Looking For Life on Other Worlds

sameer # 81

You are missing the point again. Life is not just living cells. Cells can be kept alive for indefinite period of time - there are cases in medical history where comatose have been kept ``alive`` for years on life support. Their cells were functioning normally. Brain was producing waves while they were on support. But they did not have life. And when support is removed from such people they ``die`` with in minutes. There are also cases where cells are even grown (replicate) in petri dish. In short, the functioning of cells properly or their decay may not constitute ``life`` or lack of it. An anology can better explain my point. The discovery of steal or methods of its refinement and constructing a rail engine are two different things albiet the later is made from steal. So is the making of protiens or discovering the composition and functions of cell.

anarayan #78 We can perhaps be more sure of some laws (e.g. of gravity) than of others (e.g. the conservation of energy). But we can use them for we can use them for our everyday purposes (more specifically, in our time-space location and in our everyday time-space scales). And for non-everyday purposes (e.g. in studying the behavior of subatomic particles, or in studying the birth of the universe), we can be sure of NONE of these laws (as discussed in my previous post).
Evolutionary theory is based on chemical ``laws`` that apply to our time-space scales, and as such there does not seem any reason to believe that it is based on any less reliable laws than (e.g.) the third law of motion (I believe) that propels airliners around the globe every day. That is all I am saying.
I am not drawing from this the conclusion that there is no overarching consciousness that promulgated these laws to begin with. Since an overarching consciousness responsible for these laws (i.e. the concept of the Creator) is entirely consistent with saying that the first living cell was formed from less complex structures (proteins) and those from simpler structures (amino acids) and those from plain old chemicals placed under certain conditions. But as a result of laws that were designed by the Creator. Of course this does NOT PROVE the existence of a Creator - but it certainly reconciles the basics of science and religion quite well, I think.

anarayan, tahmed, urstruly: The cell is decayed by another series of processes than the series it was formed. The formation is much more complex than decay by oxidation. When a cell is formed, it is not programmed to decay but has a lifetime based on communication with the brain. All cells except neurons die regulatrly and replaced by new cells regularly - to offset the rate of decay or death of cells. The communication is no longer there for repairing and replacing once a person dies and still soome cells do not decay as in mummified remains although they stop all of their functions. A cell detached from the body can be kept alive for a very longtime under appropriate optimum conditions in lab or simply frozrn to liquid nitrogen temperature. Would you believe that universal consiousness can be fronzen for many simpler forms of life indefinitely in liquid notrogen. Not in too distant future, whole human chemistry and universal consiousness could also be frozen indefinitely in liquid nitrogen cylnders.
Think about it? The freezing of life in time and space is also freezing this localized consiousness at 77K, otherwise though to be beyond space, time and matter.
I understand your main concern of complexity of life even in unicellular form performing specialized functions which those chemicals or their components would not be able to perform in a lab. To me, it is a matter of lack of understanding of advance level science, scientific laws, synergies, sterochemical effects, microenvironment and so forth. Nobody has asserted that first cell just mysteriously appeared one day from the soup. Actually soup has to go through million of years of tinkering and reacting according to the laws of nature until a series of reaction found an edge in survival through working in unison or synergetically. To make it more efficient, more players were allowed to join the party but tinkering at many levels continued. since, anarayan, you are arguing for intelligent design through posing questions. Allow me to ask couple of questions too.
1) Did properties of carbon (as element) are part of this intelligent design too? If so, no further discussion is possible because you and I would have irreconsilable debate. This question is similar to asking if the density of water decreases below 4C by intelligent design, so as to make ice float and thus fish survive underwater. Obviously the properties of water and properties of carbon predate several billion years from fish and organ based life appearance. If a certain property of carbon called catenation (to make extended bonds with other carbon atoms) was not there, no life in the current form will be possible. An intelligent designer must have thought about it and definitely controlled the properties of carbon to make use of it in later intelligent designs. So the debate ends from my point of view. I do not believe in intelligent design in assigning different properties to different elements with special treayment to carbon as Kingmaker.
2) What is in the nature of intelligent design to choose L-amino acids over D-amino acids 100 percent; D-series is useless in life. It is more of achoice got built into earliest form of life due to better attachment to certain clay providing it a home to settle down and grow. Otherwise D-amino acid is chemically same as L-amino acid.
Absebce of intelligent design is not akin to blind watchmaker as many people think. What went into optimization of each and every step during the whole history of transformations were logical tinkering according to the laws of the nature and chemistry. Nowhere in the history of evolution, isotopes of elements made any difference because isotopes do not change chemical properties of elements. Nowhere during this long series of reactions any ``cold fusion`` or nuclear reactions took place.
Once we come to know any new step or missing link in the chemical evolution of life, it is explainable without resorting to intelligent design. In the last 200 years of rewearch in this area, nobody has resorted to dealing with an unknown constant in any equation called ID (intelligent design) constant similar to Planks or Gas constants. It is possible that all of those and current crop of scientists are missing out on something of such magnified importance that is privy to only select few thinkers in this world.
Evolution is a subject under biology. It is not a theory, as many believe due to Darwin`s theory of Evolutioin. One can study evolution without even reading a word abut Darwin and ``Origin of Species``. Chemists do not have to read Jaber Bin Hayan to become a chemist in similar way. To be against evolution is not about denying Darwin; it is for the sole purpose of bringing intelligent design and thus designer in some form and shape into decision making position. Instead of finding proof of it, the strategy is to negate evolution based on what is not yet fully known or understood.
It is surprising that intelligent design model comes into play only to oppose or to compensate for lack of information.

