundance of life. You are discounting that present observations of the existence of life is a sample size of exactly one.

 

All the "hints" of which we're aware "suggest" that Life is likely to be likely. That's not an opinion, but a promising possibility suggested by present observations, to anybody w/ an open mind.

That is an opinion. Your inability to see that your position is an opinion is one hint that you belong in the camp of people derisively known as "crackpots". Your posting style is that of a crackpot. Your use of mixed fonts, font sizes, emphasis (underlining, italics, and bold), and colors is another giveaway. Scientists do not write that way. Crackpots do. Your use (abuse) of argumentation is another giveaway. Scientists do not write they way you do, but crackpots do. Your use false logic to make your claims is yet another giveaway. Example: "Methane is commonly observed across the Cosmos" as a supposed argument for the ubiquity of life. This ignores that the widely agreed upon explanation for why methane is commonly observed across the cosmos: A lot of non-biological chemistry is occurring in interstellar gas clouds.

 

I am not calling you a crackpot (yet). You are, however, inadvertently doing your very best to convince me that you are.

[John Cuthber]

I'm reserving judgement on whether or not he's a crackpot until he answers my earlier question.

"Why is the "simplest" explanation a non-Biological one? What is so "complicated" about "hey, man, Martian microbes make Methane" ?"

 

Because rocks are much more simple than life forms.

Was that meant to be a serious question?

 

If he really thinks that some form of life is the "simple" explanation for methane then, in my view, he's a crackpot.

[Widdekind]

You have been caught, so now you are moving the goalposts. Nice.

 

 

You are discounting that present observations are also completely consistent with the non-abundance of life. You are discounting that present observations of the existence of life is a sample size of exactly one.

 

DH, I know you don't misquote people like this to their faces.

 

I didn't discount it.

 

I acknowledged it.

 

I just also acknowledged that "present observations are also completely consistent"... w/ the abundance of Life.

 

You have agreed to everything I said, yet are flaming me.

 

 

That is an opinion. Your inability to see that your position is an opinion is one hint that you belong in the camp of people derisively known as "crackpots". Your posting style is that of a crackpot. Your use of mixed fonts, font sizes, emphasis (underlining, italics, and bold), and colors is another giveaway. Scientists do not write that way. Crackpots do. Your use (abuse) of argumentation is another giveaway. Scientists do not write they way you do, but crackpots do. Your use false logic to make your claims is yet another giveaway. Example: "Methane is commonly observed across the Cosmos" as a supposed argument for the ubiquity of life. This ignores that the widely agreed upon explanation for why methane is commonly observed across the cosmos: A lot of non-biological chemistry is occurring in interstellar gas clouds.

 

I am not calling you a crackpot (yet). You are, however, inadvertently doing your very best to convince me that you are.

 

All flame, no substance. The ubiquity of Methane is consistent w/ the ubiquity of Life, as DH himself has (tacitly) acknowledged, w/ his own words, "[the data] is also consistent w/ the non-ubiquity of Life". The current data could go either way, as I've said repeatedly, over & over, again & again, w/ a thousand different analogies, including:

• "the jury's still out, but it looks promising"
  
• "it's half-way thru the 1st inning, and Life is up 1-0"
  

This is preposterous.

 

How come DH can flame, & misquote, & misconstrue me, and nobody holds him to anything ?

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

A surprisingly pertinent observation (Andrew Franknoi. [Disney Learning] Wonderful World of Space, pg. 78.):

In the year 1600 AD, the Italian Astronomer & Philosopher Giordana Bruno was burned at the stake, for suggesting that there might be planets around other stars, w/ intelligent creatures on them. (Luckily, Astronomers who think that way today are not treated quite so roughly.)

 

The more things change, the more they didn't

--

Wisdom

There's nothing new under the Sun

--

Wisdom

Edited June 30, 2009 by Widdekind
Consecutive posts merged.

[D H]

DH, I know you don't misquote people like this to their faces.

 

I didn't discount it.

 

I acknowledged it.

Discount means "to minimize the importance of", not "to ignore". In post #33 you finally acknowledged the rare Earth hypothesis. You argued it away without cause. I can't even call what you did in post #33 a straw man (which is exactly what you used in post #27) because you dismissed it so out of hand. You discounted it.

 

You have agreed to everything I said[/u'], yet are flaming me.

I have neither agreed to (acceded) nor agreed with (come into accord) nor agreed on (come to an understanding) everything you said. If anything, the opposite is closer to the truth.

