From the University of Toronto:
Search for life on exoplanets more difficult than thought
A new study from the University of Toronto Scarborough suggests the search for life on planets outside our solar system may be more difficult than previously thought.
The study, authored by a team of international researchers led by UTSC Assistant Professor Hanno Rein from the Department of Physical and Environmental Science, finds the method used to detect biosignatures on such planets, known as exoplanets, can produce a false positive result.
The presence of multiple chemicals such as methane and oxygen in an exoplanet’s atmosphere is considered an example of a biosignature, or evidence of past or present life. Rein’s team discovered that a lifeless planet with a lifeless moon can mimic the same results as a planet with a biosignature.
“You wouldn’t be able to distinguish between them because they are so far away that you would see both in one spectrum,” says Rein.
The resolution needed to properly identify a genuine biosignature from a false positive would be impossible to obtain even with telescopes available in the foreseeable future, says Rein.
“A telescope would need to be unrealistically large, something one hundred metres in size and it would have to be built in space,” he says. “This telescope does not exist, and there are no plans to build one any time soon.”
Current methods can estimate the size and temperature of an exoplanet planet in order to determine whether liquid water could exist on the planet’s surface, believed to be one of the criteria for a planet hosting the right conditions for life.
While many researchers use modeling to imagine the atmosphere of these planets, they still aren’t able to make conclusive observations, says Rein. “We can’t get an idea of what the atmosphere is actually like, not with the methods we have at our disposal.”
There are 1,774 confirmed exoplanets known to exist, but there could be more than 100 billion planets in the Milky Way Galaxy alone. Despite the results, Rein is optimistic the search for life on planets outside our own is possible if done the right way.
“We should make sure we are looking at the right objects,” he says, adding that the search for life within our solar system should remain a priority. He points to the recent discovery of a liquid ocean on Enceladus, one of Saturn’s larger moons, as a prime example.
“As for exoplanets we want to broaden the search and study planets around stars that are cooler and fainter than our own Sun. One example is the recently discovered planet Kepler-186f, which is orbiting an M-dwarf star,” says Rein.
Rein says locating a planet in a habitable zone while being able to obtain a good resolution to model the atmosphere will help determine what’s on the planet.
“There are plenty of reasons to be optimistic that we will find hints of extraterrestrial life within the next few decades, just maybe not on an Earth-like planet around a Sun-like star.”
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2014/04/23/1401816111
=============================================================
I think it’s simpler than that: ET is hiding in the deep ocean.
Genesis was correct in its processes of creation, but their time line was billions of years out.
And anyone who thinks Eve was created from a rib from Adam, does not know how we breed. LOL
bushbunny says:
April 30, 2014 at 7:30 pm
Both contradictory creation myths in Genesis are preposterously wrong in their processes of creation, although the second one is closer to the correct order at least.
The order in the first story is: 1) preexisting waters (covering land), 2) light & dark (day & night), 3) firmament of heaven (a solid dome separating waters below, ie sea, from waters above, ie rain, hail, snow, sleet, etc), 4) dry land (emergent after gathering together the under-heaven waters covering it), 5) plants, 6) sun, moon & stars, 7) swimming & flying creatures, 8) land animals & 9) man & woman. Obviously, on some of the six days, God did more work than on the others.
By contrast, the order of creation in the second story is: 1) earth & heavens, 2) plants (as seeds in the ground, as God had not yet created rain, but then as crops & trees), 3) a man, 4) animals & 5) a woman. In fact, animals evolved before green plants (the first “herbivores” ate cyanobacteria), & humans of both sexes evolved at the same time, uninterrupted by the appearance of beasts of the field, fowl of the air or any other animals. Or fungi for that matter.
I see little correspondence between these processes described in the “Word of God” & what has actually been observed to have happened during the real “Work of God”, ie the development of the universe.
If scientists really want to find habitable planets they need to read “Rare Earth” and “The Privileged Planet”- all the information is there
Joe G says:
May 1, 2014 at 11:59 am
The Rare Earth Hypothesis refers to complex, multicellular life, not life in general. IMO microbes could be quite common, while more complex forms much less so & “intelligent” organisms even more rare.
Of course ET exists; all you have to do is ask Zoltan Mesko, former UM and NFL punter. He wasn’t known as the “Space Emperor” on campus for nothin’.
===========================================================
Now, if you read that as milodonharlani insist Genesis 2 must be read then I just said that Milo is illegitimate. But if you read it with the legitimate figure of speech more commonly recognized as a parenthetical remark then Milo becomes a legitimate child.
