# Ripley or Not?



## moderan (Mar 11, 2013)

Astrobiologists discover fossils in meteorite fragments, confirming extraterrestrial life | ExtremeTech


----------



## WechtleinUns (Mar 11, 2013)

Wait and see. :3


----------



## Lewdog (Mar 11, 2013)

There has never been a doubt in my mind.  It worked just the same as how a dandelion does.  They start out as those bright yellow weeds and then turn into those big fur balls that are just seeds with an attachment that helps them fly.  Eventually they land somewhere and a new dandelion grows.  Life works the same way in the universe.  Comets may have killed the dinosaurs, but a comet may have been what introduced their life form to Earth in the first place.


----------



## Ariel (Mar 11, 2013)

I've always wondered why it had to start one specific way and not multiple different ways occurring roughly around the same time.  Life is beautifully complex, why shouldn't its origins be so?


----------



## Tiberius (Mar 11, 2013)

amsawtell said:


> I've always wondered why it had to start one specific way and not multiple different ways occurring roughly around the same time.  Life is beautifully complex, why shouldn't its origins be so?



If there were several different origins of life, we'd see evidence of that, even if they all happened about the same time.  All life that we know of on earth uses DNA and the same handful of amino acids.  If there were several different origins, what are the chances that they'd all use the same method?  If, on the other hand, we saw that some life had DNA, other life forms had X and others had Y, then we'd be much more justified in thinking that there were several different sources for life.

It is entirely possible that there were, but any non-DNA life forms were wiped out ages ago by competition.


----------



## Lewdog (Mar 11, 2013)

Not only did they found traces of an amino acid carbon based life form on part of a comet, they found a new organism underneath tens of thousands of years of ice in a glacier.  My cousin works at a university doing stem cell research and you would be amazed how far things have come.  Just recently the "3D" printer was able to make brand new stem cells, cutting out the need to use stem cells from placenta, cloning, or aborted fetuses.  

Think about all that for a minute, now think about Magic Johnson, who announced over 20 years ago he had HIV, yet looks healthy as a horse still today.  You can't tell me there isn't something out there that the public hasn't been told about yet.


----------



## moderan (Mar 11, 2013)

NASA Finds New Life (Updated)


----------



## Lewdog (Mar 11, 2013)

moderan said:


> NASA Finds New Life (Updated)



Is that really from today?  I thought I had read about that quite awhile ago.  It really doesn't surprise me, it's like Jeff Goldblum in "Jurassic Park," "Life will find a way."


----------



## moderan (Mar 11, 2013)

Lewdog said:


> Is that really from today?  I thought I had read about that quite awhile ago.  It really doesn't surprise me, it's like Jeff Goldblum in "Jurassic Park," "Life will find a way."


The article says 12/2/2010


----------



## Lewdog (Mar 11, 2013)

moderan said:


> The article says 12/2/2010



I didn't see that, all I saw were banners saying "Breaking News."


----------



## Rustgold (Mar 11, 2013)

WechtleinUns said:


> Wait and see. :3



This^^

Will this be another NASA Antarctic Mars rock?  A big song & dance, then a tiniest opps 6 months later?


----------



## squidtender (Mar 11, 2013)

I always thought you looked a little like Fox Mulder, D :icon_cheesygrin:


----------



## moderan (Mar 15, 2013)

I want to believe.


----------



## Rustgold (Mar 16, 2013)

moderan said:


> I want to believe.



Of course there's a difference between believing life may be on other planets (which is likely), and believing any old garbage which pops up; but I'm sure you would know this difference.


----------



## Morkonan (Mar 16, 2013)

moderan said:


> Astrobiologists discover fossils in meteorite fragments, confirming extraterrestrial life | ExtremeTech



It's from Cardiff University... I wonder if they found a giant, too? 

But, the best answer would be to wait and see. Many things can "look" organic without actually being organic.