Gentlemen

I think the future of concept of entropy and its applicability to the topic of discussion is very much questionable after the introduction of fractal geometry and how almost everything in universe observes a pattern. Even the events which used to be considered absolute chaotic like a tap water falling into a bucket and the chaos that is created in the bucket, follow a pattern. So entropy, meaning increasing chaos, may be applicable to energy (heat) but I think matter follows a different law/pattern than energy.

sameer,urstruly,tahmed,hameed,

tahmed,
urstruly has a valid point about fundamental laws being hypotheses rather than `laws`.

A good example is the law of `conservation of energy` which lies at the very heart of many engineering systems. Nobody has proved it. Also Nobody has disproved it till today.

If memory serves me correctly, the second law of thermodynamics (which speaks of entropy) is also an `unproved` law.

Yes, MOST LIKELY these laws will be valid tomorrow morning...yet...you can never be ABSOLUTELY certain unless someone proves that it WILL be so.


Also, the many different nature laws we see today...could actually be different manifestations of one or two more fundamental laws.

For eg: Most of us used to wonder whats `positive` about a positive charge and whats `negative` about a negative charge. Today, string theory is bringing these two concepts under one umbrella. What we thought earlier to be two fundamentally different items are proving to be two manifesations of a single phenomenon.

---------------------

sameer writes: ``I do not understand the logic og insistance of extramaterial component of life when it is just a philosophical question dealing with meaning of life and socialy purpose of life. I will continue to disagree with universal consiousness in any name.``


Agreed that this is a very complex, subtle topic and we are with little data or tools.

But, let me ask a simple question:
You say the first living cell could have been created by the laws of nature, chance, etc. Also you say that EVERYTHING going on inside a cell is as per entropy laws.

I ask...in that case, why does a cell decay???

Upon death, a cell breaks into smaller and smaller pieces. It never stays intact...which it theoretically SHOULD...if your hypothesis is correct. Think about it.


An abstract answer is that...the cell was `programmed` to die.

Which brings us to an important point:
****In the evolutionary sequence...even the simple cell is already far advanced****

Even though we speak of `simple cells`, actually, the simplest cell has FAR TOO MUCH embedded intelligence. To compare it with raw checmicals is silly. To say that it arose DIRECTLY, repeat DIRECTLY from the `soup` is stretching things a bit.

From the simple cell to the complex mammal...is only a matter of time...no big deal. Evolution...the hidden intelligence in every life form...will inexorably take its course.

The huge chasm seems to be that from raw-chemicals to the first cell.

Was there a simpler form of life...before the first cell???!!!


thanks,

urstruly #76 I may be hypothesizing that if I jump from the third floor, I will, by the law (sorry, hypothesis) of gravity, fall straight down. I wont try to test this hypothesis though. The reason is, that UNDER CERTAIN GIVEN ASSUMPTIONS (e.g. that I am located on mother earth during ``current`` times) this hypothesis has been successfully tested and as such I can be confident that if I jump from a third storey building, I shall end up on the sidewalk rather than, eg. gracefully floating around. Thus, under certain assumptions of my location in space-time, the ``hypothesis`` of gravity is not a hypothesis but a proven law of physics. BY THE SAME TOKEN, we have more complex laws (these having been tested as well, and as such no longer considered hypotheses) of chemistry which, as SameerJB says, can successfully explain the emergence of life through chemical interactions. And I tend to agree with him.
MY POINT is much more fundamental though: these laws themselves can change. Scientists now believe e.g. that these laws came into being only at the time of the Big Bang. Space-time as we know it, along with all the material universe, and along with all the laws within which that material operates, did not exist before that. They also believe that these laws are abrogated inside a black hole. So: given the vast amount of info we have by now, theory of evolution is almost as well established as the law of gravity.