The parenthetical remarks in Genesis 2 are referring to why Adam needed a “help meet” (KJV) and why it was that Adam, and not God, named her. Genesis 2 is not a sequence of events. It is the Creator acting in relation to Man, “Jehovah Elohim” and not just “Elohim” as He is referred to in Genesis 1.
(There’s a lot there but for a fuller explanation, http://sunriseswansong.wordpress.com/2013/07/11/attention-surplus-disorder-part-two/comment-page-1/#comment-456. (Read the thread to the end.))
Of course if the “parenthetical remark” explanation is rejected then milodonharlani will say I just called Milo a bastard but I did not.
And I messed up my blockquote. Dang!
Gunga Din says:
May 1, 2014 at 7:32 pm
I was born in the first half of the 20th century (just barely), but never mind.
Please show where in Genesis 2 the order of creation it states is not meant to be an actual order of creation. I’m willing to go along with you on the assertion that the text wasn’t meant to show a chronological order, but would like some attempt at evidence & reason to support that contention.
But even if you can show this claim valid, please tell me how I’m wrong about the contradictory creation myth in Genesis 1. Since it states that the various creations occurred in six days, I don’t see how it can possibly be interpreted in any way but as a sequence of discrete events, none of which corresponds
even remotely to the actual history of the universe. Unless you think that somehow day & night preceded the creation of the sun, along with all the other patent absurdities flowing from a literal reading of this chapter.
Imagining that being Christian requires regarding the Bible as a science text is IMO the height of blasphemy, since it necessarily makes God a cruel monster, a deceptive trickster & an incompetent, stupid designer.
Ah, but that is a mystery: See, despite your so vicious and vocal and frequent claims, EVERY sequence thus spelled out in Genesis IS in exactly the right order that “science” now claims it has discovered! The writers got their nuclear physics right, their astronomy, their geology, their biology, their chemistry right every “day” ….
FIRST, everything was created from nothing, with a big wind even!
THEN, there was light … as the energy condensed into light.
THEN, the light was separated from the darkness (by casting shadows) but only AFTER the light further condensed into the matter we know now.
THEN, the earth was formed as the fluids (plasma, gasses, ions, molecules, atoms DO act like fluids you know) “above the dome” were separated from the fluids “below” the dome (of the sky).
THEN, there was one sea, and one land (what we now call Pangaea continent – which subsequently broke up and isolated the seas that we now count separately)
THE, life formed in the seas – first as plants.
THEN, once plants formed – or evolved if you wish, the atmosphere cleared and our Venus-like opaque clouds cleared as oxygen filled the airs.
THEN, the sun and moon became visible (for navigation and astronomy and calendars and all of history). Not that they were created at this time, but they did become visible. Everything has already been created in the bang, now it is simply evolving.)
Speaking of evolving, the birds came next, then mammals, then man, and last of all – the snake.
Not bad “science” for a bunch of ignorant shepherds who could count past 70 x 7, right?
Now, I know I will never convince you – your “faith” prevents you from seeing anything that contradicts what your religion claims.
RACookPE1978 says:
May 1, 2014 at 8:01 pm
You’re kidding, right? I hope.
You must know that every single one of your assertions is not only wrong but laughably so.
I’m pretty sure you’re joking, but will point out, to take but a few points at random, plants did not evolve in the seas before animals. Whether animals first appeared on land or in the seas is currently controversial, but it is known as an observable fact that animals preceded green plants by hundreds of millions of years.
You lie, “Speaking of evolving, the birds came next, then mammals, then man, and last of all – the snake.” Couldn’t be more wrong, as usual. Birds evolved after mammals, & snakes long before humans. What counts as a mammal & what a bird is of course debatable, but the first synapsid with the mammalian jaw joint long predates the first dinosaur capable of powered flight in the evolutionary lineage leading to birds.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morganucodon
Fossils readily identifiable as snakes (though often retaining hind limbs) first appear in the fossil record during the Cretaceous Period, ie over 120 million years before the first members of genus Homo.
How could you possibly be so wrong? Apparently you have never studied biology or even the most elementary paleontology & obviously didn’t bother to check before posting such bold-faced lies. Before you presume to comment on these topics, it would be wise to have studied them.
The Bible doesn’t say that the things you so falsely claim “became visible” on the cited day. It says they were made or created then. Why do you feel the need to lie so shamelessly in defense of your blasphemous cult?
