From Nature (h/t to Dr. Leif Svalgaard)
Astronomers have discovered evidence of a small, rocky planet orbiting our nearest star – and it may even be a bit like Earth. Nobody knows whether the planet, called Proxima b, could ever sustain life. The little planet orbits our sun’s nearest neighboring star, Proxima Centauri, making it the closest exoplanet ever found.
…
Proxima Centauri, the star closest to the Sun, has an Earth-sized planet orbiting it at the right distance for liquid water to exist. The discovery, reported today in Nature1, fulfils a longstanding dream of science-fiction writers — a potentially habitable world that is close enough for humans to send their first interstellar spacecraft.
“The search for life starts now,” says Guillem Anglada-Escudé, an astronomer at Queen Mary University of London and leader of the team that made the discovery.
Humanity’s first chance to explore this nearby world may come from the recently announced Breakthrough Starshot initiative, which plans to build fleets of tiny laser-propelled interstellar probesin the coming decades. Travelling at 20% of the speed of light, they would take about 20 years to cover the 1.3 parsecs from Earth to Proxima Centauri.
Proxima’s planet is at least 1.3 times the mass of Earth. The planet orbits its red-dwarf star — much smaller and dimmer than the Sun — every 11.2 days. “If you tried to pick the type of planet you’d most want around the type of star you’d most want, it would be this,” says David Kipping, an astronomer at Columbia University in New York City. “It’s thrilling.”
Earlier studies had hinted at the existence of a planet around Proxima. Starting in 2000, a spectrograph at the European Southern Observatory (ESO) in Chile looked for shifts in starlight caused by the gravitational tug of an orbiting planet. The resulting measurements suggested that something was happening to the star every 11.2 days. But astronomers could not rule out whether the signal was caused by an orbiting planet or another type of activity, such as stellar flares.
Video:
Full story here: http://www.nature.com/news/earth-sized-planet-around-nearby-star-is-astronomy-dream-come-true-1.20445
paper on the science of the discovery: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v536/n7617/full/nature19106.html
Nobody knows how life began on earth.
It can’t be repeated in a lab.
All mechanisms are at best, speculative.
The more yakity yak from mathless unscience zealots proves the life creation position of modern biologists is a kind of populism. Watch the chatterboxes.
Richard Dawkins on the origins of life…
See time stamp 1:45 (Apparently we came from aliens)
Stephen Meyer explains the odds of life arising by Chance.
Hint: No Chance by Chance.
Paul Westhaver
August 24, 2016 at 6:47 pm
More complete, total and utter unscientific lies by a professional liar.
As for Dawkins, as your scientific betters have repeatedly showed you, he doesn’t say that aliens were responsible, but that they are at least as plausible as your hairy sky father fairy, for which there is not the least shred of evidence and all the evidence in the world against such a spirit. In any case, the Stupid Designer hypothesis is at best unscientific because it can make no falsifiable predictions.
Again, as you have been repeatedly shown, the professional liars’ “math” is idiotic and utterly devoid of any science. The actual scientific fact is that the constituents of life spontaneously form, and the vast majority of genetic material passes on in each generation, so that your professional liars’ arithmetic is totally and completely without any biological basis.
Why do you persist in commenting on subjects about which you are not only profoundly ignorant, but objectively laughably wrong in every detail?
Actually, even the arithmetic of the fairy believers isn’t a valid argument, since so many reactions would have occurred among and between the complex organic molecular precursors of life on earth. Countless orders of magnitude greater than the totally bogus and spurious “math” of the science d_niers.
If those of Paul’s orientation were in charge, there would be no antibiotics.
Please tell us what is unscientific about the presentation, only a couple of minutes long, by Stephen Meyer?