tahmad

What you call laws of nature (in the context of creation) are not laws. They are mere speculations. They are not even hypothses according to the scientific method.

Even if the missing link is found, the theory of evolution will still remain speculative. For example, if we compare a 2 million year old fossil of a poodle with a 1 million year old fossil of a buldog - all you can do is to speculate that the smaller dogs might have evolved into bigger dogs. The possibility will still exist that the two dogs were actually different geners of the same specie.

As far as the point whether primordial soup just started cooking by itself or someone mixed the ingredients will always remain open for speculation. The answer to the secondary question, which is, there is a law that governs the mixing of primordial soup does not answer the first question.

urstruly #73 The theory of intelligent design (which is basically creationism under a new label) as you describe it overlooks an important fact: arrowheads and buildings cannot reproduce themselves, whereas living creatures invariably can. This creates the possibility of ``design improvements, enhancements, modifications`` over time, whether at the individual level (as Darwin thought) or at multiple levels (i.e. at the gene level, individual level, or at the level of entire species or related groups of species like the wiping out of dinosaurs) as a century of painstaking scientific research after Darwin has shown. So, by now there is irrefutable evidence by now that all living creatures today are the result of such design changes in new ``editions`` (i.e. new generations) of living creatures.
Thus, I have no problem with SameerJB`s view (if I understand it correctly) that the laws of nature have served to take a handful of chemicals 4 billion years ago, and through the inexorable processes governed by certain rules of chemistry, biology, and so forth. We even know today that these ``laws of nature`` that we take for granted can change. E.g. Einstein predicted that light can bend with gravity, and sure enough this was proved by a physical experiment some decades back. Scientific theory holds that there must be something like black holes in the universe where ALL RULES of physics as we know it are suspended - and sure enough, we now have demonstrated that not only is the universe littered with black holes, there is one at the center of our galaxy which was computed (and results made public only last week) to have a mass of 25 million or so of our sun. And so on, and things get only weirder as we look into particle physics where the same particle can be in two places at the same time and so forth.

BUT, the question that will I think always elude us is: WHO sets these rules? Newton simply ``discovered`` certain rules of physics, as did Einstein, and as are scientists doing at galloping speed (relatively speaking) today. But no human invented these rules. WHO decided that there should be a force of gravity that pulls rather than repels, or that there should be a gravitational force at all? And coming back to living things, WHAT AGENCY decided that the Thymine molecule should link with Adenine and Cytosine with Guanine to form the four alphabet language of the Book of Life (the DNA), and not Thymine with Cytosine? Even if we answer this question (in terms of the rules governing atoms and sub-atomic particles), we are then left with questions like: what causes an up-quark (one of the handful of subatomic particles which is the level to which we have tracked down the building material of all matter) to have an up-quark spin and not a down-quark spin, not to mention the strange-quark and the other weird sub-atomic creatures they have discovered in the second half of the 20th century? And even physicists are beginning to feel (as per a recent article in the Economist) that we are at a watershed into totally new insights of a kind that shook up the Newtonian physics of the late 19th century. And so, the story of the increasing human awareness of the nature of things goes on.
While SameerJB thinks this process reduces the role of ``extra-scientific agents`` (or God, as some of us like to think), I think he is right only in terms of the concept of God as understood in primitive or superstitious terms (e.g. we know that the god Thor does not cause lightening, rather it is readily explained by the laws of science). In a broader sense, I think no matter how much we subtract (i.e. discover) from infinity (i.e. the unknown), infinity will always remain undiminished as infinity. The search for the Mind of God (as Einstein put it) will go on, until one day the Old Man decides humanity is getting to big for its boots and causes a huge flood with no time build an ark (just joking here).