 

All the "hints" of which we're aware "suggest" that Life is likely to be likely. That's not an opinion' date=' but a [u']promising possibility suggested by present observations, to anybody w/ an open mind[/u'].

That is an opinion. Your inability to see that your position is an opinion is one hint that you belong in the camp of people derisively known as "crackpots". Your posting style is that of a crackpot. Your use of mixed fonts, font sizes, emphasis (underlining, italics, and bold), and colors is another giveaway. Scientists do not write that way. Crackpots do. Your use (abuse) of argumentation is another giveaway. Scientists do not write they way you do, but crackpots do. Your use false logic to make your claims is yet another giveaway. Example: "Methane is commonly observed across the Cosmos" as a supposed argument for the ubiquity of life. This ignores that the widely agreed upon explanation for why methane is commonly observed across the cosmos: A lot of non-biological chemistry is occurring in interstellar gas clouds.

 

I am not calling you a crackpot (yet). You are, however, inadvertently doing your very best to convince me that you are.

All flame, no substance.

Your statement was an opinion. You are treating it is if it were fact.

 

Regarding my statements on your posting style: Consider that kindly advice.

 

My first impression upon first seeing a post of yours at another site was "crackpot". Your posting style has the complete look and feel of a crackpot poster. I have tried to put that impression aside. Some readers may not be able to put that impression aside. You really should consider changing your posting style.

 

 

The ubiquity of Methane is consistent w/ the ubiquity of Life[/i']

The ubiquity of methane in the universe is also consistent with the non-ubiquity of life. The ubiquity of methane in the universe is in fact fully explained by non-biological chemistry that occurs in interstellar gas clouds. It has nothing to do with the ubiquity (or lack thereof) of life on planets. You are playing games with material implication and are using these games to create a non sequitur argument.

[John Cuthber]

I'm reserving judgement on whether or not he's a crackpot until he answers my earlier question.

 

 

If he really thinks that some form of life is the "simple" explanation for methane then, in my view, he's a crackpot.

 

Beacuse he won't answer can I just change my mind an assume he is a crackpot please?

[Widdekind]

Regarding the observation of Methane in Mars' atmosphere, Bennett & Shostak (Life in the Universe (2nd ed), pg. 283) say:

Mars has a source of ongoing

Methane

production somewhere on or beneath its surface... Where could the

Methane

be coming from ? We know of at least three possibilities:

Comet Impacts, Volcanic Activity, or Life

. The first possibility is highly unlikely, since impacts are such rare events and an impact would have to have occurred quite recently for

Methane

to remain in the atmosphere. That leaves us w/

Volcanism or Life

.

 

A few scientists have looked at correlations between the location of

Methane & Water Vapor

in the Martian atmosphere, and used the results to argue that we might be actually seeing the signature of microscopic

Life

on Mars. However,

Volcanism

also seems a reasonable explanation, especially since other evidence suggests that Mars has at least some low level of ongoing

Volcanic Activity

.

Nevertheless, even this result could have implications for the existence of

Life

: if there is enough

Volcanic Activity

to produce a detectable level of

Methane

, it may also mean there is enough

Volcanic Heat

to make pockets of underground liquid water, raising the possibility of subsurface

Life

.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

There seems to be some serious misunderstanding of the English language. Please ponder the differences between the following three (3) types of statements:

• Possibility (p > 0%)
  
• Probability (p > 50%)
  
• Certainty (p = 100%)
  

A statement of Possibility is not a statement of Probability, much less of Certainty. Furthermore, a statement is only an Opinion, if it asserts something stronger than the evidence actually bears.

 

Thus, to say that the universal ubiquity of Methane, across the Cosmos, suggests the Possibility of abundant Life, is factually accurate, and not an Opinion. Now, as an aside, it is this author's Opinion that abundant Life, across the Cosmos, is Probable. That is based on "hunch" & "instinct", informed by actual observations, but extrapolating beyond them.

 

Likewise, to say that "all present, albeit primitive, Observations are completely consistent w/ abundant Life, across the Cosmos" is not an Opinion -- it's just a fact. Note, too, that it's not even a statement of Possibility, much less Probability or Certainty -- it's just an observation of an intriguing fact.

 

ANOTHER ANALOGY:

 

Look out across the Cosmos, w/ unaided eyes. You see the Sun, the Moon, and a bunch of planets and stars. Both the Sun & Moon appear circular in the sky; everything else is too far away to resolve as anything but pinpoints of light.

 

Nevertheless, those primitive observations are completely consistent w/ the claim that "all heavenly bodies actually appear circular [given better observations]".