“…he doesn’t say that aliens were responsible, but that they are at least as plausible as your hairy sky father fairy…”
The misrepresentation of Dawkins doesn’t end with Paul; see those cute little editorial captions at the bottom of the screen? They’d be more effective, though, if they weren’t so amusing, e.g. at 0:47, “Scientists know life could not start under the conditions of earth 13.5 billion years ago.” Well yes, we can all agree on that, since our planet wasn’t even around then. 🙂
There’s another oopsie at 1:30: “Exactly what I.D. scientists have been claiming all along about God.” Uh-oh. The only thing that distinguishes “Intelligent Design” from Creationism is that ID (supposedly) doesn’t depend on a deity, and now this video blows ID’s “cover”. Bad video! 🙂
Paul Westhaver
August 24, 2016 at 6:47 pm
You are oh, so wrong.
The mechanisms by which life arose are not in the least bit speculative. They can not only be repeated in the lab, but have been, and in the field.
You really ought not to presume to comment upon disciplines so far outside your ken.
Presently, these and many other relevant phenomena have been observed in the wild and/or created in the lab:
1) The presence in meteorites and on asteroids of all the basic components of living things. By all, I mean all. Others have been observed in interstellar clouds. The universe abounds in the complex chemical compounds of which organisms on earth are made.
2) The spontaneous assembly of RNA and other even more complex compounds under a variety of conditions, to include on clays and in ices.
3) The ability of RNA to catalyze reactions needed for replication and metabolism.
4) The spontaneous self-assembly of fatty membranes, the ancestors of today’s cellular membranes.
And that’s just for starters.
You really ought to read up on recent advances in origin of life research before making such a fool of yourself.
That’s what always happens when religious zealots try to do science.
Funny, Paul…I never knew anything of this conversation between Ben Stein and Dawkins, but many of the same ideas have long been floating around in my head.
I never watched the entirely of Dawkins debating creationists, although I knew of them.
My impression has always been of two people talking right past each other…or more precisely, one talking past the other, and the other looking at a larger view of the universe and not assuming things.
If you trust in the tools of scientific reasoning,which I affirmatively do, then the truth about these matters will be revealed in time. I am not in the “creationist camp”. I do listen to criticism and am willing to consider new ideas even if they disrupt long held assumptions about the progression of life on earth. It seems to me, that Ben Stein’s question and Dawkin’s (absurd) answer says something about Dawkin’s rapid abandonment of reason. He should have said “I don’t know”. In science it is ok not to know something. He tried to fill in the gaps using his narrow view erected upon his limited scaffold. It sounded really weak.
He should have simply said, “I don’t know.” Because he doesn’t know. He looked like a silly man just making it up, hoping nobody will notice.
Science will assist us in revealing how it all works. But we have to rely on science, not scientism. In that sense, I like to keep an open mind.
There is still zero, zilch, nada, not one, none, no data at all showing life to exist anywhere but on the Earth. Before we go sending probes to other stars in search of life shouldn’t we have at least found one extraterrestrial microbe somewhere in the our own solar system?
Conditions on Mars, as was pointed out by Gabro, should have been sufficiently Earthlike for life to arise spontaneously, if that is how it happens.
And if it did, considering how permeated the Earth is with life, it should still be there waiting to be discovered.
Is it that hard to create a machine to go find it?
There is that rock they found in Antarctica, I think it was, that some say contains fossilized remains of some bacteria…maybe.
Complex organisms like tartigrades can survive the hard vacuum of space and live, and so, presumably, could spores or eggs or encysted bacteria.
If rocks from Mars hit earth, we can be pretty sure Earth rocks have hit Mars, and so life on Mars may not prove much unless it was different.
Tom T,
“There is still zero, zilch, nada, not one, none, no data at all showing life to exist anywhere west of Europe.”
~ Pope Alexander VI
“I’ma gonna show you!”
~ Cristóbal Colón
☺
Menicholas,
What is your deal, dude? How many freaking times are you going to post on this thread? You’re sucking up all the oxygen. Go do something else for awhile.
I am multitasking, and you have no idea what else I am doing at the present time.
But now you hurt my feelings, you big meany.
If you are a sock puppet, post under your usual handle, or shut up.
If you are commenting for the first time, screw you.
Menicholas August 24, 2016 at 7:28 pm
Hi Menichlas the thoughts that you and the others have been posting have been worth the time to read. thank you .