----------



## moderan (Mar 16, 2013)

Rustgold said:


> Of course there's a difference between believing life may be on other planets (which is likely), and believing any old garbage which pops up; but I'm sure you would know this difference.


Yes. The quote is directly referring to the post above.



Morkonan said:


> It's from Cardiff University... I wonder if they found a giant, too?
> 
> But, the best answer would be to wait and see. Many things can "look" organic without actually being organic.



Quite true. Could be Piltdown Man, could be Lucy. Time will tell.


----------



## WechtleinUns (Mar 16, 2013)

Oh, I almost forgot to mention. I read somewhere that ribonucleic acid was found to have formed under super-nova like conditions. Ribonucleic acid is a simpler building block of DNA, but it's worth looking into.


----------



## Lewdog (Mar 16, 2013)

If we can build a 3D printer that can make everything from stem cells to new body parts, how long do you think it will be until it can make new people?


----------



## WechtleinUns (Mar 16, 2013)

Well, we can already make artificial hearts. If you take care of your body(i.e. no liver/kidney failure or colon cancer), then you've already got an extra forty or fifty years after 80. The Liver and Colon are essentially really efficient filtration systems and water-pumps, and we'll be able to use nano-technology to make artificial replacements for those in about twenty years. Prosthesis are catching up with human muscles, but still need too much energy and aren't quite sensitive enough. There is also the problem of upgrading already installed prosthetic limbs. The real advance for nano-technology, however, will be efficient carbon to oxygen diffusion/extraction. In essence: Artificial Lungs. The usefulness of an artificial lung goes beyond mere prosthetic advancement, however. Such machines would also make excellent high-efficient power generators in themselves. So I'd say if you're 25 and younger, then you need to start working out and getting healthy right now. Prosthetic advancement is gonna be expensive and more so if you're fat and diabetic. And you're a lot more likely to make enough money to afford it if you start now. Plus, getting healthy in general is just a good idea.

Good luck.  

(Oh, and by the way, Kwabena Boahen is going to be the father of the Modern Android. If you're interested, look the guy up. He's Nigerian  and a professor at Stanford University! )


----------



## moderan (Mar 16, 2013)

WechtleinUns said:


> Oh, I almost forgot to mention. I read somewhere that ribonucleic acid was found to have formed under super-nova like conditions. Ribonucleic acid is a simpler building block of DNA, but it's worth looking into.


Have been using that as a background detail for a couple of years now. Very interesting factoid, attributed recently to Richard N. Boyd but also theorized by Ray Kurzweil, who's a little better-known.
You could also look up "RNA World" or "sugar molecule" for information about this, and there's good information at COSMIC ANCESTRY: The modern version of panspermia. by Brig Klyce


----------



## WechtleinUns (Mar 16, 2013)

Thanks Moderan, will do!


----------



## moderan (Mar 16, 2013)

Hope that helps. It's an interesting avenue to explore. Perhaps it will be as fruitful an avenue for you as it has been for me.


----------



## Lewdog (Mar 16, 2013)

Lest we not forget the importance of the robots that were recently built that are able to build replicas of themselves and fix themselves.  That could be the first step to true AI, and self reliant robots.


----------



## moderan (Mar 16, 2013)

It could also be a step toward singularity or disaster. Time will tell.


----------



## Rustgold (Mar 17, 2013)

Lewdog said:


> Lest we not forget the importance of the robots that were recently built that are able to build replicas of themselves and fix themselves.  That could be the first step to true AI, and self reliant robots.



That's still fiction, but which nutter government agency is going to be the first?


----------



## Lewdog (Mar 17, 2013)

Rustgold said:


> That's still fiction, but which nutter government agency is going to be the first?



No, it's not fiction.

BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | US robot builds copies of itself


----------



## moderan (Mar 17, 2013)

nonfiction about fiction
Fiction

Self-replicating nanobots are a very possible future. I can envision them repairing broken blood vessels, performing general body cleanup, being extremely helpful and useful minitools. I can also imagine them causing grievous harm.
Once the chain of creation begins, it is then subject to evolution and entropy. It won't remain the same forever, whether observed or no.


