Total Posts:47|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Extraterrestrial life.

Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2015 10:03:14 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
If alien life was found, and it had the same basic DNA structure, same 4 nucleotides, cell walls, same basic proteins.

Would that lead credence to a designer of life?
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,575
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2015 10:19:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/4/2015 10:03:14 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
If alien life was found, and it had the same basic DNA structure, same 4 nucleotides, cell walls, same basic proteins.

Would that lead credence to a designer of life?

No.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2015 11:05:01 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/4/2015 10:03:14 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
If alien life was found, and it had the same basic DNA structure, same 4 nucleotides, cell walls, same basic proteins.

Would that lead credence to a designer of life?

Evidence for a hypothesis is only truly evidence for that hypothesis if it cannot be validly interpreted as evidence for any competing hypothesis.

In your example, given the information you provided, it could also be explained by any form of panspermia, including undirected panspermia. Therefore, it does not lead credence to a designer of life without further information that invalidates all other possible explanations.
Sosoconfused
Posts: 237
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2015 3:13:12 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/4/2015 10:03:14 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
If alien life was found, and it had the same basic DNA structure, same 4 nucleotides, cell walls, same basic proteins.

Would that lead credence to a designer of life?

No. The only way you could make a weak argument is if those same 4 nucleotides are much less common in that planets environment. However, it remains a weak argument since you could always make the argument that life came from interplanetary seeding.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,205
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2015 3:38:10 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/4/2015 10:03:14 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
If alien life was found, and it had the same basic DNA structure, same 4 nucleotides, cell walls, same basic proteins.

Would that lead credence to a designer of life?

Would the opposite be true? That being it has a completely different structure, and is indeed truly alien? As in would that exclude a designer of life?
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
ethang5
Posts: 4,084
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2015 8:28:44 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/4/2015 10:03:14 PM, Mhykiel wrote:

If alien life was found, and it had the same basic DNA structure, same 4 nucleotides, cell walls, same basic proteins.

Would that lead credence to a designer of life?

Yes. Some. The odds that life which originated on other than Earth would have the same DNA structure, the same 4 nucleotides, cell walls, and the same basic proteins would be mega-astronomically small. I think ID proponents would have more to gain than abiogenesists.

FJ - Would the opposite be true? That being it has a completely different structure, and is indeed truly alien? As in would that exclude a designer of life?

No, but it would lend weight to the claim that life began spontaneously. The odds are so high that other life would be different that it is indistinguishable from certainty.

But I'm willing to bet now that alien life will never be found. That will be a thorn in the side of atheists forever. If it i true that life started spontaneously, the odds that there would be no other life than on Earth are so tiny that they would be indistinguishable from impossibility.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,575
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2015 9:09:18 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/5/2015 8:28:44 AM, ethang5 wrote:
At 5/4/2015 10:03:14 PM, Mhykiel wrote:

If alien life was found, and it had the same basic DNA structure, same 4 nucleotides, cell walls, same basic proteins.

Would that lead credence to a designer of life?

Yes. Some. The odds that life which originated on other than Earth would have the same DNA structure, the same 4 nucleotides, cell walls, and the same basic proteins would be mega-astronomically small. I think ID proponents would have more to gain than abiogenesists.

Not at all, since the elements we know of were made as a result of stars fusion and then going nova, we can assume the same elements are on most every other planet that might be able to support life. This would support abiogenesis.

FJ - Would the opposite be true? That being it has a completely different structure, and is indeed truly alien? As in would that exclude a designer of life?

No, but it would lend weight to the claim that life began spontaneously. The odds are so high that other life would be different that it is indistinguishable from certainty.

But I'm willing to bet now that alien life will never be found. That will be a thorn in the side of atheists forever.

I suspect that in our lifetimes that claim is probably true as we have not the technology and time to visit those planets that might support life. But, I doubt that will be forever. Sending unmanned probes would give us answers to those questions.

If it i true that life started spontaneously, the odds that there would be no other life than on Earth are so tiny that they would be indistinguishable from impossibility.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Floid
Posts: 751
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2015 9:16:09 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/5/2015 8:28:44 AM, ethang5 wrote:
No, but it would lend weight to the claim that life began spontaneously. The odds are so high that other life would be different that it is indistinguishable from certainty.

Can you provide how you calculated those odds and some approximation as to what they were? I find people throwing around probabilistic ideas quite often and can never figure out how they even established a basis for calculating them.

It seems to me it could turn out that the basic building blocks for life that we have on Earth may be the simplest or perhaps even the only possible arrangement. So if we found life on another planet that used the same proteins as us it might not be that unexpected. If we went there and found dogs, cats, and horses that would be quite shocking.
ethang5
Posts: 4,084
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2015 10:15:54 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/5/2015 9:09:18 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 5/5/2015 8:28:44 AM, ethang5 wrote:
At 5/4/2015 10:03:14 PM, Mhykiel wrote:

If alien life was found, and it had the same basic DNA structure, same 4 nucleotides, cell walls, same basic proteins.

Would that lead credence to a designer of life?

Yes. Some. The odds that life which originated on other than Earth would have the same DNA structure, the same 4 nucleotides, cell walls, and the same basic proteins would be mega-astronomically small. I think ID proponents would have more to gain than abiogenesists.

Not at all, since the elements we know of were made as a result of stars fusion and then going nova, we can assume the same elements are on most every other planet that might be able to support life. This would support abiogenesis.

lol, of course all life would be composed of the same stuff which makes up our universe. That supports neither hypothesis.

FJ - Would the opposite be true? That being it has a completely different structure, and is indeed truly alien? As in would that exclude a designer of life?