If you’re not kidding, it’s painfully obvious that your faith has blinded you to reality, indeed even to trying to learn about reality. The ignorant shepherds got every single point wrong. Pretty good when just random guessing should have yielded 50%.
Are you aware that every scientifically literate reader of this blog is laughing at you?
milodonharlani says:
May 1, 2014 at 12:23 pm
The Rare Earth Hypothesis refers to complex, multicellular life, not life in general.
Actually it refers to both.
And in a designed universe I would expect more than one planet with intelligent life
Joe G says:
May 2, 2014 at 4:53 am
There probably is more than one planet with intelligent life in the universe, but maybe not in our galaxy at the present time. Correct me if wrong, but IMO “Rare Earth” considers us in the Milky Way, not among all the estimated 170 billion galaxies in the observable universe. Even if only one galaxy out of 170 has a rare planet on which intelligent life has evolved, that’s still a billion such planets.
Hmmmmn. Milo doesn’t like my version of his version of creation.
So, a simple challenge: What is the source of the following?
RACookPE1978 says:
May 2, 2014 at 1:48 pm
Your myths are entirely counter-factual, is why I don’t like it. And it appears even after having actual, observed reality presented to you, you still continue to ignore it. Trying to rework Genesis along modern scientific lines does violence both to science & religion. It is a fundamentally dishonest activity.
How many times do you have to be told that animals preceded green plants by at least hundreds of millions of years, & that mammals, however defined, precede birds, however defined, by tens of millions of years? Also that snakes evolved tens of millions of years before humans, or even primates. Clearly actual scientific facts mean nothing to you. Only your misguided faith in the cult of bibliolatry, false worship of a book instead of the Creator it seeks to understand through a mix of myth, legend, fiction, poetry & some fairly accurate history, although of course written to advocate a religious position.
How can it not be obvious to you that night & day on earth could not precede the creation of the sun, which in Genesis 1 is given as a “sign”, not a source of light? Everything is all wrong about the first Genesis story & almost everything about the second, when viewed scientifically. No amount of twisting & turning in special pleading interpretation can change these facts. The Bible means what it says, namely that the flat, immoveable earth supported by pillars over the waters below is covered by a solid dome from which hang the stars, with doors & windows through which the sun & moon can pass on their journey over the land, & other openings for God to let precipitation fall from the storehouses of the rain, snow, etc above the dome (“the waters above”).
My view of the history of the earth & universe is based upon observational evidence & reason therefrom. Maybe you regard the scientific method as a religious practice, but I don’t. Your warped view of reality is based upon religious faith, but improperly & wrong-headedly so theologically. To be a Christian, as Luther correctly noted, you “must tear the eyes out of your reason”. Trying to make objective reality fit biblical creation myths is a fundamentally irreligious, blasphemous act, not least because, as noted, it means that your god is cruel, deceptive & incompetent.
God is supposed to remain mysterious. There is no point in having faith, if you imagine falsely that Bible stories with talking serpents & donkeys & cud-chewing rabbits are rational & objectively, physically rather than philosophically or theologically true. The value of faith comes from willingly believing what is patently absurd, ie that a man was the son of God, died for our sins, then came back to life. As Church Father Tertullian wrote, “I believe because it is absurd”.
BTW, the Genesis myths weren’t written by illiterate shepherds, obviously. They were adapted from much older Mesopotamian myths by scribes wishing to rework them into the acts of their own chief god, YHWH, aka Lord or Most High, Who is portrayed on Hebrew coinage similarly to Apollo, the Greek sun god, riding in a chariot across the sky.
=================================================================
You figure it out.
Here’s a hint.
From my original post (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/04/29/finding-et-worse-than-we-thought/#comment-1626835):
Applying present day English (You do know that the text we have (Hebrew and Greek) had no punctuation?) punctuation:
“…….and Milo was born in the late 20th century
and he went to school
(and his parents were married and had children)………..”
See? I didn’t call Milo a bastard.
===================================================================
“[Evolution is] a theory universally accepted not because it can be proved by logically coherent evidence to be true but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible.” Evolutionist D.M.S.Watson
Gunga Din says:
May 2, 2014 at 2:59 pm
Biblical texts have a lot more problems than just lack of punctuation.
But it’s what its words clearly state that is the real problem, not just textual issues. Such as that stars, ie the heavenly host, are beings capable of falling to earth, for example, & that the sun & moon are also beings who daily & nightly travel over the earth, then outside the dome of heaven hasten back to the place of their rising.
