Cosmology Exoplanets Intelligent Design News

Space aliens?: We saw this movie in 1958, and …

Spread the love
Kepler 22b/NASA/Caltech

The story never gets any better. The graphics improve though.

FromScienceDaily:

“The ingredients for life are plentiful, and we now know that habitable environments are plentiful,” said Associate Professor Lineweaver, from the ANU Research School of Astronomy and Astrophysics and the Research School of Earth Sciences.

“However, the universe is not teeming with aliens with human-like intelligence that can build radio telescopes and space ships. Otherwise we would have seen or heard from them.

“It could be that there is some other bottleneck for the emergence of life that we haven’t worked out yet. Or intelligent civilisations evolve, but then self-destruct.

Hey I know! They just gave away the film rights. Stupid beggars.

For why we haven’t been to the moon in forty years but this stuff makes it into the science media see The Science Fictions series at your fingertips (cosmology).

Abstract Using the Inclinations of Kepler Systems to Prioritize New Titius-Bode-Based Exoplanet Predictions

Timothy Bovaird, Charles H. Lineweaver, Steffen K. Jacobsen
(Submitted on 19 Dec 2014 (v1), last revised 31 Jan 2015 (this version, v3))
We analyze a sample of multiple-exoplanet systems which contain at least 3 transiting planets detected by the Kepler mission (“Kepler multiples”). We use a generalized Titius-Bode relation to predict the periods of 228 additional planets in 151 of these Kepler multiples. These Titius-Bode-based predictions suggest that there are, on average, ~2 planets in the habitable zone of each star. We estimate the inclination of the invariable plane for each system and prioritize our planet predictions by their geometric probability to transit. We highlight a short list of 77 predicted planets in 40 systems with a high geometric probability to transit, resulting in an expected detection rate of ~15%, ~3 times higher than the detection rate of our previous Titius-Bode-based predictions.

10 Replies to “Space aliens?: We saw this movie in 1958, and …

  1. 1
    ppolish says:

    Although the Milky Way is 100,000 light years across give or take – there are about 65 exoplanets within 50 light years of Earth

    If they have good TV reception, they will be watching Ed Sullivan live just about now.

  2. 2
    bornagain77 says:

    as to:

    “However, the universe is not teeming with aliens with human-like intelligence that can build radio telescopes and space ships. Otherwise we would have seen or heard from them.
    It could be that there is some other bottleneck for the emergence of life that we haven’t worked out yet. Or intelligent civilisations evolve, but then self-destruct.”

    As to the bottleneck(s) they have overlooked in regards to the emergence of life,

    Suzan Mazur: Origin of life shifting to “nonmaterial events”? – December 15, 2013
    Excerpt: The first paradox is the tendency of organic matter to devolve and to give tar. If you can avoid that, you can start to try to assemble things that are not tarry, but then you encounter the water problem, which is related to the fact that every interesting bond that you want to make is unstable, thermodynamically, with respect to water. If you can solve that problem, you have the problem of entropy, that any of the building blocks are going to be present in a low concentration; therefore, to assemble a large number of those building blocks, you get a gene-like RNA — 100 nucleotides long — that fights entropy. And the fourth problem is that even if you can solve the entropy problem, you have a paradox that RNA enzymes, which are maybe catalytically active, are more likely to be active in the sense that destroys RNA rather than creates RNA.
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....al-events/

    Chemistry by Chance: A Formula for Non-Life by Charles McCombs, Ph.D.
    Excerpt: The following eight obstacles in chemistry ensure that life by chance is untenable.
    1. The Problem of Unreactivity
    2. The Problem of Ionization
    3. The Problem of Mass Action
    4. The Problem of Reactivity
    5. The Problem of Selectivity
    6. The Problem of Solubility
    7. The Problem of Sugar
    8. The Problem of Chirality
    The chemical control needed for the formation of a specific sequence in a polymer chain is just not possible through random chance. The synthesis of proteins and DNA/RNA in the laboratory requires the chemist to control the reaction conditions, to thoroughly understand the reactivity and selectivity of each component, and to carefully control the order of addition of the components as the chain is building in size.
    http://www.icr.org/article/che.....-non-life/