No, but it would lend weight to the claim that life began spontaneously. The odds are so high that other life would be different that it is indistinguishable from certainty.

But I'm willing to bet now that alien life will never be found. That will be a thorn in the side of atheists forever.

I suspect that in our lifetimes that claim is probably true as we have not the technology and time to visit those planets that might support life. But, I doubt that will be forever. Sending unmanned probes would give us answers to those questions.

We have been able to find dozens of earth-like planets but no life? Odds are that many civilizations would be advance enough to have mastered radio waves. Those waves should be easier to detect than Earth-like planets. Yet we've found the planets, but have no broadcasts from any section of the universe. No Sir. We're alone here.

If it i true that life started spontaneously, the odds that there would be no other life than on Earth are so tiny that they would be indistinguishable from impossibility.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,575
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2015 10:22:45 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/5/2015 10:15:54 AM, ethang5 wrote:
At 5/5/2015 9:09:18 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 5/5/2015 8:28:44 AM, ethang5 wrote:
At 5/4/2015 10:03:14 PM, Mhykiel wrote:

If alien life was found, and it had the same basic DNA structure, same 4 nucleotides, cell walls, same basic proteins.

Would that lead credence to a designer of life?

Yes. Some. The odds that life which originated on other than Earth would have the same DNA structure, the same 4 nucleotides, cell walls, and the same basic proteins would be mega-astronomically small. I think ID proponents would have more to gain than abiogenesists.

Not at all, since the elements we know of were made as a result of stars fusion and then going nova, we can assume the same elements are on most every other planet that might be able to support life. This would support abiogenesis.

lol, of course all life would be composed of the same stuff which makes up our universe. That supports neither hypothesis.

Then, we are back at square one in which you theists must produce evidence for creation. Since, you have none, we will continue to look at the evidence for abiogenesis.

FJ - Would the opposite be true? That being it has a completely different structure, and is indeed truly alien? As in would that exclude a designer of life?

No, but it would lend weight to the claim that life began spontaneously. The odds are so high that other life would be different that it is indistinguishable from certainty.

But I'm willing to bet now that alien life will never be found. That will be a thorn in the side of atheists forever.

I suspect that in our lifetimes that claim is probably true as we have not the technology and time to visit those planets that might support life. But, I doubt that will be forever. Sending unmanned probes would give us answers to those questions.

We have been able to find dozens of earth-like planets but no life?

We don't know if there is life there, we have to visit there first. Have you ever looked at pictures of earth from satellites? You can't tell at all there is life on Earth from those pics.

Odds are that many civilizations would be advance enough to have mastered radio waves. Those waves should be easier to detect than Earth-like planets. Yet we've found the planets, but have no broadcasts from any section of the universe. No Sir. We're alone here.

LOL. Yes, do jump to erroneous conclusions. As a quote in a movie once said...

"Well, our object collison budget's a million dollars, that allows us to track about 3% of the sky, and beg'n your pardon sir, but it's a big-a$$ sky."

If it i true that life started spontaneously, the odds that there would be no other life than on Earth are so tiny that they would be indistinguishable from impossibility.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
ethang5
Posts: 4,084
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2015 10:54:12 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/5/2015 9:16:09 AM, Floid wrote:
At 5/5/2015 8:28:44 AM, ethang5 wrote:
No, but it would lend weight to the claim that life began spontaneously. The odds are so high that other life would be different that it is indistinguishable from certainty.

Can you provide how you calculated those odds and some approximation as to what they were?

that is way too complex for this thread but I will say it depends on your original hypothesis. Evolutionists believe that life occurring was a natural thing which will happen given the right conditions and enough time. With that hypothesis, that there should be life elsewhere in the universe is virtually a certainty. There would be so many places with the right conditions and so much time, it is a blow to evolution right now that we have detected no life at all. The certainty is so high that our government is willing to spend millions of dollars in the SETI program looking for alien life.

I find people throwing around probabilistic ideas quite often and can never figure out how they even established a basis for calculating them.

The calculations are simple really, they just involve very large values. You calculate (guestimate) the number of galaxies, and from that, the number of suns, and from that, the number of planets, and from that the number of habitable planets. Even a conservative estimate of the number of habitable planets is easily over 10 billion just for the known universe.

It seems to me it could turn out that the basic building blocks for life that we have on Earth may be the simplest or perhaps even the only possible arrangement.

But we already know this isn't true according to evolution. We know that there are mirror images of proteins, sort of right and left handed versions of most amino acids. So far, life on earth has used only one type, but there is no biological reason that forbids life with other-handed proteins. Life could be silicon or iron based, instead of carbon. The whole subject is fascinating. The internet is beautiful.

So if we found life on another planet that used the same proteins as us it might not be that unexpected.

No, it would. We use four, there are many more than four. Plus the OP implied that those proteins would be used in the same order and in the same ratios. That would be statistically almost impossible IF life is a naturally occurring spontaneous event. The odds change if the original hypothesis is that life is created only from life.

If we went there and found dogs, cats, and horses that would be quite shocking.

Yes. So shocking I would want to check and make sure that planet was not seeded by ours through accident.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,575
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2015 11:18:12 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/5/2015 10:54:12 AM, ethang5 wrote:
At 5/5/2015 9:16:09 AM, Floid wrote:
At 5/5/2015 8:28:44 AM, ethang5 wrote:
No, but it would lend weight to the claim that life began spontaneously. The odds are so high that other life would be different that it is indistinguishable from certainty.

Can you provide how you calculated those odds and some approximation as to what they were?

that is way too complex for this thread...