Thanks Hameed for updating about high power new telescope and advances in the optical spectral techniques in the region where intensuty of shiniing stars is relatively low. The red color monochromatic is very advantageous here because of lesser diffusion of red color and laser being monochromatic does not require scanning very wide area. Here on earth, the red laser is often associated with ruby and similar material can be found at other places, although I do not know why it would be pulsed on its own and not continuous. Of course, pulsed has many analytical advantages.
anaratan and tahmed: I do not understand the logic og insistance of extramaterial component of life when it is just a philosophical question dealing with meaning of life and socialy purpose of life. I will continue to disagree with universal consiousness in any name. It is more of a logic developed by thinking individuals in the absense of modern understanding of life, chemistry and evolution - some 2-3 thousands years ago. I do not mean to reject it mainly because it is old concept becasue many old concepts such as family, marriage and wheel are still useful and accepted. However, more we understand life, as I previously mentioned in terms of medicine instead of remedies. Even the universal consiousness also has chemical basis in terms of neurotransmitters communicating through oxidation-reductioin of acetylcholine. The complexity of interaction methodology is mainly due to the time it took to ``perfect`` the system to the advantage of its carrier. For each individual, intelligence develops with age depending upon opportunities, dedication, perspiration, inspiration and not inventing the wheel for every individual. We do not have to begin life in the stone age any more because of surrounding but if a child is kept away in total isolation from surroundings and interaction completely, the universal consiousness will not manifest itself automatically to put that life in 21st century.
The living cell or photosynthesis in plants is perfectly logical for a scientist. But you have to understand the genesis of each step reaching to a cell. Each reaction is either spontaneous or non-spontaneous. Once bond formation of bond breaking is involved, entropicla contribution is negligible. Entropy contributes in bimiolcular reactions effecting the probability of productive collisions leading to activation towards a reaction. The product from one reaction can be more disorderly than the reactants if the equilibrium to falling back to reactants is overcomed such as in static equilibrium. A chair placed on rooftop has more entropy than at placed on the floor but a chair can be as easily put toether on rooftop as on floor because once it`s formation due to static equilibrium is not reversible process. In chemistry, if the product precipitates out, the reversibility is stalled or slowed to make the reaction proceed according to LeChatlier principle. This is also termed as product of thermodynamic control. The energy from heat, solvation, bond formation, light and many other forms of energy becomes part of the product. When the product of Ist reaction goes into second reaction, the high entropy of ist product helps the second reaction. For example in enzymatic reaction, the strained pre-organization of catalyst becomes nore comfortable, or decreasing entropy by forming lock and key type intermediates and transition states.
In kinetic control reaction, the product stability and irreversibe equilibrium of rate determining step dominates the fate of the reaction. Similarly in dynamic equilibrium processes, the rate of product comsumption in the next step determines the equilibrium. A faster second reaction shifts the first reaction to the forward direction. Better scientific understanding of reactions went into evolving a cell is inversely related to extramaterial contribution. The chemistry of photosynthesis is well established in the presence of catalyst chlorophyll. The electronic energy from sunlight is chaneled into the formation of carbohydrates from carbon dioxide and is not uphill overall process. Moreover, both thermodynamic control and static equilibrium applies to photosynthesis. The carbohydrate basically precipitates out shifitng the equilibrium to the forward direction.

Darwin`s theory, though named, ``origin of species``, hardly describe the `origin`; evolution or evolutionary process is not origin. And even evolution component of it is speculative. On the other hand a new theory is emerging regarding the origin - it is not based on religious doctrines, but despite that it has acclaimed support from both religious and non-religious points of view. The theory is called ``Intelligent design``. The basic logic of this theory is simple - as in archeology and anthropology when a piece of stone/metal/wood is found in the shape of arrowhead the the set of assumptions go like this:

- In nature, such a shape hardly occurs by itself, therefore, it must be made by someone and since such shapes are usually made by humans, therfore, humans must have made them.

- Or when an archeologist finds the ruins of a building- the assumptions are made that since such shape does not occur by chance, therefore, someone must have made them; and since such structures are usually made by humans, therefore, humans must have made it.