Your friend
michael
Mike the Morlock
There’s a bomb under yer caaar!! type attitude? he’s ok, stick to the science numb nuts 🙂
Dr David Berlinski, Mathematician, Biologist and Philosopher discusses Darwinism, skeptically, based in math and science, not obstinate ranting.
He raises the discussion…great talk.
Berlinski is not a biologist. He’s a philosopher. He may have worked as a “research assistant” in microbiology, but that means he cleaned Petri dishes.
You have been lied to by enemies of humanity.
If you want a discussion with me “Chimp” you’ll have to use a real name, as I do. Your response regarding David Berlinski is 7 minutes after I posted it. The video is 38:00 minutes long so you didn’t actually listen to what he said… did you “Chimp”. Some “scientist you are! Berlinski actually discusses the lack of self criticality amongst scientists. This was in the first 10 minutes.. so you didn’t even listen that long… proving his point hey “Chimp”. ….google and wiki glossing is no substitute for knowledge or intelligence.
This conversation reminds me of the warmista vs skeptic duality.
The warmistas assume that skeptics are dumb and antihuman, or some such equivalent set of arguments as we see here with Chimp deriding Berlinski and Paul Westhaver, but a careful looksee does not seem to back up these assertions, and in fact the opposite seems as likely, or more so to be the case.
When someone stops referring to actual, or factual, information, and just starts in with the insults…me, i question the motive behind that, and that person does not look smarter or better informed or more “pro-humanity.”
They begin to look small and confused.
But that’s just me.
“Berlinski is not a biologist.”
Thanks, Chimp. Here’s mathematician Jeffrey Shallit on Berlinski:
http://recursed.blogspot.com/2008/04/david-berlinski-king-of-poseurs.html
Interesting comments pro and con below the article.
‘European Southern Observatory (ESO) in Chile looked for shifts in starlight caused by the gravitational tug of an orbiting planet. ‘
Shades of Scafetta.
Richard Dawkins is faced with a very simple question regarding an example of evolution (increase in information) by genetic mutation. He is utterly stumped.
Then he answers, not the question he was asked, rather a question he wished he was asked. Listen carelly and you will not hear an answer.. just blabbering about some other subject.
If you have a problem with this, take it up with Richard Dawkins.
Of course genetic information increases through evolution. The genomes of organisms have grown enormously over the past four billion years.
There is not the least bit of mystery surrounding the origin of genetic innovation.
Yes yes…it is all very simple.
Two deadly truths about Darwinism:
(1) Natural mutation is simply genetic damage by radiation. it can be induced, but the results are ugly and/or not generationally viable. Kind of weird, thinking that radiation damage is the pathway to perfection.
(2) Any stable genetic change induced by a random process will be so small as to lie within the span of natural variation. Thus, there is no “natural selection.” Pretty much everything thrives, or haven’t you noticed? (Also, “selection” is a borrowed concept. It has meaning only in the context of criteria and choice. Where does that come from?)
“Of course genetic information increases through evolution.” Just reveals the Big Lie strategy of incessant assertion of a belief. The perfect statement of a violation of the second law of thermodynamics, where information is associated with the reduction of entropy (see Claude Shannon). Spontaneous reduction of entropy is impossible.
Chimp – how does information increase?
I can see how yet another polymorphism might get added when an advantageous mutation happens in an already-existing, chromosome-residing gene, arises.
How does yet another gene get added, and retained?
To what does it pair up with in sexual reproduction?
Will you take the tack that they get added in vast sets? Do you recognize the sticky wicket that introduces?
Paul Westhaver, the actual answer to the “simple” question asked of Dawkins is quite complex. His answer, at length, is here, if you’re interested:
http://www.skeptics.com.au/resources/articles/the-information-challenge/
I read the article. All of it.