Translation: I made them up.

but I will say it depends on your original hypothesis. Evolutionists believe that life occurring was a natural thing which will happen given the right conditions and enough time. With that hypothesis, that there should be life elsewhere in the universe is virtually a certainty. There would be so many places with the right conditions and so much time, it is a blow to evolution right now that we have detected no life at all.

LOL. That's like saying Newton assumed the speed of light was instantaneous because he didn't have the technology to measure it. Nice fallacy, there.

The certainty is so high that our government is willing to spend millions of dollars in the SETI program looking for alien life.

I find people throwing around probabilistic ideas quite often and can never figure out how they even established a basis for calculating them.

The calculations are simple really, they just involve very large values.

So, first they are too complex and now their simple, really. LOL.

You calculate (guestimate) the number of galaxies, and from that, the number of suns, and from that, the number of planets, and from that the number of habitable planets. Even a conservative estimate of the number of habitable planets is easily over 10 billion just for the known universe.

Yes, and the are all may light years away. Duh,

It seems to me it could turn out that the basic building blocks for life that we have on Earth may be the simplest or perhaps even the only possible arrangement.

But we already know this isn't true according to evolution. We know that there are mirror images of proteins, sort of right and left handed versions of most amino acids. So far, life on earth has used only one type, but there is no biological reason that forbids life with other-handed proteins. Life could be silicon or iron based, instead of carbon. The whole subject is fascinating. The internet is beautiful.

And, your conclusions are erroneous based on your own words.

So if we found life on another planet that used the same proteins as us it might not be that unexpected.

No, it would. We use four, there are many more than four. Plus the OP implied that those proteins would be used in the same order and in the same ratios. That would be statistically almost impossible IF life is a naturally occurring spontaneous event.

Please show us evidence to substantiate that claim.

The odds change if the original hypothesis is that life is created only from life.

Please show us evidence do substantiate that claim.

If we went there and found dogs, cats, and horses that would be quite shocking.

Yes. So shocking I would want to check and make sure that planet was not seeded by ours through accident.

Or, God puts dogs, cats and horses on every planet.

Oh wait, dogs and cats are the result of...

" Nuclear DNA evidence points to a single domestication 11,000"16,000 years ago that predates the rise of agriculture and implies that the earliest dogs arose along with hunter-gatherers and not agriculturists.[1] Mitochondrial DNA evidence points to a domestication 18,800"32,100 years ago and that all modern dogs are most closely related to ancient wolf fossils that have been found in Europe"

http://en.wikipedia.org...
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
bulproof
Posts: 25,184
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2015 12:02:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
ethang goes to the madman school of science.
haha, watch TV.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Floid
Posts: 751
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2015 12:03:20 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/5/2015 10:54:12 AM, ethang5 wrote:
that is way too complex for this thread but I will say it depends on your original hypothesis. Evolutionists believe that life occurring was a natural thing which will happen given the right conditions and enough time. With that hypothesis, that there should be life elsewhere in the universe is virtually a certainty. There would be so many places with the right conditions and so much time, it is a blow to evolution right now that we have detected no life at all. The certainty is so high that our government is willing to spend millions of dollars in the SETI program looking for alien life.

The calculations are simple really, they just involve very large values. You calculate (guestimate) the number of galaxies, and from that, the number of suns, and from that, the number of planets, and from that the number of habitable planets. Even a conservative estimate of the number of habitable planets is easily over 10 billion just for the known universe.

But this isn't what you originally stated or keeping in the spirit of the thread. You stated that odds are life we find would be composed of different building blocks than our own. You now seem unable to produce anything to back up that statement.

It seems to me it could turn out that the basic building blocks for life that we have on Earth may be the simplest or perhaps even the only possible arrangement.

But we already know this isn't true according to evolution. We know that there are mirror images of proteins, sort of right and left handed versions of most amino acids. So far, life on earth has used only one type, but there is no biological reason that forbids life with other-handed proteins. Life could be silicon or iron based, instead of carbon. The whole subject is fascinating. The internet is beautiful.

1.) I would think most people would agree if we did find life composed of right handed amino acids instead of left handed ones that wouldn't be that radical of a difference.

2.) Silicon or iron based life would be radically difference. Now since you think this is the most likely scenario, please present the calculations of why this is more likely than finding more carbon based life since you seem to have performed those calculation but are unwilling to share them with us.

So if we found life on another planet that used the same proteins as us it might not be that unexpected.

No, it would. We use four, there are many more than four. Plus the OP implied that those proteins would be used in the same order and in the same ratios. That would be statistically almost impossible IF life is a naturally occurring spontaneous event. The odds change if the original hypothesis is that life is created only from life.

Please provide the calculations demonstrating it would be statistically impossible to find life on another planet composed of the same proteins as life on Earth. Specifically I am interested on all the other combinations of proteins that you can demonstrate produce life.
bulproof
Posts: 25,184
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2015 12:21:15 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/5/2015 12:03:20 PM, Floid wrote:
Please provide the calculations demonstrating it would be statistically impossible to find life on another planet composed of the same proteins as life on Earth.
What about supplying the calculations that prove only earthly life is possible in the entire universe?
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
ethang5
Posts: 4,084
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2015 12:49:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/5/2015 12:03:20 PM, Floid wrote:
At 5/5/2015 10:54:12 AM, ethang5 wrote:

that is way too complex for this thread but I will say it depends on your original hypothesis. Evolutionists believe that life occurring was a natural thing which will happen given the right conditions and enough time. With that hypothesis, that there should be life elsewhere in the universe is virtually a certainty. There would be so many places with the right conditions and so much time, it is a blow to evolution right now that we have detected no life at all. The certainty is so high that our government is willing to spend millions of dollars in the SETI program looking for alien life.

