Col, Oparins prebiotic evolutionary theries and others like it have largely been debunked.The urey amino acid experiment for instance No one has gone from amino acids to proteins doing this simulating conditions back then.Though no one knows for sure just how much hydrogen and oxygen, methane etc was in the atmosphere
then.So its all just conjecture from all of us cheers
"Has Cox completed at least a few units of cellular and molecular biology at university? If not, I suggest that his views about the prevalence of life in the universe should be given little weight. You really need to have some tertiary biology to appreciate how 'super high tech' life really is."
Thankfully, some of the greatest amateurs in the history of science ignored arrogant attitudes such as this and built the very foundations of scientific knowledge.
Herb
It is not arrogant to assume that a detailed knowledge of molecular biology and cell biology and evolutionary biology (and much else) is necessary in order to have an informed view about the existence of life in the universe.
If someone's 'amateur' knowledge of biology does not include the knowledge gradually built up and tested over the last 600 years of biological research by means of observation, dissection, experiment, simulation, and hypothesis, then just about any random opinion about life can be entertained by such a person.
Amateur life science research is possible, but you really do have to understand a lot before you have any idea about how life actually works.
I do not mean to say that you have to get this knowledge by going to university, but I can say (from personal experience of having completed some tertiary biology units) that some extended and very-difficult formal study of biology is a big help in understanding the difference in complexity between life and non-life.
Life science research requires an understanding of the physical mechanisms of life.
Last edited by madbadgalaxyman; 14-07-2013 at 12:17 AM.
This all sounds theologians arguing about the number of angels that can fit on the head of a pin.
As a molecular biologist for the last 40 years might I suggest that some of you should get a far deeper understanding of molecular biology as well as evolution before commenting.
Allan,
I absolutely agree with you 100 percent.
I am sure that some of the correspondents in this thread know a lot of astronomy, and some of the statistical arguments about the number of stars and habitable planets that may exist in the universe.
However, it seems quite obvious to me that quite a few of them have never actually read a biology book.
I certainly do not pretend to expert knowledge in biology, but I am an enthusiast who tries hard to learn all the biology I can;
as I do with the science of astronomy, I enjoy the beauty and intricacy and the very complex problems of biological science.
I am sure that some of the correspondents in this thread know a lot of astronomy, and some of the statistical arguments about the number of stars and habitable planets that may exist in the universe.
However, it seems quite obvious to me that quite a few of them have never actually read a biology book.
I certainly do not pretend to expert knowledge in biology, but I am an enthusiast who tries hard to learn all the biology I can;
as I do with the science of astronomy, I enjoy the beauty and intricacy and the very complex problems of biological science.
Best regards
Robert
Robert,as I said further back,How do you know Brian Cox has not studied some Biology.
Carlo Sagen Wrote books which contained masses of Biology, he was not just an Astronomer.
Have you or any of the detractors of Brian Cox picked up any obvious faults in his presentations
Please let us know
Cheers
BTW I have never read a Biology text book,I am not that clever to understand it all,
So when I get people like Brian Cox and Carl Sagen explaining it in layman's terms I can get some sort of understanding.
Hi all.We all need somebody like cox to popularize the usually uncool science subjects.He must have done some first year biology at least and read absorb, much more later on.Even the greatest experts cannot agree what the atmosphere was like back then and, so, soo much could be explaned diffently.Just all remember he is a PRESENTER of this series and NOT its author.Please read the credits carefully next time round.Cheers bigjoe.PS:personally I like him and what he is trying to achieve as a whole
These celebrities have all kinds of advisors. The BBC can't just make stuff up and broadcast it as fact, they have to recruit people for this stuff. Many scientific people would be/are glad to give some time to contribute to a show that inspires so many people and breaks from the usual reality tv rubbish...
I think he might have read a book or two. Maybe even did a unit or two in biology (I did a unit it music at uni, but you wouldn't think so if you heard my piano playing ).