This is a summary written by Dawkins, in the article itself:
I have devoted three books to answering (The Blind Watchmaker, River Out of Eden, Climbing Mount Improbable) and I do not propose to repeat their contents here. The “information challenge” turns out to be none other than our old friend: “How could something as complex as an eye evolve?” It is just dressed up in fancy mathematical language – perhaps in an attempt to bamboozle. Or perhaps those who ask it have already bamboozled themselves, and don’t realise that it is the same old – and thoroughly answered – question.
So he DOESN’T answer it as you promised. The link to the skeptic pages you provided does not describe how evolution increases information in a genome.
Dawkins just refers to 3 books he wrote, which could not recall when questioned by the interviewer. Lame.
He doesn’t know how information comes from nothing.
“So he DOESN’T answer it as you promised.”
If you had actually read the article, you would have noticed the section about “Gene Duplication”. Note also in the section “The Genetic Book of the Dead”:
“According to this analogy, natural selection is by definition a process whereby information is fed into the gene pool of the next generation.”
Did I mention that the answer to your “simple” question is quite complex? 🙂
Gary…
The second law of thermodynamics is pretty simple, even as it related to information.
Dawkins cannot answer the simple question as to an example of information increasing in a genome by way of evolution because there isn’t any examples.
Gary… tell me one example….. one that you understand. You may suspend the rigors of proper mathematics if you require, but your logic must be perfect in exchange.
“Dawkins cannot answer the simple question…”
He did answer it, and the question isn’t simple.
“Gary… tell me one example….. one that you understand.”
OK. Gene duplication, as evidenced by human globin genes, as described by Richard Dawkins in the link I gave. Question answered…again. (insert roll-eyes smiley here)
Gary Come on off it….
1) you have NO Idea how information is created so you keep flailing around pointing at what you think might be a credible or plausible explanation. You attempted to borrow a ladder. A help up for your predicament from Dawkins. (who can’t provide a simple example of an increase in a genome information content by genetic mutation)
Gene Duplication.. (not that you understand it) is more accurately referred to as error in gene duplication. (something that happens AFTER complex life already is reproducing…btw)
Errors are not information… they are “disorder” ie Increases in Entropy.. the OPPOSITE of information increase. Now don’t give me that random errors = ordered life smoke and mirrors explanation since prof Stephen Meyers just showed you that the odds are against that ever working to the favor of reduced disorder.
Leave it alone Gary. You are just repeating things you do not comprehend.
—signing off on this dead end—-
“(who can’t provide a simple example…)
*sigh* Once again, yes he did. You obviously don’t like his example, but unfortunately that’s your problem. You’ll note that I didn’t waste a lot of time on my answer, knowing in advance you’d reject any response I gave. Am I psychic, or did God warn me? 🙂
“Gene Duplication.. (not that you understand it) is more accurately referred to as error in gene duplication”
No, no, it really IS gene duplication, down to the last base pair. No mistakes. Sorry if the concept is too advanced for you. Once duplicated, the extra gene may be lost, or it may stay and accumulate mutations, especially if that particular gene had a (possibly weak) secondary function:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/gene-genesis-scientists/
“Errors are not information”
You mean like when a copying error confers antibiotic resistance on a germ? Really?
How about the single nucleotide polymorphism for sickle cell trait? Heterozygous individuals have increased resistance to malaria, but homozygotes develop sickle cell anemia. “Disorder” or “information”? Both? Neither?
“…Stephen Meyers just showed you that the odds are against that ever working to the favor of reduced disorder.”
No, Meyer only calculated the odds against synthesizing by pure chance a 150-peptide chain that matches a known biologically active peptide. How is that relevant to duplication of already existing functional genes?
“You are just repeating things you do not comprehend.”
Right back at ya, Paul. The Discovery Institute (Meyer’s employer) would be proud of you! 🙂
“Leave it alone Gary.”
Can’t, for two reasons:
1) The Stupid, it burns! 🙂
2) Responding to pseudoscience is educational, whether it’s “The greenhouse effect violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics!” or “Evolution violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics!” (I’m sensing a trend here), or “Earth and Venus and Mars collided in historical times!” or “Visible light can’t heat the Earth!” (yes, that was claimed in WUWT comment threads, I kid you not). This time around I even learned about the magic of (ta-da!) LAMININ! No, really, look it up, it is AMAZING! 🙂
This news is reminiscent of the opening scenario in the novel “The Sparrow” by Mary Doria Russel
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sparrow_(novel)
Are we talking about intelligent design?