 

Likewise, we know there's Life on Earth, and we see Methane consistent w/ Life on Mars (not to mention Methane in Molecular Clouds). It is just a factual epiphane [sp?], that these observations are completely consistent w/ Life being abundant across the Cosmos. Note that no specific probability has been assigned, meaning this is not an Opinion. It's just like saying "hey, the Sun looks round, the Moon looks round, so it could be that every light in the sky will look round, when we get around to observing them in greater detail".

 

Yet again, that's not an Opinion, nor is it a statement of Possibility / Probability / Certainty.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

...The ubiquity of methane in the universe is also consistent with the non-ubiquity of life. The ubiquity of methane in the universe is in fact fully explained by non-biological chemistry that occurs in interstellar gas clouds. It has nothing to do with the ubiquity (or lack thereof) of life on planets.

 

Let us be more precise -- "the ubiquity of Methane in the Universe is, in fact, fully explain-able by non-biological chemistry...". That is, you can, you are able, to explain observations w/ non-biological chemistry.

 

I've never disagreed w/ that.

 

If you can say, "The ubiquity of methane in the Universe is also consistent with the non-ubiquity of Life", then I can say "The ubiquity of Methane in the Universe is also consistent with the ubiquity of Life". It cuts both ways -- if one statement is "also consistent" w/ observations, then the other statement must be "consistent" w/ observations, also.

[John Cuthber]

Regarding the observation of Methane in Mars' atmosphere, Bennett & Shostak (Life in the Universe (2nd ed), pg. 283) say:

Mars has a source of ongoing

Methane

production somewhere on or beneath its surface... Where could the

Methane

be coming from ? We know of at least three possibilities:

Comet Impacts, Volcanic Activity, or Life

. The first possibility is highly unlikely, since impacts are such rare events and an impact would have to have occurred quite recently for

Methane

to remain in the atmosphere. That leaves us w/

Volcanism or Life

.

 

A few scientists have looked at correlations between the location of

Methane & Water Vapor

in the Martian atmosphere, and used the results to argue that we might be actually seeing the signature of microscopic

Life

on Mars. However,

Volcanism

also seems a reasonable explanation, especially since other evidence suggests that Mars has at least some low level of ongoing

Volcanic Activity

.

Nevertheless, even this result could have implications for the existence of

Life

: if there is enough

Volcanic Activity

to produce a detectable level of

Methane

, it may also mean there is enough

Volcanic Heat

to make pockets of underground liquid water, raising the possibility of subsurface

Life

.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

There seems to be some serious misunderstanding of the English language. Please ponder the differences between the following three (3) types of statements:

• Possibility (p > 0%)
  
• Probability (p > 50%)
  
• Certainty (p = 100%)
  

 

What does p stand for?

In my book it's probability.

With your rather limiting use of the word the list doesn't make sense.

Clearly we are using the word probability in the more general sense of "p" rather than for p>=50%

 

And I'm still waiting for you to answer my question.

[D H]

Thus, to say that the universal ubiquity of Methane, across the Cosmos, suggests the Possibility of abundant Life, is factually accurate, and not an Opinion.

It is worse than an opinion. It is a logical fallacy. We observe methane to be ubiquitous across the cosmos because we see signs of methane in interstellar gas clouds. This interstellar methane has nothing to do with life. It has everything to do with non-biological chemistry in interstellar gas clouds.

 

We have seen signs of methane on one exoplanet, HD 189733 b. HD 189733 b is a hot Jupiter. We also see signs of methane, and a whole lot of methane, in the atmosphere of Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune.

 

The vast majority of methane in the universe has absolutely nothing to do with life. You are invoking a non sequitur in claiming that life might be ubiquitous because methane is ubiquitous.

[John Cuthber]

If there were no methane observed elsewhere in the universe and if (big if) we could assume that all life is similar to that on Earth and generates methane, then we could say that there is no life elsewhere in the universe.

However to assert the converse - "There is methane therefore there is life" is as silly as saying that all alsatians are dogs therefore all dogs are alsatians.

 

There can be methane in the universe at large whether or not it contains life and Widdekind just doesn't seem to realise this.

 

Since he also doesn't seem to realise that life is more complicated than a rock and that the same arguments he has used sugest that everyone is a fortysomething bloke with a beard and that the universe is full of blast furnaces, it doesn't shock me that he can't understand this latest problem.

His maths seems pretty ropey too.

Worst of all, he doesn't answer direct questions.