The calculations are simple really, they just involve very large values. You calculate (guestimate) the number of galaxies, and from that, the number of suns, and from that, the number of planets, and from that the number of habitable planets. Even a conservative estimate of the number of habitable planets is easily over 10 billion just for the known universe.

But this isn't what you originally stated or keeping in the spirit of the thread. You stated that odds are life we find would be composed of different building blocks than our own.

Untrue. You just have a rudimentary understanding of biology. Any life we find will be composed of the same elements. But not necessarily the same amino acids and proteins. Look up "elements" to learn the difference.

You now seem unable to produce anything to back up that statement.

Of course, that you didn't understand the statement makes no difference.

It seems to me it could turn out that the basic building blocks for life that we have on Earth may be the simplest or perhaps even the only possible arrangement.

But we already know this isn't true according to evolution. We know that there are mirror images of proteins, sort of right and left handed versions of most amino acids. So far, life on earth has used only one type, but there is no biological reason that forbids life with other-handed proteins. Life could be silicon or iron based, instead of carbon. The whole subject is fascinating. The internet is beautiful.

1.) I would think most people would agree if we did find life composed of right handed amino acids instead of left handed ones that wouldn't be that radical of a difference.

Lol. Depends on what you mean by "difference". But if you knew how handedness affected how chemicals affected and interacted with other chemicals, you wouldn't say that. Talk to a biochemist, see what he thinks.

.) Silicon or iron based life would be radically difference. Now since you think this is the most likely scenario,

I did not say that. Read it again, and slooowly this time.

....please present the calculations of why this is more likely than finding more carbon based life since you seem to have performed those calculation but are unwilling to share them with us.

lol. Understand what is said first, and then ask questions. That helps you not to look like a doofus pretending to be smart.

So if we found life on another planet that used the same proteins as us it might not be that unexpected.

No, it would. We use four, there are many more than four. Plus the OP implied that those proteins would be used in the same order and in the same ratios. That would be statistically almost impossible IF life is a naturally occurring spontaneous event. The odds change if the original hypothesis is that life is created only from life.

Please provide the calculations demonstrating it would be statistically impossible to find life on another planet composed of the same proteins as life on Earth.

lol. Would you understand it?

Specifically I am interested on all the other combinations of proteins that you can demonstrate produce life.

I don't think proteins produce life, and never said so. Look Floid, trying to dog paddle in science that is obviously above you doesn't help. We all know you aren't a scientist so it's not problem that you don't know. Just quit trying to fake it. You look like a dolt.

If you disagree with me, fine. But you couldn't even understand the dumbed down version, and here you are asking for calculations. Why in the world would I take the time to offer calculations to you?

If you are truly interested, use the internet. If you want to appear learned, I hope you have lots of time. I have better things to do.
ethang5
Posts: 4,084
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2015 1:09:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/5/2015 11:18:12 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 5/5/2015 10:54:12 AM, ethang5 wrote:
At 5/5/2015 9:16:09 AM, Floid wrote:
At 5/5/2015 8:28:44 AM, ethang5 wrote:

No, but it would lend weight to the claim that life began spontaneously. The odds are so high that other life would be different that it is indistinguishable from certainty.

Can you provide how you calculated those odds and some approximation as to what they were?

that is way too complex for this thread...

Translation: I made them up.

Whatever I don't understand, I doubt. Poor reading comp.

...but I will say it depends on your original hypothesis. Evolutionists believe that life occurring was a natural thing which will happen given the right conditions and enough time. With that hypothesis, that there should be life elsewhere in the universe is virtually a certainty. There would be so many places with the right conditions and so much time, it is a blow to evolution right now that we have detected no life at all.

LOL. That's like saying Newton assumed the speed of light was instantaneous because he didn't have the technology to measure it. Nice fallacy, there.

Nice fallacy yourself. We're just stating fallacies without actually showing one right?

The certainty is so high that our government is willing to spend millions of dollars in the SETI program looking for alien life.

I find people throwing around probabilistic ideas quite often and can never figure out how they even established a basis for calculating them.

The calculations are simple really, they just involve very large values.

So, first they are too complex and now their simple, really. LOL.

Poor reading comprehension. They are too complex for this thread, but are actually quite simple. It is sloppy thinking posters like you that make it so.

You calculate (guestimate) the number of galaxies, and from that, the number of suns, and from that, the number of planets, and from that the number of habitable planets. Even a conservative estimate of the number of habitable planets is easily over 10 billion just for the known universe.

Yes, and the are all may light years away. Duh,

So what? How do you think we know they are there? Radio waves can travel those distances. Militancy and ignorance in atheists never fail to fascinate me.

It seems to me it could turn out that the basic building blocks for life that we have on Earth may be the simplest or perhaps even the only possible arrangement.

But we already know this isn't true according to evolution. We know that there are mirror images of proteins, sort of right and left handed versions of most amino acids. So far, life on earth has used only one type, but there is no biological reason that forbids life with other-handed proteins. Life could be silicon or iron based, instead of carbon. The whole subject is fascinating. The internet is beautiful.

And, your conclusions are erroneous based on your own words.

And yours also. We're just claiming false conclusions without actually showing how right?

So if we found life on another planet that used the same proteins as us it might not be that unexpected.

No, it would. We use four, there are many more than four. Plus the OP implied that those proteins would be used in the same order and in the same ratios. That would be statistically almost impossible IF life is a naturally occurring spontaneous event.

Please show us evidence to substantiate that claim.

Do the math.

The odds change if the original hypothesis is that life is created only from life.

Please show us evidence do substantiate that claim.

That is self-evident. Still gonna try to pretend you know science huh? It may work, most atheists aren't any more knowledgeable at science than you.

If we went there and found dogs, cats, and horses that would be quite shocking.

