Russian Scientist Says There's Life on Venus

[Thyunda]

The problem with searching for life in the universe is that we search for things that that are like the life on earth.
Something that needs O2 and H2O.

It is highly possible that if we find a life form that doesn't fit that description, we would just overlook it.

And another problem is that journalists will write "Scientist says" in front of everything that they like so that it looks better and has "credibility".

Finally. Somebody else with that sentiment. Our only example of life is life on Earth...which could be totally unique. Perhaps it's not a 'perfect mix' of temperature and environment, we simply evolved out of what we were given, whereas the acid clouds of Venus are actually capable of supporting life. Not saying that they are, but it's definitely a ridiculous idea to just dismiss all possibility of life on non-Earth planets simply because 'science says it's impossible'.

I used to think that way as well, but then I read this [http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/nzxu6/why_is_it_that_scientists_seem_to_exclude_the/] particular AskScience thread.

The reason scientists don't usually consider other types of lifeforms is because the stuff we are built out of is the most efficient way for life to occur.

Would you like to provide me with an example of an inefficient way for life to occur?

Did you read the thread? Like, at all?

The reason water is so useful is because it is a great solvent. Therefore it is extremely useful in regulating chemistry in the cell.

There are few chemicals out there that rival the solvent properties of water and even less that are naturally formed and as abundant.

Also if life exists it's most likely carbon. Seriously. It's probably carbon. Carbon is fairly abundant and it is bar-none the most chemically fertile element around. You can do more chemistry with carbon than anything else. The metabolism of much carbon chemistry leads to water. This makes one of the most prolific waste products of carbon life into an asset.

Yes. And it didn't prove a God damned thing. It CAN'T be proved until we find other planets that fit the description AND have life. Because right now the case is so fragile that it can be fucked up if we so much as find ONE lifeless planet with water and carbon.

We're basing our knowledge of life based on one tiny example. It's like claiming to be an expert in Russian grammar because you speak fluent English. Yes, I understand how the rules of the English language work, but no, they don't apply to Russian.

No. We're basing our knowledge of life on how chemistry works. Carbon and water go hand in hand. All of the reasons behind scientist's assumptions on extraterrestrial life are based on facts. Your arguments are based on wild speculation with no scientific foundation.

Read it again.

Carbon is fairly abundant and it is bar-none the most chemically fertile element around.

See that? That right there is why life even exists. The different interactions of carbon is what makes life work, and no other element can do what it does, as well as it does it.

EDIT: Yes, life can conceivably exist through other means, but they are far less likely and as such, scientists are ignoring those remote possibilities until we've finished exploring the things that actually make sense.

And once again, you're referring to carbon-based life forms and totally ignoring the possibility of anything else. My analogy still stands. All you've done is re-iterate an obsolete point. Carbon is the most chemically fertile element on Earth, Mars, and the Moon. We've not really been taking samples on any other planet now have we?

You don't understand what chemically fertile means. That means it has a ridiculous amount of reactions it can be a part of. Chemically fertile does not mean there's lots of it, it means that it does lots. But that doesn't mean there isn't lots of it, oh no, it's the 4th most common element in the universe [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abundance_of_the_chemical_elements#Abundance_of_elements_in_the_Universe], right below oxygen, helium, and hydrogen.

I'm not reiterating an obsolete point, I'm trying to get scientific facts across that you are simply refusing to acknowledge.

I'm not just "referring to carbon-based lifeforms" I'm telling you why carbon-based lifeforms are far more likely than whatever crazy idea you espouse.

4th most common element in the universe? Fuck me, and I thought it was ever-expanding and we'd seen less than 1% of it. Next you'll be telling me that God is hiding behind the nearest nebula.

 

[SL33TBL1ND]

The problem with searching for life in the universe is that we search for things that that are like the life on earth.
Something that needs O2 and H2O.

It is highly possible that if we find a life form that doesn't fit that description, we would just overlook it.

And another problem is that journalists will write "Scientist says" in front of everything that they like so that it looks better and has "credibility".

Finally. Somebody else with that sentiment. Our only example of life is life on Earth...which could be totally unique. Perhaps it's not a 'perfect mix' of temperature and environment, we simply evolved out of what we were given, whereas the acid clouds of Venus are actually capable of supporting life. Not saying that they are, but it's definitely a ridiculous idea to just dismiss all possibility of life on non-Earth planets simply because 'science says it's impossible'.

I used to think that way as well, but then I read this [http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/nzxu6/why_is_it_that_scientists_seem_to_exclude_the/] particular AskScience thread.

The reason scientists don't usually consider other types of lifeforms is because the stuff we are built out of is the most efficient way for life to occur.

Would you like to provide me with an example of an inefficient way for life to occur?

Did you read the thread? Like, at all?

The reason water is so useful is because it is a great solvent. Therefore it is extremely useful in regulating chemistry in the cell.

There are few chemicals out there that rival the solvent properties of water and even less that are naturally formed and as abundant.