----------



## Lewdog (Mar 17, 2013)

moderan said:


> nonfiction about fiction
> Fiction
> 
> Self-replicating nanobots are a very possible future. I can envision them repairing broken blood vessels, performing general body cleanup, being extremely helpful and useful minitools. I can also imagine them causing grievous harm.
> Once the chain of creation begins, it is then subject to evolution and entropy. It won't remain the same forever, whether observed or no.



You mean like they are used in the first _G.I. Joe_ movie?


----------



## moderan (Mar 17, 2013)

No, I don't mean that, as I've never seen it. I doubt I will.


----------



## Lewdog (Mar 17, 2013)

moderan said:


> No, I don't mean that, as I've never seen it. I doubt I will.



It's basically about a computer operated group of nanomytes that can control people's minds, change the way people look, or when put in a bomb they can literally eat everything in sight until they are turned off.

There was also nanomyte technology in _Jason X._


----------



## moderan (Mar 17, 2013)

Why do you insist on taking everything to the level of a twelve-year-old? GI Joe and Jason X have no relevance to anything.


----------



## Travers (Mar 17, 2013)

Exciting stuff moderan. I know nothing of extremetech though, are they reliable? It does seem to be a funny place to be getting this news from and doesn't offer any sources.

But as far as the discovery goes, it's not surprising that life exists elsewhere, more surprising that we've been lucky enough to stumble across some evidence for it.


----------



## moderan (Mar 17, 2013)

I've seen some other sources but can't reproduce them. Just food for thought anyway, so I didn't look too hard.


----------



## Lewdog (Mar 17, 2013)

moderan said:


> Why do you insist on taking everything to the level of a twelve-year-old? GI Joe and Jason X have no relevance to anything.



I'm not trying to, you mention nanomytes and what they would be used for.  I simply made references to how they have been used on movies.  :-({|=

...sorry I'm not highbrow enough for you.  I guess I'll go back to drawing with crayons and stay away from this big person talk.


----------



## moderan (Mar 17, 2013)

Lewdog said:


> I'm not trying to, you mention nanomytes and what they would be used for.  I simply made references to how they have been used on movies.  :-({|=
> 
> ...sorry I'm not highbrow enough for you.  I guess I'll go back to drawing with crayons and stay away from this big person talk.


 amusing. I'm sure there have been better uses (in cinema) for nanotech and nanobots than the above. Like, I dunno, Fantastic Voyage, Innerspace, Virtuosity...Nanomytes? Get a grip.


----------



## Lewdog (Mar 17, 2013)

moderan said:


> amusing. I'm sure there have been better uses (in cinema) for nanotech and nanobots than the above. Like, I dunno, Fantastic Voyage, Innerspace, Virtuosity...Nanomytes? Get a grip.



Well in _Jason X_, which is quite possibly the worst movie of all time, they use the nanobytes for medical purpose in doing surgery on people.  I think that is pretty realistic and one of the abilities we are hoping they are used for in the future.  

In _G.I. Joe, _they are created for the purpose of destruction, which we have been talking about the negative effects of advances in technology.  They are also used by inserting them into people so that they take over different parts of a person's brain so that they can not feel pain, and basically become human robots.  The last place they are used, is once inserted in a human, they are actually able to change a person on the cellular level to make them look and sound like someone else.  So they are able to be programmed and directed through a computer to basically reprogram someone's body.

How are those not relevant?  Those two movies cover about all the uses we are looking for.