Yes. So shocking I would want to check and make sure that planet was not seeded by ours through accident.

Or, God puts dogs, cats and horses on every planet.

Oh wait, dogs and cats are the result of...

" Nuclear DNA evidence points to a single domestication 11,000"16,000 years ago that predates the rise of agriculture and implies that the earliest dogs arose along with hunter-gatherers and not agriculturists.[1] Mitochondrial DNA evidence points to a domestication 18,800"32,100 years ago and that all modern dogs are most closely related to ancient wolf fossils that have been found in Europe"

That is evolution, not abiogenesis. They aren't the same you know. In fact, evolutionists run away from abiogenesis like young boys from catholic priests, all the while screaming, "Evolution says nothing about abiogenesis!"

lol, even your pot shots are science ignorant.
Floid
Posts: 751
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2015 2:53:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/5/2015 12:49:53 PM, ethang5 wrote:
At 5/5/2015 12:03:20 PM, Floid wrote:
At 5/5/2015 10:54:12 AM, ethang5 wrote:

that is way too complex for this thread but I will say it depends on your original hypothesis. Evolutionists believe that life occurring was a natural thing which will happen given the right conditions and enough time. With that hypothesis, that there should be life elsewhere in the universe is virtually a certainty. There would be so many places with the right conditions and so much time, it is a blow to evolution right now that we have detected no life at all. The certainty is so high that our government is willing to spend millions of dollars in the SETI program looking for alien life.

The calculations are simple really, they just involve very large values. You calculate (guestimate) the number of galaxies, and from that, the number of suns, and from that, the number of planets, and from that the number of habitable planets. Even a conservative estimate of the number of habitable planets is easily over 10 billion just for the known universe.

But this isn't what you originally stated or keeping in the spirit of the thread. You stated that odds are life we find would be composed of different building blocks than our own.

Untrue. You just have a rudimentary understanding of biology. Any life we find will be composed of the same elements. But not necessarily the same amino acids and proteins. Look up "elements" to learn the difference.

Please read the above quotation by you. In it you describe trying to calculate that odds of extraterrestrial life existing and how if it turns out it did not exist that would be evidence against evolution. The problem is that has nothing to do with what we are discussing and what you claim you can produce: the odds that extraterrestrial life, if found, would be composed of the same building blocks as life on Earth.

Once again you seem unwilling to back up your original statements first by trying to change the subject and then by restating the obvious when I call you on doing that.

.) Silicon or iron based life would be radically difference. Now since you think this is the most likely scenario,

I did not say that. Read it again, and slooowly this time.

"No, but it would lend weight to the claim that life began spontaneously. The odds are so high that other life would be different that it is indistinguishable from certainty." - ethang5 a post dated 5/5/2015 8:28:44AM

No matter how slowly I read that it still makes the claim that "The odds are so high that other life would be different that it is indistinguishable from certainty". All I can do is ask again: please provide how you determined those odds.

Please provide the calculations demonstrating it would be statistically impossible to find life on another planet composed of the same proteins as life on Earth.

lol. Would you understand it?

If you disagree with me, fine. But you couldn't even understand the dumbed down : :version, and here you are asking for calculations. Why in the world would I take the : :time to offer calculations to you?

To start in reverse order:
Why would you offer calculations? To prove your case and demonstrate that you were doing more than just making things up to try to support your ideas.

Would I understand it if you did provide the calculation? Apparently I don't really have to worry about that...
Floid
Posts: 751
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2015 2:58:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/5/2015 1:09:06 PM, ethang5 wrote:
At 5/5/2015 11:18:12 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 5/5/2015 10:54:12 AM, ethang5 wrote:
No, it would. We use four, there are many more than four. Plus the OP implied that those proteins would be used in the same order and in the same ratios. That would be statistically almost impossible IF life is a naturally occurring spontaneous event.

Please show us evidence to substantiate that claim.

Do the math.

The problem is you can't do the math. That is why it was obvious from the outset you were just making stuff up. We only know of one set of basic parameters that results in life. That is a sample set of 1. What can you not do from a sample set of 1? Determine probabilities.

Now, that doesn't mean that there could not be other configurations of life or that these might be more common than the configuration of which we are aware... but it does mean that you can't make a probabilistic statement on the subject.
ThinkFirst
Posts: 1,391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2015 3:04:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/4/2015 10:03:14 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
If alien life was found, and it had the same basic DNA structure, same 4 nucleotides, cell walls, same basic proteins.

Would that lead credence to a designer of life?

Assuming you meant SENTIENT life, no. That would only indicate that the the same pattern created life in another part of the universe. It would also be a strong indication (being 100% of TWO known sentient life forms) that the natural structure tends toward carbon-based life. It would be an indicator that their planet underwent the same type of formation timeline that ours underwent, and brought about similar (if not identical) conditions.

The bible would still be a stupid book, the god contained within it would still be an human invention of a bottomless sea of stoopid, evil, and injustice, and religion would still be laughably incoherent.
"Never attribute to villainy that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
-----
"Men rarely if ever dream up a god superior to themselves. Most gods have the manners and morals of a spoiled child. "

-- Robert A Heinlein
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,575
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2015 5:00:15 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/5/2015 1:09:06 PM, ethang5 wrote:
At 5/5/2015 11:18:12 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 5/5/2015 10:54:12 AM, ethang5 wrote:
At 5/5/2015 9:16:09 AM, Floid wrote:
At 5/5/2015 8:28:44 AM, ethang5 wrote:

No, but it would lend weight to the claim that life began spontaneously. The odds are so high that other life would be different that it is indistinguishable from certainty.