I am not a keen fan of his presentation style, as Suzy says a bit slow and it seems to have a a lot of him "gazing into the distant horizon" but that's not the point. Like Carl Sagan,Neil deGrase Tyson, Brian Greene, David Attenborough. and all the other people who have presented TV programs, some of them qualified in their field others not. The point of the program was to inspire and prick our interest, hopefully raising the level of interest in science in the community so that more people go further with it so that we have the scientists to do the research that will one day have some more of the answers.
Just for the record, I go with Carl Sagan's character, at the end of the film, "the universe is a very big place, so if we are the only ones in it its a an awful waste of space". Of cause there is, or has been other life forms, it just they may not survive, check out the Drake Equation.
Hi Roger,all.I think the point of getting Cox is that he is extremely popular everywhere he goes.Voted one of the sexiest men alive even. Chat shows, music presenter etcAnd I think hes kind of cool and alot of kids seem to like to listen to him.So there it is. Sell science to the public with a role model like Brian Cox.Ps: Yes very intelligent life has more than likely evolved elsewhere and perished even,but Id guess imho, with all the chances, permutations,replicating molecules meteorite bombardments involved etc to get to our stage, they must be a long, long, long, way away.
... with all the chances, permutations,replicating molecules meteorite bombardments involved etc to get to our stage, they must be a long, long, long, way away.
Which is what the Drake equation attempted to do (at least in terms of being able to detect them by their transmissions:- (again from Wikipedia)
This was in 1961, I assume the figures you might plug into it today would be different from then and there might be other factors that might be included. Back then it was the middle of the cold war and the figure for "blowing ourselves up" seemed higher (does anyone still have their ban the bomb placard?) than it might be now.
.
Have you or any of the detractors of Brian Cox picked up any obvious faults in his presentations
BTW I have never read a Biology text book,I am not that clever to understand it all,
So when I get people like Brian Cox and Carl Sagen explaining it in layman's terms I can get some sort of understanding.
Hi Ron,
"Bio stuff" is really cool! I particularly enjoy observing the behaviour of single-celled animals in the microscope;
I recall a view of various microscopic "wrigglies" which had been extracted from a termite gut;
the vista was like a secret and hidden and very complex world; the observed level of complexity was in fact reminiscent of what I might see in a cluster of galaxies.
Incidentally, the "wrigglies" (tragically!!) died within a few minutes, as the environment in which they normally live has no oxygen, and these little creatures were actually poisoned and killed by the oxygen in the air of the lab!
Actually, what did annoy me about Cox's presentation in respect of the question of the existence of life elsewhere in the universe is; that he gives the impression that it is necessarily very likely, or even nearly certain, that there are other biospheres out there somewhere in space.
It is not intellectually reputable to give the impression of certainty about an issue about which the smartest and most knowledgable people are still in strong disagreement.
Given the uncertainties, it is still within the realm of scientific possibility that life is relatively common in the universe. However it is still within the realm of scientific possibility that life is extremely rare in the universe.
The point of asking the question "is there life out there?" is to make people think and to make people learn. It does the enormous complexities of this issue a disservice to come down on the side of "life is everywhere in the universe" without giving the opposite point of view; that a lot of reputable scientists believe that life in the universe will be exceedingly uncommon.
Leading a "biologically uninitiated audience" to the view that it is very certain that the universe is teeming with life is not presenting science. It is expressing a personal opinion (whether well informed or otherwise) which is masquerading as "science knows this for sure"
cheers,
Robert
P.S.
Given that there is no hard evidence that life exists outside of the
Earth, one has to ask "why the big push by various scientists to give the impression that it is going to be relatively easy to find it?"
The agenda is to get as much fundng for science as possible, hoodwinking the public governments etc that life is teeming everywhere and all we need is billion dollar space programs scopes etc to find it.Bluff a gullible lot like this and they will believe it So far eerie silence from space no matter how hard we try.cheers.