----------



## moderan (Mar 18, 2013)

Because by using those examples, you trivialize the actual research and the many permutations that such research can assume, given a real existence and purpose.
It's doubtful that nanobots will _perform surgery_. That's a misapprehension of their abilities. Much more likely is some sort of chemical cocktail that includes nanobots as agents of some kind of preventative-maintenance program.
The GI Joe plot device conflates nanotech and AI in an amusing way. That isn't real science. It's what I call rubber science-used that way because very few people actually know what the real deal is, but they've all heard about it.
Try some of this:Nanotechnology and Medicine / Nanotechnology Medical Applications


----------



## moderan (Mar 18, 2013)




----------



## Brock (Mar 18, 2013)

> Think about all that for a minute, now think about Magic Johnson, who announced over 20 years ago he had HIV, yet looks healthy as a horse still today. You can't tell me there isn't something out there that the public hasn't been told about yet.



There is no money in breakthrough cures.  The money is in drugs and medical procedures -- keep us alive but not cure us.  Keep us coming back.


----------



## moderan (Mar 19, 2013)

Absolutely. And keep on paying out the backdoor for the salaries of the execs and hordes of middlemen that purvey the stuff, and the doctors that prescribe the stuff in lieu of actual cures.
People should see this stuff from the perspective of the chronically ill. You can't get what you need_ or _what you want.


----------



## Brock (Mar 19, 2013)

moderan said:


> Absolutely. And keep on paying out the backdoor for the salaries of the execs and hordes of middlemen that purvey the stuff, and the doctors that prescribe the stuff in lieu of actual cures.
> People should see this stuff from the perspective of the chronically ill. You can't get what you need_ or _what you want.



There's an excellent documentary on CNN regarding this.  It's called _Escape Fire_.  It really opens your eyes to our drug and surgery driven health care system.  We have the best surgeons and treatments here in the US, yet we rank 50th in life expectancy.  We are also unique in that big pharma companies are allowed to advertise prescription drugs on TV... "If you have __, ask your doctor about __."  And your doctor will give it to you, of course.


----------



## moderan (Mar 19, 2013)

I have a novel that deals with those questions. It goes a lot deeper than that documentary can.


----------



## Brock (Mar 19, 2013)

moderan said:


> I have a novel that deals with those questions. It goes a lot deeper than that documentary can.



I would love to check it out.  Where can I find it?


----------



## patskywriter (Mar 19, 2013)

moderan said:


> Because by using those examples, you trivialize the actual research and the many permutations that such research can assume, given a real existence and purpose. …



I can see why you said this, but as a person approaching 60, I know of so many people who were attracted to the sciences/computers/technology due to the implied promises offered by TV shows like Star Trek (and scifi movies). Imagination can be sparked by any number of things, and for some of us, certain television and movies caused us to gravitate toward the sciences—while for others, it was just fun entertainment. I don't see anything wrong with either result.

By the way, I'll be discussing nanotechnology with someone from the Museum of Life and Science (in Durham NC) tomorrow for my radio show. I am really looking forward to it! My interest in science began with Star Trek, continued through the space program of the 1960s/70s, and lasts to this very day. I tend not to mind any reference—pop culture or otherwise—to science. … And because adults start out as kiddies, I'm all for the little ones getting exposed to science in ways that allow them to see themselves getting involved in it—as scientists, researchers, etc, etc. TV and movies are not a bad start, actually. Don't forget that astronaut Mae Jemison was a big fan of Star Trek as a child.


@ WechtleinUns: Thanks for the heads-up on Ghanian scientist Kwabena Boahen. I'm adding him to my "get" list for a possible interview in the future.


----------



## moderan (Mar 19, 2013)

Brock said:


> I would love to check it out.  Where can I find it?


Amazon, starting probably in October. It's called Milk, and will have a picture of a giant purple ant on the cover.


patskywriter said:


> I can see why you said this, but as a person  approaching 60, I know of so many people who were attracted to the  sciences/computers/technology due to the implied promises offered by TV  shows like Star Trek (and scifi movies). Imagination can be sparked by  any number of things, and for some of us, certain television and movies  caused us to gravitate toward the sciences—while for others, it was just  fun entertainment. I don't see anything wrong with either result.
> 
> By the way, I'll be discussing nanotechnology with someone from the  Museum of Life and Science (in Durham NC) tomorrow for my radio show. I  am really looking forward to it! My interest in science began with Star  Trek, continued through the space program of the 1960s/70s, and lasts to  this very day. I tend not to mind any reference—pop culture or  otherwise—to science. … And because adults start out as kiddies, I'm all  for the little ones getting exposed to science in ways that allow them  to see themselves getting involved in it—as scientists, researchers,  etc, etc. TV and movies are not a bad start, actually. Don't forget that  astronaut Mae Jemison was a big fan of Star Trek as a child.
> 
> ...