Can you provide how you calculated those odds and some approximation as to what they were?

that is way too complex for this thread...

Translation: I made them up.

Whatever I don't understand, I doubt. Poor reading comp.

How can I not understand what you don't even provide? So far, you've blown plenty of hot air, that's about it.

...but I will say it depends on your original hypothesis. Evolutionists believe that life occurring was a natural thing which will happen given the right conditions and enough time. With that hypothesis, that there should be life elsewhere in the universe is virtually a certainty. There would be so many places with the right conditions and so much time, it is a blow to evolution right now that we have detected no life at all.

LOL. That's like saying Newton assumed the speed of light was instantaneous because he didn't have the technology to measure it. Nice fallacy, there.

Nice fallacy yourself. We're just stating fallacies without actually showing one right?

I pointed out your fallacy using another example. It's quite simple, although I'm not surprised it went right over your head. It's a matter of technology that we have not detected life on other planets. duh.

The certainty is so high that our government is willing to spend millions of dollars in the SETI program looking for alien life.

I find people throwing around probabilistic ideas quite often and can never figure out how they even established a basis for calculating them.

The calculations are simple really, they just involve very large values.

So, first they are too complex and now their simple, really. LOL.

Poor reading comprehension. They are too complex for this thread, but are actually quite simple. It is sloppy thinking posters like you that make it so.

If they're actually quite simple, then it should be no problem for you to show us on this thread, if you can, which is highly doubtful.

You calculate (guestimate) the number of galaxies, and from that, the number of suns, and from that, the number of planets, and from that the number of habitable planets. Even a conservative estimate of the number of habitable planets is easily over 10 billion just for the known universe.

Yes, and the are all may light years away. Duh,

So what? How do you think we know they are there? Radio waves can travel those distances. Militancy and ignorance in atheists never fail to fascinate me.

Speaking of ignorance, it obviously didn't even occur to you they might not be using radio waves.

It seems to me it could turn out that the basic building blocks for life that we have on Earth may be the simplest or perhaps even the only possible arrangement.

But we already know this isn't true according to evolution. We know that there are mirror images of proteins, sort of right and left handed versions of most amino acids. So far, life on earth has used only one type, but there is no biological reason that forbids life with other-handed proteins. Life could be silicon or iron based, instead of carbon. The whole subject is fascinating. The internet is beautiful.

And, your conclusions are erroneous based on your own words.

And yours also. We're just claiming false conclusions without actually showing how right?

Wow, you need your hand through every little thing. First, you say It's impossible, then go on to say other life could be based on silicon. So, which is it?

So if we found life on another planet that used the same proteins as us it might not be that unexpected.

No, it would. We use four, there are many more than four. Plus the OP implied that those proteins would be used in the same order and in the same ratios. That would be statistically almost impossible IF life is a naturally occurring spontaneous event.

Please show us evidence to substantiate that claim.

Do the math.

LOL. That's what I thought. You just make sh1t up as you go along.

The odds change if the original hypothesis is that life is created only from life.

Please show us evidence do substantiate that claim.

That is self-evident.

LOL. No, it isn't, you need to substantiate your claim or stfu.

Still gonna try to pretend you know science huh?

LOL. Yes, I'm pretending, and I'll challenge you any time. Let's talk General Relativity?

It may work, most atheists aren't any more knowledgeable at science than you.

But, you certainly aren't knowledgeable about any science.

If we went there and found dogs, cats, and horses that would be quite shocking.

Yes. So shocking I would want to check and make sure that planet was not seeded by ours through accident.

Or, God puts dogs, cats and horses on every planet.

Oh wait, dogs and cats are the result of...

" Nuclear DNA evidence points to a single domestication 11,000"16,000 years ago that predates the rise of agriculture and implies that the earliest dogs arose along with hunter-gatherers and not agriculturists.[1] Mitochondrial DNA evidence points to a domestication 18,800"32,100 years ago and that all modern dogs are most closely related to ancient wolf fossils that have been found in Europe"

That is evolution, not abiogenesis.

I understand that. YOU were the one who brought up cats and dogs and probably had no idea dogs evolved from the wolf because of man.

They aren't the same you know. In fact, evolutionists run away from abiogenesis like young boys from catholic priests, all the while screaming, "Evolution says nothing about abiogenesis!"

I'm shocked you actually understand that. Well done.

lol, even your pot shots are science ignorant.

If you say so, but again, I will challenge any time. Are you up for it? Lets' talk General Relativity? Or, are you going to run away like Mykiel?
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,205
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2015 11:11:50 PM
Posted: 1 year ago

If alien life was found, and it had the same basic DNA structure, same 4 nucleotides, cell walls, same basic proteins.

Would that lead credence to a designer of life?

Yes. Some. The odds that life which originated on other than Earth would have the same DNA structure, the same 4 nucleotides, cell walls, and the same basic proteins would be mega-astronomically small. I think ID proponents would have more to gain than abiogenesists.

Not at all, since the elements we know of were made as a result of stars fusion and then going nova, we can assume the same elements are on most every other planet that might be able to support life. This would support abiogenesis.

lol, of course all life would be composed of the same stuff which makes up our universe. That supports neither hypothesis.

FJ - Would the opposite be true? That being it has a completely different structure, and is indeed truly alien? As in would that exclude a designer of life?

No, but it would lend weight to the claim that life began spontaneously. The odds are so high that other life would be different that it is indistinguishable from certainty.

But I'm willing to bet now that alien life will never be found. That will be a thorn in the side of atheists forever.

I suspect that in our lifetimes that claim is probably true as we have not the technology and time to visit those planets that might support life. But, I doubt that will be forever. Sending unmanned probes would give us answers to those questions.