Gunga Din says:
May 2, 2014 at 3:32 pm
By “evolutionist”, do you mean scientist? Your “quotation” by Watson is a shameless fake. Bearing false witness is a sin, you know. Its sources are also from 1929, when much less was known about evolution than now.
It’s apparently impossible for creationists not to lie, or at least to check facts before posting lies (from Watson’s Wiki entry):
Famous Quote
“ the theory of evolution itself, a theory universally accepted not because it be can proved by logically coherent evidence to be true but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible. ”
This quotation of Watson is often used in Creationist writings in an attempt to show that Watson, and thus by extension promoters of evolution in general, dismiss creationism due to antitheistic bias. A slightly different version of the quotation, derived from a secondhand source,[3] is sometimes used (e.g., by C. S. Lewis[4]):
“ [Evolution is] accepted by zoologists not because it has been observed to occur or . . . can be proved by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible. ”
Sometimes the words in square brackets are incorrectly incorporated into the quotation, and/or the ellipsis is omitted.[5]
Watson’s original statement first appeared in a 1929 article, “Adaptation,” in the journal Nature:[6] The second version of the quotation, given above, is formed by combining parts of two similar passages in Watson’s paper, one from the first page and one from the third. The first passage reads:
“ [1] Evolution itself is accepted by zoologists not because it has been observed to occur or is supported by logically coherent arguments, but because it does fit all the facts of taxonomy, of paleontology, and of geographical distribution, and because no alternative explanation is credible.[7] ”
The second passage reads:
“ [2] If so, it will present a parallel to the theory of evolution itself, a theory universally accepted not because it can be proved by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible[8] ”
The ellipses in the second version of the standard quotation from Watson elide his statement in [1] that evolution fits “all the facts” of taxonomy, paleontology, and geographical distribution. They also omit his statement, which directly follows quotation [1] above, that “Whilst the fact of evolution is accepted by every biologist, the mode in which it has occurred and the mechanism by which it has been brought about are still disputable.”
Watson thus considered evolution a fact, belief in which was supported by its fit to a wide range of other facts. He thought “special creation” unbelievable and the mechanisms of evolution disputable (his article was devoted to emphasizing the inadequacy of contemporary theories of adaptation, and mentions “special creation” only in passing). This was in 1929, several years before the inception of evolutionary biology’s Modern Synthesis, which integrated Mendelian genetics into Darwinian thought and produced widespread scientific consensus about basic evolutionary mechanisms. Stephen Jay Gould describes 1900–10 as “the period of greatest agnosticism and debate about evolutionary mechanisms” and adds that even the 1920s were still “not happy times of consensus for evolutionary theory in general.”[9]
When it was made, over 80 years ago, Watson’s complaint that the mechanisms of evolution were poorly understood was accurate. His statement that evolution was believed only “because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible” was a provocative exaggeration, contradicted by his own remarks (i.e., evolution already “fit all the facts” of several major knowledge fields).
Here’s a famous, real quotation, the title of a 1973 essay by devout Ukrainian Orthodox Christian Theodosius Grygorovych Dobzhansky, whose well known grad student Francisco José Ayala Pereda was a Dominican priest: “Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution”.
Hmm, searching for extraterrestrial life on exoplanets? Finding INTELLIGENT life is one thing, but can we be certain that simple extraterrestrial life forms haven’t already been found? Such life may well have been found 38 years ago by the Viking Mars landers. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2012/04/120413-nasa-viking-program-mars-life-space-science/ Additionally, there were those Martian meteorites found in Antarctica that displayed what, for all intents and purposes, appeared to be fossilized microbial organisms. http://news.discovery.com/space/alien-life-exoplanets/mars-meteorite-structures-cautious-optimism-for-alien-life-140228.htm And then there is that little matter of those strange, pancake shaped objects that have been seen innumerable times swarming around our space craft and other space debris by our own astronauts and mission controllers. They sort of look like flat, semi-transparent jellyfish swimming around in the vacuum of space, and they have still not been identified by NASA. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8njYpyAkMp8
Maybe instead of looking for intelligent life on exoplanets we should first try to confirm the existence of simple extraterrestrial life in our own solar system. It seems to me that there are many good reasons to put some greater effort into that search.
jbird says:
May 2, 2014 at 4:26 pm
NASA & the ESA have missions in the works to do that, but space exploration is now a lower priority for the US agency than is promoting the marvels of Islamic science.
http://www.space.com/24926-nasa-europa-mission-2015-budget.html
http://news.yahoo.com/ocean-discovery-enceladus-spur-life-hunting-missions-icy-105826981.html