Homo erectus is clearly the long sort after missing link between small brain hominids to fully functional homo sapiens. A deity has no part to play, unless it came from Proxima and tinkered, in which case all bets are off.
Clearly lmao
We could mount a manned mission to Proxima Centauri now – the technology to do so was developed in the 1950s. Top speed around 0.1c – here to Proxima Centauri in 40 years. Not bad for a 1950s space drive.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_(nuclear_propulsion)
10% of the speed of light is approx 67,000,000 mph. So, how long would it take to slow down to 3,000 mph at a maximum of 4g deceleration?
Next question: How long could a human sustain a 4g deceleration?
Next question: How much fuel is needed to accomplish the deceleration for the required time?
Tom in Florida, the answers you seek are in the referenced article. To attain 0.1c would require acceleration at 1g for about 36 days. Realistically, of course, the first mission(s) to another star would be unmanned. An unmanned mission could use much higher acceleration.
Here’s an interesting look at an unmanned exploratory mission to a nearby star, using “intelligent” robots:
Beeing so close to the star there is a chance that the same side of the planet is facing the star all the time which will make one side frozen and the other side will be very hot.
Gotta love these fairy stories, 4ly away and no evidence to prove anything. Hat always out for funding…
Orbiting a red dwarf means that it is locked- the rotation = revolution, meaning one side will always face its sun. That would boil off any surface water. The dark side would be too cold for surface water. Maybe around the edges there may be some. But a red dwarf is a poor place to look for technology capable ETs.
There’s enough hcu, hydrcarbonoxygen clouds in space: methyl alcohol == sugar, the same stuff plants are made of, fats are made off and muscles are powered with.
No shortage of interstellar live support.
Wow, we’ve now found a planet that exists on top of one of the most deadly types of star on the Main Sequence and subject to super-duper levels of “global warming”, but is inside the “habitable zone”! Now we know for sure that we have no warming problems at all.
That’s interesting that this discovery matches up so well with the data from 2000.
It may not have life now.
It soon will…
This is another tease by the dying Space Exploration community. Mercury has a orbital period of 88 days revolving once per orbit. Neither face is habitable. A red dwarf was very likely a red giant and has boiled away any oceans, lakes or puddles.
Its minimum mass is 1.3 times that of the Earth but an upper limit is not established.
It’s great fun to dream, of course, and to use all of mankind’s collective ingenuity to try to conceive some practical methods of visiting this ‘exciting’ new find. But IMO there’s more material in this for a Douglas Adams or a Mel Brooks than the late Carl Sagan.
For a start, those who think 4+ light years is ‘on our doorstep’ perhaps need to re-evaluate their notion of ‘close-ish’, or preferably consult a text book to understand how far 25 trillion miles is.
I can’t help imagining thousands of these speculative tiny laser-powered vessels, blasted out across space at Einsteinian velocities, and one finally actually making it to the mystery planet after a few decades, once someone has worked out how to slow it down from 30,000 miles/sec to soft-landing speed. Out pops a micro-robot, which then begins scurrying around the assumed solid surface, carefully avoiding the towering pebbles that are assumed to litter it, in search of life. At last, encountering a patch of slime mould, it thrusts out a minuscule microphone and asks the slime how it feels to finally know that it is not alone in the universe.
The response is beamed back to earth, and another 4 years later the sub-picowatt signal is excitedly received and analysed at all major research establishments. After a lengthy delay it turns out that the answer is not 42, as expected, but 4 3. After further deliberation, a slime-language expert sponsored by the IPCC announces that this is simply code for “F*** Off”. The slime was clearly perfectly happy as it was, and did not welcome contact from any other life forms.
Others may have a less jaundiced view of the practicable possibilities in our lifetimes, or those of our remote descendants.