Like I said - science is about possibilities and not about impossibilities.

anarayan #69 Actually, I think the conditions that triggered the transformation of a bunch of chemicals into what ultimately became living creatures are simple enough - they were replicated in the lab over half a century ago when the first amino acids were formed after simulating conditions of earth 4 billion years ago (with electrical discharges to represent the tremendous lightening storms of that time). And amino acids become proteins and the rest is history.
I agree with you though that to think that something as complex as a cell (Let alone the human eye, or the even more complex eagle eye, or the even more complex human mind, or the incredible wings of the common housefly whose complex motions scientists are trying to mimic nowadays, and the list goes on) could happen by chance. Darwin`s theories are on the right track, but are not sufficient to answer this question - a significant enhancement to this theory has been made earlier this year in the book ``The structure of evolutionary theory`` which replaces the one dimensional struggle for survival of the individual with a multi-dimensional struggle at various levels - the DNA, the individual, the species, and so on. The implications for human society are profound.
And even this advance begs the ultimate question - what is behind all this? One guess (e.g. an overarching intelligence) is as good as another (i.e. ``mechanical`` interactions), as long as one does not confuse what we believe with what we know. We just dont know the answer to this question.

I thought you might find the following quote from Arthur C. Clarke (the famous British science fiction writer who lives in sri lanka) interesting: ``There are two possibilities: Either we are alone in the universe or we are not. Both are equally terrifying``.
Another aspect of course is the SETI@home program. Started by the University of Berkeley in 1999, this program by now has extends distributed computing to a growing number of PCs (about 4 million now) so they work in parallel to provide the power of supercomputers costing $300 million. The program basically takes radio transmission captured by the Arecibo telescope in Puerto Rico (the largest radio telescope in the world today), and looks for radio signals of a kind that ET is currently expected to most likely be using. These are then sent to these various PCs, where the screen saver analyzes the signal when the PC is not being used, and sends in the results. This program run essentially on a voluntary basis, has been of interest not only in SETI but also in the more mundane field of computing where it is the leading example of harnessing the power of the internet for distributed computing that represents a serious alternative to the traditional use of the ``Big Iron`` approach for supercomputing. And you can be a part of it by simply downloading from Berkeleys SETI@home program.
PS: Incidenatlly, the types kind of signals they are looking for in this distributed computing aspect of SETI indicates the thoughtfullness and cooperation of voluntary efforts of individuals as well as of universities and even some international agencies that has gone into this entire effort: They are looking for signals that are within a narrow band - since broadband signals would require too much bandwith for the distances involved between stars. Similarly, they would form a bell-shaped curve lasting about 15-20 seconds, resulting from the movement of the telescope due to the earth`s rotation first towards and then away from the pont of signal origination. And they are looking for a very narrow band - around 1420 Mhrz I think - which is a relatively quiet part of the tower of babel created by the trillions of heavenly bodies as well as signals from man-made satellites etc. since FCC and international agencies have also lent a helping hand to SETI by disallowing use of this frequency for commercial or other purposes.

tahmed, sameer, anarayan, urstruly:

Sorry for the delayed participation. Quick comments regarding SETI: Allen Telescope is expected to be operational by 2005 and will also modify the way radio astronomy is done. In fact, there is another project, The Square Kilometer Array (SKA), that is being designed based on the Allen Telescope project.

However, another interesting area is ``Optical SETI``. Recently (in the last couple of years) astronomers have started looking for strong laser flashes (pulses) near sun-like stars. As it turns out, searching for ``intelligent`` signals in the optical have tremendous advantages. First, you don`t have to search (and guess) through millions of frequency channels since optical spectrum is much smaller. Second, as it turns out, its quite easy to outshine a star at a particular wavelength. For example, we are at a point where we have the technology to build a laser that can outshine our Sun at Red wavelengths (of course we should not try that around the yellow region of the spectrum) for a short period of time. Optical SETI (or OSETI) is going on at Harvard, Ohio, and couple of other places.

There is also a satellite planned ``The Terrestrial Planet Finder (TPF)`` that is going to search and image earth-like planets (scheduled for 2009-2010). It will also be able to take spectra of the planets to see if we can detect oxygen or not. All primordial atmospheres of planets (including Earth`s) were devoid of free oxygen. Only life changed the composition of our atmosphere, and made it relatively oxygen-rich. So one idea is that if we detect sufficient oxygen on an earth-like planet, then there is a very good chance that there is life (probably very simple) out there. Of course, this is from the perspective of life as we know it, not life as we don`t know it.

-Salman.

sameer,

(1)

You write:
``Extramaterial part of life called soul or something else also falls because whether it is or not, it is totally in control of human, excluding everything outside human mind. If I do not want to participate in creating a soul (fathering a child), the god`s participation is terminated. With it falls all the concepts of hell, heaven, morality and everything that were to be applicable to this future human being - all because of me and my decision not to bring this human being into the world.``

I understand what you are trying to convey. But I feel the `God` concept should not enter this discussion...since what we (me and urstruly) are talking about is simply something non-material which we may call `intelligence`...not God in the usual sense of an all-powerful entity that can influence worldly events, that passes commandments, etc.