Also if life exists it's most likely carbon. Seriously. It's probably carbon. Carbon is fairly abundant and it is bar-none the most chemically fertile element around. You can do more chemistry with carbon than anything else. The metabolism of much carbon chemistry leads to water. This makes one of the most prolific waste products of carbon life into an asset.

Yes. And it didn't prove a God damned thing. It CAN'T be proved until we find other planets that fit the description AND have life. Because right now the case is so fragile that it can be fucked up if we so much as find ONE lifeless planet with water and carbon.

We're basing our knowledge of life based on one tiny example. It's like claiming to be an expert in Russian grammar because you speak fluent English. Yes, I understand how the rules of the English language work, but no, they don't apply to Russian.

No. We're basing our knowledge of life on how chemistry works. Carbon and water go hand in hand. All of the reasons behind scientist's assumptions on extraterrestrial life are based on facts. Your arguments are based on wild speculation with no scientific foundation.

Read it again.

Carbon is fairly abundant and it is bar-none the most chemically fertile element around.

See that? That right there is why life even exists. The different interactions of carbon is what makes life work, and no other element can do what it does, as well as it does it.

EDIT: Yes, life can conceivably exist through other means, but they are far less likely and as such, scientists are ignoring those remote possibilities until we've finished exploring the things that actually make sense.

And once again, you're referring to carbon-based life forms and totally ignoring the possibility of anything else. My analogy still stands. All you've done is re-iterate an obsolete point. Carbon is the most chemically fertile element on Earth, Mars, and the Moon. We've not really been taking samples on any other planet now have we?

You don't understand what chemically fertile means. That means it has a ridiculous amount of reactions it can be a part of. Chemically fertile does not mean there's lots of it, it means that it does lots. But that doesn't mean there isn't lots of it, oh no, it's the 4th most common element in the universe [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abundance_of_the_chemical_elements#Abundance_of_elements_in_the_Universe], right below oxygen, helium, and hydrogen.

I'm not reiterating an obsolete point, I'm trying to get scientific facts across that you are simply refusing to acknowledge.

I'm not just "referring to carbon-based lifeforms" I'm telling you why carbon-based lifeforms are far more likely than whatever crazy idea you espouse.

4th most common element in the universe? Fuck me, and I thought it was ever-expanding and we'd seen less than 1% of it. Next you'll be telling me that God is hiding behind the nearest nebula.

You know what? Fuck it, you obviously don't give a shit about how science actually works and only want to live in your fantasy land with lead-based lifeforms. Go find someone else to ignore.

 

[Thyunda]

The problem with searching for life in the universe is that we search for things that that are like the life on earth.
Something that needs O2 and H2O.

It is highly possible that if we find a life form that doesn't fit that description, we would just overlook it.

And another problem is that journalists will write "Scientist says" in front of everything that they like so that it looks better and has "credibility".

Finally. Somebody else with that sentiment. Our only example of life is life on Earth...which could be totally unique. Perhaps it's not a 'perfect mix' of temperature and environment, we simply evolved out of what we were given, whereas the acid clouds of Venus are actually capable of supporting life. Not saying that they are, but it's definitely a ridiculous idea to just dismiss all possibility of life on non-Earth planets simply because 'science says it's impossible'.

I used to think that way as well, but then I read this [http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/nzxu6/why_is_it_that_scientists_seem_to_exclude_the/] particular AskScience thread.

The reason scientists don't usually consider other types of lifeforms is because the stuff we are built out of is the most efficient way for life to occur.

Would you like to provide me with an example of an inefficient way for life to occur?

Did you read the thread? Like, at all?

The reason water is so useful is because it is a great solvent. Therefore it is extremely useful in regulating chemistry in the cell.

There are few chemicals out there that rival the solvent properties of water and even less that are naturally formed and as abundant.

Also if life exists it's most likely carbon. Seriously. It's probably carbon. Carbon is fairly abundant and it is bar-none the most chemically fertile element around. You can do more chemistry with carbon than anything else. The metabolism of much carbon chemistry leads to water. This makes one of the most prolific waste products of carbon life into an asset.

Yes. And it didn't prove a God damned thing. It CAN'T be proved until we find other planets that fit the description AND have life. Because right now the case is so fragile that it can be fucked up if we so much as find ONE lifeless planet with water and carbon.

We're basing our knowledge of life based on one tiny example. It's like claiming to be an expert in Russian grammar because you speak fluent English. Yes, I understand how the rules of the English language work, but no, they don't apply to Russian.

No. We're basing our knowledge of life on how chemistry works. Carbon and water go hand in hand. All of the reasons behind scientist's assumptions on extraterrestrial life are based on facts. Your arguments are based on wild speculation with no scientific foundation.

Read it again.

Carbon is fairly abundant and it is bar-none the most chemically fertile element around.

See that? That right there is why life even exists. The different interactions of carbon is what makes life work, and no other element can do what it does, as well as it does it.

EDIT: Yes, life can conceivably exist through other means, but they are far less likely and as such, scientists are ignoring those remote possibilities until we've finished exploring the things that actually make sense.