    RNA world: Chemists Propose a Seemingly Unlikely Environment for the Origin of Life – February 27, 2013
    Excerpt: Benner and his colleagues consider three major problems with the RNA-world model:
    *The “asphalt problem”: Organic reactions often produce unreactive byproducts. These byproducts are a mixture of pieces of the product or polymerization of the product, but are chemically insignificant and otherwise unpromising. Hence the metaphor of “asphalt.” Typically, avoiding the production of such byproducts requires very specific and controlled conditions, or post-reaction purification steps.
    *The “water problem”: Many of the bonds in RNA will undergo hydrolysis. This occurs when water reacts with the bond, causing it to break apart. In a lab, the problem is easily addressed by using a different solvent. However, the environment of the early Earth could not draw on the resource of various organic solvents.
    *The “impossible bond problem”: The authors refer here to the difficulty in forming certain bonds in RNA. Usually this follows from thermodynamic issues that prohibit bonds from spontaneously forming.
    Conspicuously missing from the authors’ list of critiques are the “chirality problem” and the “information problem.” Later in the paper, however, they concede that their model does not solve the enigma of chirality, and they allude to a potential “fatal flaw” in their proposition, namely that the kinds of RNA molecules that catalyze the destruction of RNA are more likely to emerge than RNA molecules that catalyze the synthesis of RNA. –
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....68661.html

    “To get a range on the enormous challenges involved in bridging the gaping chasm between non-life and life, consider the following: “The difference between a mixture of simple chemicals and a bacterium, is much more profound than the gulf between a bacterium and an elephant.”
    (Dr. Robert Shapiro, Professor Emeritus of Chemistry, NYU)

    Moreover, even if the entire universe were ideal for permitting life to exist, i.e. if the universe were nothing but water full of prebiotic chemicals, the chance that the ‘simplest’ life would spontaneously emerge is fantastically unlikely:

    Abiogenic Origin of Life: A Theory in Crisis – Arthur V. Chadwick, Ph.D.
    Excerpt: The synthesis of proteins and nucleic acids from small molecule precursors represents one of the most difficult challenges to the model of prebiological evolution. There are many different problems confronted by any proposal. Polymerization is a reaction in which water is a product. Thus it will only be favored in the absence of water. The presence of precursors in an ocean of water favors depolymerization of any molecules that might be formed. Careful experiments done in an aqueous solution with very high concentrations of amino acids demonstrate the impossibility of significant polymerization in this environment. A thermodynamic analysis of a mixture of protein and amino acids in an ocean containing a 1 molar solution of each amino acid (100,000,000 times higher concentration than we inferred to be present in the prebiological ocean) indicates the concentration of a protein containing just 100 peptide bonds (101 amino acids) at equilibrium would be 10^-338 molar. Just to make this number meaningful, our universe may have a volume somewhere in the neighborhood of 10^85 liters. At 10^-338 molar, we would need an ocean with a volume equal to 10^229 universes (100, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000) just to find a single molecule of any protein with 100 peptide bonds. So we must look elsewhere for a mechanism to produce polymers. It will not happen in the ocean.
    http://origins.swau.edu/papers.....fault.html

    Even the overly optimistic 1 in 10^1018 chance given for life spontaneously ’emerging’ (Koonin) would still far outstrip the probabilistic resources of the entire universe (10^150 Dembki):
    To clarify as to how the 500 bit universal limit is found for ‘structured, functional information’:

    Dembski’s original value for the universal probability bound is 1 in 10^150,
    10^80, the number of elementary particles in the observable universe.
    10^45, the maximum rate per second at which transitions in physical states can occur.
    10^25, a billion times longer than the typical estimated age of the universe in seconds.
    Thus, 10^150 = 10^80 × 10^45 × 10^25. Hence, this value corresponds to an upper limit on the number of physical events that could possibly have occurred since the big bang.
    How many bits would that be:
    Pu = 10-150, so, -log2 Pu = 498.29 bits
    Call it 500 bits (The 500 bits is further specified as a specific type of information. It is specified as Complex Specified Information by Dembski or as Functional Information by Abel to separate it from merely Ordered Sequence Complexity or Random Sequence Complexity;
    See Three subsets of sequence complexity)
    Three subsets of sequence complexity and their relevance to biopolymeric information – Abel, Trevors
    http://www.tbiomed.com/content/2/1/29