This intelligence would be something subler than the subtlest...permeating all life...not gross enough to change our daily thinking (which arises out of our conditioning, experiences, etc)...but the essence of life.



(2)
``The point I am trying to make is that even if there is to be something beyind material form to life, it is so minor (insignificant) - discarded or ignored in scientific calculatioins.``
``Entropy is a minor component in determining the fate of a reaction, measured in cal/ deg/ mole unless at very high temperatures because it is per degree temperature dependent. The right term is free energy commonly known as deltaG which is related to equilibrium at every step of a reaction. For a series of reactions taking place over 3 billion years, all the intermediate steps with equilibrium constants have to be known to find out overall free energy as downhill or uphill for all the processes leading toa cell formation.``


I have 2 things to say here:
a)
Once a reaction starts, then, you are correct...entropy doesn`t figure much in the calculations. But here we are debating something else...whether the process WILL START AT ALL.

In this question (whether the process will start at all)...entropy is the ONLY player.

A reaction will never EVEN START if in the net result it will add to the `orderliness` of the universe.



b)
Do you really feel that the first cell `SOMEHOW` came into being (by chance) ???? Many scholars believe so and that is something that always surprises me.

Take a DNA...many hundred thousand molecules...perfectly placed.

Now consider this:
Say an event has 1/10 chance of hapenning. Consider a series of ONLY 20 such events.
If one event takes 1 second...then for the event series to defintely take place...we will have to wait for 100 billion years...more than the age of the universe!

And to make a cell is a million times more complex than 20 simple events. The intricate cell wall, the fluid interior with perfect pH, the nucleus, the tremendously tight-coiled DNA, etc, etc, etc.

You would agree that a `chance` cell is indeed laughable!

---------------------------------------------

Let me now explain what I meant in my previous post on `life` and `entropy`:

Consider a tree. It takes in raw minerals and converts them to living matter. It captures and stores the energy of sunlight. This action goes against the `entropy principle`. This action of capturing light and storing as chemical energy. It adds to the order in the universe.

Can you name any natural process which does this???

The opposite of this action...extracting the checmical energy of plants (burning petroleum)...happens spontaneously...because that is in line with the `entropy principle`. Burning petrol increase the entropy of the universe.

Thus my statement that `life` is a NEGATION of the `entropy principle`.

No natural process can negate this principle.

tahmed321: I did not start discussion about the definition of life. I merely disagreed to a statement that made a suggestion to treat life different than the constituents it is dependent upon. How could SETI or any other technique find life somewhere out there when we do not believe that the identifiable material is not life. What will the telescope be looking at? Something different than the constituents? I guess if I had agreed with head down to something other than chemical basis it would not have been religion bashing but then forget about telescope and SETI and any known technique to detect life in the universe and discard this article.
I hope you understand that it is no use looking for life out there if we do not know what life is.
We are looking for traces of gases, temperature, pressure, water and things necesssary for life. However if they communnicate with us, then it is life and forget about the constituents because anybody able to contact will be more than able to explain what they are in all respect. If we are to detect something in the outer space at current level of skills, it is going to be constituents much before seeing an ET.
I was not familiar with Paul Allen`s recent contribution but now I do, thanks to you. As we are able to magnify outer space more and more and able to have better view of stars whose light have already reached us, we might have better idea. But still the difficulty is that stars are too hot and the planets around them almost invisible due to glare from their parent star. The moons are almost out of question to see.
W hat we are looking at are the signatures in the form of specific wavelength emission radiations that are specific for different elements and compounds. I am not sure but I think they are radiowaves region and thus very weak signals.
All we need is convincing evidence from just one source, that break the uniqueness of life limited to earth. As soon as it is 2, the possibilities in the universe mean large numbers. Wouldn`t it be nice to be hit by a small meterorite that brings the clues from the outer reaches of solar system of life on Europa or some other moon.
Do you know the date this new telescope will become operational?

Urstruly #65 Dont go, please. On this board we have some glimmerings of EU (Extra-Usual-stuff-about-politics-and-stuff), and your posts have raised some interesting issues. I think I brought up the religion angle myself, but I did not mean to detract from the main discussion.