XPost: rec.arts.sf.movies, rec.arts.sf.written   
   From: dtravel@sonic.net   
      
   On 4/29/2018 7:19 PM, Your Name wrote:   
   > On 2018-04-29 23:57:24 +0000, Cryptoengineer said:   
   >> Your Name  wrote in   
   >> news:pc3jp6$2md$1@gioia.aioe.org:   
   >>> On 2018-04-29 01:18:42 +0000, Paul Colquhoun said:   
   >>>> On Sat, 28 Apr 2018 18:37:50 +1200, Your Name    
   >>>> wrote:   
   >>>> | On 2018-04-28 04:50:15 +0000, J. Clarke said:   
   >>>> |> On Sat, 28 Apr 2018 14:28:53 +1200, Your Name   
   >>>> |>  wrote:   
   >>>> |>> On 2018-04-28 02:05:53 +0000, J. Clarke said:   
   >>>> |>>> On Fri, 27 Apr 2018 18:40:08 +1200, Your Name   
   >>>> |>>>  wrote:   
   >>>> |>>>> On 2018-04-27 05:32:22 +0000, Thomas Koenig said:   
   >>>> |>>>>> Your Name  schrieb:   
   >>>> |>>>>>>   
   >>>> |>>>>>> The real problem is that scientists are blinkered into the   
   >>>> |>>>>>> belief that life of any sort /must/ have water, which is   
   >>>> |>>>>>> moronically silly.   
   >>>> |>>>>>   
   >>>> |>>>>> Water has a range of qualities that make it suitable for   
   >>>> |>>>>> complex molecules. There is a lot of it around, it has such   
   >>>> |>>>>> low energy, it will be found in a reasonably pure state, it   
   >>>> |>>>>> allows for condensation reactions with polar leaving groups,   
   >>>> |>>>>> it has very strong hydrogen bonds, it dissolves salts...   
   >>>> |>>>>   
   >>>> |>>>> All true, on Earth. Many other planets and other life forms are   
   >>>> |>>>> almost certainly completely different.   
   >>>> |>>>   
   >>>> |>>> Unless you are postulating that the laws of physics are   
   >>>> |>>> different on other planets, a notion which you will need to   
   >>>> |>>> support with something beyond opinion, it will be true on any   
   >>>> |>>> planet.   
   >>>> |>>   
   >>>> |>> Oh, dear, as usual the reading-challenged fools on the internet   
   >>>> |>> fixate on one tiny irrelevant detail rather than the actual   
   >>>> |>> point. Believe whatever crap you want.  :-\   
   >>>> |>   
   >>>> |> So to you physics is "crap".   
   >>>> |>   
   >>>> |>    
   >>>> |   
   >>>> | If you want to bleieve all possible life in the universe is exactly   
   >>>> | the same as life on Earth (same chemical makeup, same needs and   
   >>>> | requirements, etc.), then you're simply a complete moron.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> If you think the 2 options are "exactly the same as life on earth" or   
   >>>> "not based on carbon compounds" you are missing a huge middle ground.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Starting right from the basics, amino acids come in right and left   
   >>>> handed versions. Life on earth uses one, but nobody thinks the other   
   >>>> would not work just as well.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> We only use 4 bases in our DNA, but there have been recent   
   >>>> experiments that inserted another 2 in a test organism, so that is   
   >>>> another option for life elsewhere.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Here we use base triplets to encode for each amino acid in a protein,   
   >>>> with quite a bit of redundancy in the coding. There is probably some   
   >>>> chemistry backing the basics of the coding, but using 4-base   
   >>>> sequences is probably possible, just less efficient.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> So, the basic chemical makeup will be similar, but the details will   
   >>>> probably vary quite a lot.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> As to "needs and requirements", on a simple level, yes they will   
   >>>> be the same (or very similar). Organisms will require food, energy   
   >>>> (maybe from food, maybe from light), shelter. Or did you have   
   >>>> something else in mind?   
   >>>   
   >>> It's amaziong how many people have a complete and utter lack of   
   >>> reading comprehension ability.  :-(   
   >>>   
   >>> As I said all along: extraterrestrial life does not necessarily have   
   >>> to need water. Looking for life *only* where water occurs is blinkered   
   >>> stupidity.   
   >>   
   >> You keep saying that, but present no arguments. Until you do, your 10th   
   >> repetition is no more convincing than the first.   
   >>   
   >> We have limited resources for searching. We do know one type of   
   >> environment where life can arise, and its not a rare one. Can you   
   >> present an argument for looking elsewhere, and suggest what we   
   >> should look for?   
   >   
   > Ah, so scientists are not only blinkered fools, they're also lazy scum   
   > who can't do the job their paid to do ... it's the general public who   
   > has to come up with all the ideas for them.  :-\   
   >   
   You haven't come up with any ideas either.  Why do you assume scientists   
   are not trying to find life in any form they can?  All you are doing is   
   whining that we should all be riding on flying carpets instead of   
   driving cars.   
      
      
   --   
   Inquiring minds want to know while minds with a self-preservation   
   instinct are running screaming.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)