    A single protein approaches that limit:

    Stephen Meyer – Proteins by Design – Doing The Math – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16ZF-9ZjPAU

    Signature in the Cell – Book Review – Ken Peterson
    Excerpt: If we assume some minimally complex cell requires 250 different proteins then the probability of this arrangement happening purely by chance is one in 10 to the 164th multiplied by itself 250 times or one in 10 to the 41,000th power.
    http://www.spectrummagazine.or.....ature_cell

    Professor Harold Morowitz shows the Origin of Life ‘problem’ escalates dramatically over the 1 in 10^40,000 figure when working from the more realistic thermodynamic perspective:

    “The probability for the chance of formation of the smallest, simplest form of living organism known is 1 in 10^340,000,000. This number is 10 to the 340 millionth power! The size of this figure is truly staggering since there is only supposed to be approximately 10^80 (10 to the 80th power) electrons in the whole universe!”
    (Professor Harold Morowitz, Energy Flow In Biology pg. 99, Biophysicist of George Mason University)
    http://books.google.com/books?.....38;f=false

    Dr. Morowitz did another probability calculation working from the thermodynamic perspective with a already existing cell and came up with this number:

    DID LIFE START BY CHANCE?
    Excerpt: Molecular biophysicist, Horold Morowitz (Yale University), calculated the odds of life beginning under natural conditions (spontaneous generation). He calculated, if one were to take the simplest living cell and break every chemical bond within it, the odds that the cell would reassemble under ideal natural conditions (the best possible chemical environment) would be one chance in 10^100,000,000,000. You will have probably have trouble imagining a number so large, so Hugh Ross provides us with the following example. If all the matter in the Universe was converted into building blocks of life, and if assembly of these building blocks were attempted once a microsecond for the entire age of the universe. Then instead of the odds being 1 in 10^100,000,000,000, they would be 1 in 10^99,999,999,916 (also of note: 1 with 100 billion zeros following would fill approx. 20,000 encyclopedias)
    http://members.tripod.com/~Black_J/chance.html

  3. 3
    bornagain77 says:

    Punctured cell will never reassemble – Jonathan Wells – 2:40 mark of video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WKoiivfe_mo

    Also of interest is the information content that is derived in a cell when working from the more realistic thermodynamic perspective:

    “a one-celled bacterium, e. coli, is estimated to contain the equivalent of 100 million pages of Encyclopedia Britannica. Expressed in information in science jargon, this would be the same as 10^12 bits of information. In comparison, the total writings from classical Greek Civilization is only 10^9 bits, and the largest libraries in the world – The British Museum, Oxford Bodleian Library, New York Public Library, Harvard Widenier Library, and the Moscow Lenin Library – have about 10 million volumes or 10^12 bits.” – R. C. Wysong

    For calculations, from the thermodynamic perspective, please see the following site:

    Biophysics – Information theory. Relation between information and entropy: – Setlow-Pollard, Ed. Addison Wesley
    Excerpt: Linschitz gave the figure 9.3 x 10^12 cal/deg or 9.3 x 10^12 x 4.2 joules/deg for the entropy of a bacterial cell. Using the relation H = S/(k In 2), we find that the information content is 4 x 10^12 bits. Morowitz’ deduction from the work of Bayne-Jones and Rhees gives the lower value of 5.6 x 10^11 bits, which is still in the neighborhood of 10^12 bits. Thus two quite different approaches give rather concordant figures.
    https://docs.google.com/document/d/18hO1bteXTPOqQtd2H12PI5wFFoTjwg8uBAU5N0nEQIE/edit

    If people really want to know where life came from then I suggest perhaps, just maybe, they should take the claims of the only one who has ever defeated death a bit more seriously:

    John 1:1-4
    In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind.