Last edited by bigjoe; 14-07-2013 at 11:58 PM.
Reason: grammer
The agenda is to get as much fundng for science as possible, hoodwinking the public governments etc that life is teeming everywhere and all we need is billion dollar space programs scopes etc to find it.Bluff a gullible lot like this and they will believe it So far eerie silence from space no matter how hard we try.cheers.
NASA spent billions of dollars on the recent mars rover.
A few more experiments included in this rover , in addition to the ones which were done on the Viking landers, and we would have known for sure whether or not there is life on Mars.
Instead, they deliberately left out the necessary experiments from this rover, so that they can continue to tantalize us with the prospect of life in an uncommonly hostile environment of high radiation, no liquid water (or virtually none), and (I suspect) hypersalinity.
The agenda is to get as much fundng for science as possible, hoodwinking the public governments etc that life is teeming everywhere and all we need is billion dollar space programs scopes etc to find it.Bluff a gullible lot like this and they will believe it So far eerie silence from space no matter how hard we try.cheers.
Nice conspiracy theory.
Attached is the Viking mission statement that was used by NASA as part of its negotiations for funding. Note the emphasis on real Science, testing through experimentation, rather than verification of a preconceived idea.
Mars is our best bet (short term) for finding pre-biotic processes and molecular signatures. Much better prospects than Earth. I would guess that is the prime motivation of the program. Life could well have started and died off as Mars died and froze geologically.
BCox, stated at his melbourne lecture '... the free one' that his intentions with his tv shows are to bring across people who would usually be watching something something more 'main stream' like Big Brother etc .. and in so doing try to bring science back to a wider tv wider audience thereby promoting science to more people (extra ratings would also be a bonus he acknowledged the more serious science enthusiast probably wouldn't get so much out of the programs but hoped they'd still enjoy them.
as for life in the universe? better get exploring i say, otherwise I doubt we'll know any more in my lifetime.
Hi sj, col, all. IMHO.Yes, just a pretence to get us all motivated and enthusiastic again and again.Id imagine a lot of research would come to a screeching holt,jobs especially would go.So its up to people like Cox to popularize science and constantly inspire and give us hope that alien life is maybe a few rocket trips away,even though a lot of it is speculation,spin and agenda seeking, to maintain those very same jobs and research.Yes it may be that its ironic that, the only evidence for or for a past alien life or beginning in our lifetimes, is right next door on Mars.And I personally support trips be it manned or otherwise there,IF there ACTUALLY going to LOOK forand tell us about it.Cheers all
It's only really in the last 10-15 years that we've been able to start identifying exoplanets and more recently start analysing them to detect signs of oxygen and other molecules that are indicate some of the conditions for the potential of what we call life. In the scale of the Universe, that's neither a very long time to be looking nor have we looked very far away from us...
Hi sj, col, all. IMHO.Yes, just a pretence to get us all motivated and enthusiastic again and again.Id imagine a lot of research would come to a screeching holt,jobs especially would go.So its up to people like Cox to popularize science and constantly inspire and give us hope that alien life is maybe a few rocket trips away,even though a lot of it is speculation,spin and agenda seeking, to maintain those very same jobs and research.Yes it may be that its ironic that, the only evidence for or for a past alien life or beginning in our lifetimes, is right next door on Mars.And I personally support trips be it manned or otherwise there,IF there ACTUALLY going to LOOK forand tell us about it.Cheers all
Joe, I think your use of the word "pretense" is wrong in this case.
There is a genuine belief in what these people are trying to get across to the people.
Carl Sagen was a firm believer in extra terrestrial life.
Why are they spending Billions of dollars to try and prove one way or the other about life in the universe.
"Pretense" NO 'Belief" and research "YES"
Cheers
s
).
Of cause there is, or has been other life forms, it just they may not survive, check out the Drake Equation.