We have been able to find dozens of earth-like planets but no life? Odds are that many civilizations would be advance enough to have mastered radio waves. Those waves should be easier to detect than Earth-like planets. Yet we've found the planets, but have no broadcasts from any section of the universe. No Sir. We're alone here.

"Earth like" as best as we can tell means size and distance to the their star. That hacks down the list by a lot, down appx ten that are with 50 light years. Assuming each and every one of those potentials developed life, and it developed on a scale similar to ours, (within say a 100 years), it would mean they should be close to being able to hear, then broadcast back. This assumes of course that a catastrophic event like which wiped out the dinosaurs didn't happen to them. Or that their use of tech even works on such a thing. Or that they are listening. Or that evolution has given them to the ability to listen to such a thing. On 10 planets.

All I am saying is that the sample size is still pretty small for what we understand of life, and where that can develop at.

Though I am not sure how life being or not being found at locations hurts an atheist's argument on anything.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,088
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2015 11:55:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Ethang says:
That is evolution, not abiogenesis. They aren't the same you know. In fact, evolutionists run away from abiogenesis like young boys from catholic priests, all the while screaming, "Evolution says nothing about abiogenesis!"

Ethang abandoned a discussion on this subject after desperately attempting to 'refute' abiogenesis by lying his way around scientific explanations and being called on it.

Conclusion
http://www.debate.org...

Build up
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
ethang5
Posts: 4,084
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2015 11:22:44 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/5/2015 2:53:37 PM, Floid wrote:
At 5/5/2015 12:49:53 PM, ethang5 wrote:

that is way too complex for this thread but I will say it depends on your original hypothesis. Evolutionists believe that life occurring was a natural thing which will happen given the right conditions and enough time. With that hypothesis, that there should be life elsewhere in the universe is virtually a certainty. There would be so many places with the right conditions and so much time, it is a blow to evolution right now that we have detected no life at all. The certainty is so high that our government is willing to spend millions of dollars in the SETI program looking for alien life.

The calculations are simple really, they just involve very large values. You calculate (guestimate) the number of galaxies, and from that, the number of suns, and from that, the number of planets, and from that the number of habitable planets. Even a conservative estimate of the number of habitable planets is easily over 10 billion just for the known universe.

But this isn't what you originally stated or keeping in the spirit of the thread. You stated that odds are life we find would be composed of different building blocks than our own.

Untrue. You just have a rudimentary understanding of biology. Any life we find will be composed of the same elements. But not necessarily the same amino acids and proteins. Look up "elements" to learn the difference.

Please read the above quotation by you. In it you describe trying to calculate that odds of extraterrestrial life existing and how if it turns out it did not exist that would be evidence against evolution.

Untrue. You have poor reading comprehension. The question by the OP was,

Would that lead credence to a designer of life?

My answer was,

Yes. Some.

I did not say it would be evidence against evolution. I grow tired of correcting you. Please read future posts carefully and slowly or I will conclude that your intelligence level is fit only for lulz.

The problem is that has nothing to do with what we are discussing and what you claim you can produce: the odds that extraterrestrial life, if found, would be composed of the same building blocks as life on Earth.

I made no such claim. Your low intelligence is playing games with you again. Any life we find will be composed of the elements we find in the universe, (it would have to be) but will not likely be composed of the same amino acids and proteins.

Once again you seem unwilling to back up your original statements first by trying to change the subject and then by restating the obvious when I call you on doing that.

You must call me on what I actually said, not the muddled mess in your mind of what you misread. Does that make sense to you?

....Silicon or iron based life would be radically difference. Now since you think this is the most likely scenario,

I did not say that. Read it again, and slooowly this time.

"No, but it would lend weight to the claim that life began spontaneously. The odds are so high that other life would be different that it is indistinguishable from certainty." - ethang5 a post dated 5/5/2015 8:28:44AM

No matter how slowly I read that it still makes the claim that "The odds are so high that other life would be different that it is indistinguishable from certainty".

Yes, but I did not say Silicon or iron based life would be the most likely scenario. I said the most likely scenario would be different life, for example, like silicon or iron based. Good thinking requires precision.

All I can do is ask again:

No, you can also ditch your bias and read more slowly. That would help too.

....please provide how you determined those odds.

M over M+N

But as I said, you won't understand.

Please provide the calculations demonstrating it would be statistically impossible to find life on another planet composed of the same proteins as life on Earth.

If you disagree with me, fine. But you couldn't even understand the dumbed down version, and here you are asking for calculations. Why in the world would I take the time to offer calculations to you?

To start in reverse order:
Why would you offer calculations? To prove your case and demonstrate that you were doing more than just making things up to try to support your ideas.

Again the atheist overestimates the importance of his opinion to me. My not offering the calculations will not necessarily mean I was just making things up. Your poor thinking makes you assume that. I can't be goaded. Especially not with 3rd grade taunts.

This is not a new idea, and the calculations to arrive at the odds are not secret. Educate yourself (especially on reading comp) and you will find what you're looking for. Or you can crow illogically that my not providing you the calculations means I made it up. Either way, believe what you want, I will not descend into stupidity to appease you.

Would I understand it if you did provide the calculation? Apparently I don't really have to worry about that...

You can say that again.
ethang5
Posts: 4,084
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2015 11:41:30 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/5/2015 11:55:48 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
Ethang says:
That is evolution, not abiogenesis. They aren't the same you know. In fact, evolutionists run away from abiogenesis like young boys from catholic priests, all the while screaming, "Evolution says nothing about abiogenesis!"

Ethang abandoned a discussion on this subject after desperately attempting to 'refute' abiogenesis by lying his way around scientific explanations and being called on it.

Conclusion
http://www.debate.org...