    Scientists say Turin Shroud is supernatural – December 2011
    Excerpt: After years of work trying to replicate the colouring on the shroud, a similar image has been created by the scientists.
    However, they only managed the effect by scorching equivalent linen material with high-intensity ultra violet lasers, undermining the arguments of other research, they say, which claims the Turin Shroud is a medieval hoax.
    Such technology, say researchers from the National Agency for New Technologies, Energy and Sustainable Economic Development (Enea), was far beyond the capability of medieval forgers, whom most experts have credited with making the famous relic.
    “The results show that a short and intense burst of UV directional radiation can colour a linen cloth so as to reproduce many of the peculiar characteristics of the body image on the Shroud of Turin,” they said.
    And in case there was any doubt about the preternatural degree of energy needed to make such distinct marks, the Enea report spells it out: “This degree of power cannot be reproduced by any normal UV source built to date.”
    http://www.independent.co.uk/n.....79512.html

    Empty (Empty Cross Empty Tomb) with Dan Haseltine Matt Hammitt – music video
    http://www.godtube.com/watch/?v=F22MCCNU

  4. 4
    Mapou says:

    Let’s take a closer look at the statistics used by materialists and Darwinists to infer the probability of life on other worlds. They only have one example of life on a planet: earth. They have no clue whatsoever as to how life arose on earth. From this amazing scarcity of examples, those guys managed to calculate that the universe is teeming with living organisms. The science is impeccable. Not.

  5. 5
    Me_Think says:

    “It could be that there is some other bottleneck for the emergence of life that we haven’t worked out yet. Or intelligent civilisations evolve, but then self-destruct.

    May be the alien ID agent did a poor job of ensuring their Higgs Boson stayed in meta stable state. The damn Boson keeps slipping to the minima and wipes away the intelligent civilizations instantly every time they try to evolve 🙂

  6. 6
    Joe says:

    The only chance at alien life is via Intelligent Design.

    And who says that we haven’t seen nor heard from ETs?

  7. 7
    Mapou says:

    Joe:

    And who says that we haven’t seen nor heard from ETs?

    IMO, history and archaeology are filled with evidence of humanity’s relationship with various gods (alien overlords), a number of which were obvious a-holes, requiring frequent human sacrifices. We are in deep denial, thanks to materialists who decided to dismiss the evidence as myth and superstition in order to advance their anti-religion agenda. I happen to believe that the world is full of nasty aliens/demons, the cause of many of our problems, including wars, poverty, crimes, etc. But then again, I’m just a Christian fruitcake. 😀

  8. 8
    leenibus says:

    Mapou – Comment 4 says:

    “Let’s take a closer look at the statistics used by materialists and Darwinists to infer the probability of life on other worlds. They only have one example of life on a planet: earth. They have no clue whatsoever as to how life arose on earth. From this amazing scarcity of examples, those guys managed to calculate that the universe is teeming with living organisms. The science is impeccable. Not.”

    Let’s try a rewrite:

    Let’s take a closer look at the statistics used by ID supporters to infer the impossibility of life on other worlds. They only have one example of life on a planet: earth. They have no clue whatsoever as to how life arose on earth. From this amazing scarcity of examples, those guys managed to decide that the universe is utterly devoid of any living organisms other than those on Earth. The science is impeccable. Not.

  9. 9
    Mapou says:

    leenibus @8,

    You’re sorely mistaken, amigo. As an ID supporter, I have no problem with life existing on other worlds. But I know that, if it exists, it was not poofed into existence out of dirt by some unfathomable materialist magic. Unlike you, I’m not a dirt worshipper. If there is life on other worlds, there is no question that it was designed. Speaking as an intelligent designer, I would be very surprised if the advanced designers who created life on earth did not also conduct many experiments elsewhere.

    By the way, I’m still waiting for the materialist’s explanation of how life arose out of dirt all by its little own self, or how the universe created itself out of nothing. Let’s have it.

    Uh, never mind. I was just kidding. I know you guys don’t have any explanation other than superstitious nonsense.

    ahahaha…AHAHAHA…ahahaha…

  10. 10
    Joe says:

    leeinbus:

    Let’s take a closer look at the statistics used by ID supporters to infer the impossibility of life on other worlds.

    Actually via ID we would expect intelligent life on other planets.

Leave a Reply