And once again, you're referring to carbon-based life forms and totally ignoring the possibility of anything else. My analogy still stands. All you've done is re-iterate an obsolete point. Carbon is the most chemically fertile element on Earth, Mars, and the Moon. We've not really been taking samples on any other planet now have we?

You don't understand what chemically fertile means. That means it has a ridiculous amount of reactions it can be a part of. Chemically fertile does not mean there's lots of it, it means that it does lots. But that doesn't mean there isn't lots of it, oh no, it's the 4th most common element in the universe [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abundance_of_the_chemical_elements#Abundance_of_elements_in_the_Universe], right below oxygen, helium, and hydrogen.

I'm not reiterating an obsolete point, I'm trying to get scientific facts across that you are simply refusing to acknowledge.

I'm not just "referring to carbon-based lifeforms" I'm telling you why carbon-based lifeforms are far more likely than whatever crazy idea you espouse.

4th most common element in the universe? Fuck me, and I thought it was ever-expanding and we'd seen less than 1% of it. Next you'll be telling me that God is hiding behind the nearest nebula.

You know what? Fuck it, you obviously don't give a shit about how science actually works and only want to live in your fantasy land with lead-based lifeforms. Go find someone else to ignore.

Last I checked, science didn't declare things impossible without due evidence.

 

[Scrustle]

"What if we forget about the current theories about the non-existence of life on Venus, let's boldly suggest that the objects' morphological features would allow us to say that they are living,"

Yes, let's forget everything based on logic and scientific reasoning and say that there might be life on Venus because some photos you took kind of look like something that exists on Earth. That's exactly how we found that there are gorillas living on Mars [http://www.metro.co.uk/weird/815753-does-this-picture-show-a-gorilla-on-mars] after all. It makes perfect sense! All that stuff about how the animals you mentioned look like they do because of millions of years of specialisation through evolution to a specific environment on Earth is obviously rubbish. If some random photo of a rock on Venus looks like a space scorpion, that's blatantly the only thing it could possibly be. Actually thinking about something only ever leads to erroneous conclusions.

But seriously, I could maybe buy that there might somehow be life on Venus that has evolved to deal with the toxic atmosphere, sulphurous rain and insane temperatures, but there's no way anything on the planet would look anything like we have here. That's just plain stupid.

 

[Shavon513]

Anything is possible. Not every planet with sustainable life out there will be carbon-based like Earth. These is so much atomic variety, to assume that is absurd.

 

[Skyy High]

Im guessing as he claims the objects in the photos "could be described as" the various apparently organic shapes, even if he provided the photos they would be just as much use as evidence for extraterrestrial life as a photo of a floating blob in the sky.

To me, this just sounds like hes gotten over excited about a daydream he had where those shapes were alive.

I can make shadow puppets that "could be described as" a swan or a duck.

Aaaaaaand /endthread

Seriously, grainy static images do not a case make.

Thyunda: yeah, we've observed only a fraction of the universe, but physicists generally agree that it's a good working assumption that our little corner of space is no different, on the average, than anywhere else. If we didn't make that assumption, we wouldn't be able to study anything about anything, because that's the only reason we can assume that the same physical laws apply on a planet that is millions of lightyears away from our Earth. As a result, yeah, it's safe to say that carbon is the 4th most abundant element in the universe; that's just the way the physics of star death "work", they tend to produce a ton of carbon.

 

[Something Amyss]

I still think this is just a misinterpretation of Europe's "The final countdown."

I consider that concrete evidence of the existence of swans and/or ducks.

On Venus? >.>

 

[Guffe]

It's always cool when someone comes up witha new theory of life other thn on our own little planet.
People get so happy and them some scepticals (everyone) comes and sais it's not true xD

 

[Ruwrak]

Acid clouds? High temperature? Poison atmosphere..? (Shudders)

The only life-form I could imagine existing on a planet like that would be a Xenomorph a la "Alien"...I.E. DON'T LAND THERE!!!!

Sounds like the logical advice for the movie Prometheus or whatever it is that is coming out soon that is a prequel to Alien or something.

 

[Zack Alklazaris]

There is life on Earth that thrive in environments that life forms such as ourselves would be destroyed in.

Such as Arsenic
[link]http://www.informationweek.com/news/government/enterprise-apps/228500210[/link]

So to flat out deny that a life form can exist because its environment lacks our basic building blocks for carbon based lifeforms to survive seems a little pretentious. While I am in no way saying these pictures are proof (most of us should remember the insanity that arose when they discovered a face on Mars) I do believe in the potential for finding life, however minor, on Venus if we ever manage to build a probe that can withstand its dense atmosphere.

 

[Something Amyss]

I still think this is just a misinterpretation of Europe's "The final countdown."

I consider that concrete evidence of the existence of swans and/or ducks.

On Venus? >.>

That depends, can you make the shadow puppets on Venus?

If you give me a still image projected on a screen....

 

[VanityGirl]

Just so we're clear...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/46107931/ns/technology_and_science-science/

This was proven false..