Build up
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

Skepticalone, that was pretty deceitful. You come to another thread and call me a liar, but here is what you did. And this won't just be a bald claim.

You posted in the post you just linked,
I have no patience for games and/or dishonesty.

But you did not "reply and quote" me so I did not get your reply and thus did not respond. Yet you come here and claim I abandoned the discussion. Apparently you have patience enough for YOUR games and dishonesty.

Second t the end of the post you said,

I have nothing further to say.....

And then claim on another thread that I abandoned the debate!!

And I bet you see yourself as a person with integrity.

Now that I've seen it, I'll answer. So wait.

Gentle Readers, how can you tell that you've beaten an atheist in an argument?

He claims you're a liar.


lol
Saint_of_Me
Posts: 2,402
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2015 12:02:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/4/2015 10:03:14 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
If alien life was found, and it had the same basic DNA structure, same 4 nucleotides, cell walls, same basic proteins.

Would that lead credence to a designer of life?

Hmm..I do not see how it would.

It would just, I think, allude to the fact that the ET life was borne in a similar environment with similar original chemical and climate conditions.

Think of it this way: if you found a lichen on one tree in the forest near where you live, and then went on vacation to, say, Flagstaff, AZ (near where I live..LOL) and discovered the same type of lichen on a tree there, would that in any way lead you to believe it was designed, rather than just grown from purely biological conditions?

Probably not. So that will be my answer to your OP.

Thanks!
Science Flies Us to the Moon. Religion Flies us Into Skyscrapers.
Floid
Posts: 751
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2015 12:09:58 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/7/2015 11:22:44 AM, ethang5 wrote:
M over M+N

Finally we are getting somewhere. Now please state the values you use for M and N and how you arrive at those values.
ethang5
Posts: 4,084
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2015 2:03:36 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/5/2015 2:58:52 PM, Floid wrote:
At 5/5/2015 1:09:06 PM, ethang5 wrote:
At 5/5/2015 11:18:12 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 5/5/2015 10:54:12 AM, ethang5 wrote:

No, it would. We use four, there are many more than four. Plus the OP implied that those proteins would be used in the same order and in the same ratios. That would be statistically almost impossible IF life is a naturally occurring spontaneous event.

Please show us evidence to substantiate that claim.

Do the math.

The problem is you can't do the math. That is why it was obvious from the outset you were just making stuff up.

You didn't need to, but thanks for confirming your bias.

We only know of one set of basic parameters that results in life. That is a sample set of 1. What can you not do from a sample set of 1? Determine probabilities.

We aren't trying to determine the probability that life would start. Our set isn't 1. Look, you just aren't bright enough to get it so satisfy yourself with a "win". Ok?

Now, that doesn't mean that there could not be other configurations of life or that these might be more common than the configuration of which we are aware... but it does mean that you can't make a probabilistic statement on the subject.

This is what you think because you only know pop science. We know the principles of DNA and its ability to carry information. We know that another amino acid from the 4 used does not contradict any of the biological or chemical "rules" of info transfer via DNA. Ah, I find the subject fascinating but talking to someone who thinks they know and don't - is a waste.

Anyway. Sooth yourself by saying, "I'm smart. He's just wrong."

Educate yourself.
http://www.evolutionnews.org...
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2015 2:30:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/7/2015 2:03:36 PM, ethang5 wrote:
At 5/5/2015 2:58:52 PM, Floid wrote:
At 5/5/2015 1:09:06 PM, ethang5 wrote:
At 5/5/2015 11:18:12 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 5/5/2015 10:54:12 AM, ethang5 wrote:

No, it would. We use four, there are many more than four. Plus the OP implied that those proteins would be used in the same order and in the same ratios. That would be statistically almost impossible IF life is a naturally occurring spontaneous event.

Please show us evidence to substantiate that claim.

Do the math.

The problem is you can't do the math. That is why it was obvious from the outset you were just making stuff up.

You didn't need to, but thanks for confirming your bias.

We only know of one set of basic parameters that results in life. That is a sample set of 1. What can you not do from a sample set of 1? Determine probabilities.

We aren't trying to determine the probability that life would start. Our set isn't 1. Look, you just aren't bright enough to get it so satisfy yourself with a "win". Ok?

Now, that doesn't mean that there could not be other configurations of life or that these might be more common than the configuration of which we are aware... but it does mean that you can't make a probabilistic statement on the subject.

This is what you think because you only know pop science. We know the principles of DNA and its ability to carry information. We know that another amino acid from the 4 used does not contradict any of the biological or chemical "rules" of info transfer via DNA. Ah, I find the subject fascinating but talking to someone who thinks they know and don't - is a waste.

Anyway. Sooth yourself by saying, "I'm smart. He's just wrong."

Educate yourself.
http://www.evolutionnews.org...

Evolution education from an ID website. Talk about mislabeling.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2015 5:26:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/7/2015 12:02:00 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 5/4/2015 10:03:14 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
If alien life was found, and it had the same basic DNA structure, same 4 nucleotides, cell walls, same basic proteins.

Would that lead credence to a designer of life?

Hmm..I do not see how it would.

It would just, I think, allude to the fact that the ET life was borne in a similar environment with similar original chemical and climate conditions.

Think of it this way: if you found a lichen on one tree in the forest near where you live, and then went on vacation to, say, Flagstaff, AZ (near where I live..LOL) and discovered the same type of lichen on a tree there, would that in any way lead you to believe it was designed, rather than just grown from purely biological conditions?


if a biologist finds Lichen of the exact same type found in a different area, is the thought they emerged independently?

generally the thought is they are related.

Probably not. So that will be my answer to your OP.

Thanks!