The interview sounds interesting. 
I am a little (very little) younger. I was attracted to the sciences  before Star Trek. But I understand that ST was a lodestone for many,  scientifically speaking. I sincerely doubt that Jason X or GI Joe will  have the same effect. They're not the same thing, and I don't see the  same principle applying.


----------



## moderan (Mar 19, 2013)

.


----------



## Robert_S (Mar 19, 2013)

moderan said:


> Once the chain of creation begins, it is then subject to evolution and entropy. It won't remain the same forever, whether observed or no.



My thought on this, take it for what you will, but unless it has some thought to improving itself, it's unlikely to evolve.  Even animals have some thought to improving themselves, hence, natural selection. If improvement is an external process I can't see them becoming sentient, unless the improvement process is toward making them independently intelligent as opposed to following instructions or some external signal.


----------



## moderan (Mar 19, 2013)

...it would be a colossal pita to have the thing there replicating away, eroding our resources and no doubt polluting our precious bodily fluids, if we didn't have it programmed to perform a task other than the simple replication. We are talking about enormous vistas of sheer time here.
I just think it would have to have some autonomy. We can program a molecule, why not a nanobot? Some form of RNA perhaps. I dunno.
Just speculation. I wouldn't rule out an accident of ai. Unlikely, as you say, yes. Impossible, no.


----------



## Lewdog (Mar 19, 2013)

If you listen to people who believe in the Illuminati, they are using prescription drugs to kill off the people they consider weak, and make them sterile so that they can't reproduce.  The Illuminati have a specific number of people they believe is an ideal population for the entire planet.


----------



## Brock (Mar 19, 2013)

Lewdog said:


> If you listen to people who believe in the Illuminati, they are using prescription drugs to kill off the people they consider weak, and make them sterile so that they can't reproduce.  The Illuminati have a specific number of people they believe is an ideal population for the entire planet.



I'm a member of the Illuminati, plus I'm weak.  This is why I skipped the drugs and had a vasectomy.


----------



## Morkonan (Mar 19, 2013)

moderan said:


> ...polluting our precious bodily fluids...



/win

All DS quotes are automatic /wins.


----------



## Robert_S (Mar 20, 2013)

moderan said:


> ...it would be a colossal pita to have the thing there replicating away, eroding our resources and no doubt polluting our precious bodily fluids, if we didn't have it programmed to perform a task other than the simple replication. We are talking about enormous vistas of sheer time here.
> I just think it would have to have some autonomy. We can program a molecule, why not a nanobot? Some form of RNA perhaps. I dunno.
> Just speculation. I wouldn't rule out an accident of ai. Unlikely, as you say, yes. Impossible, no.



Well, the program would need to be able to rewrite how it rewrites its code. Something that I can't see happening, intelligently at least. We work with finite state machines because of finite resources. We're more likely to nuke ourselves into extinction than see the Dawn of the Machines arrive.

However, I think cyborgs are certainly possible.


----------



## Lewdog (Mar 20, 2013)

Do you guys think Sam Jones is the blue print male for the Illuminati?


----------



## moderan (Mar 20, 2013)

Robert_S said:


> Well, the program would need to be able to rewrite how it rewrites its code. Something that I can't see happening, intelligently at least. We work with finite state machines because of finite resources. We're more likely to nuke ourselves into extinction than see the Dawn of the Machines arrive.
> 
> However, I think cyborgs are certainly possible.


I'm not even sure where this all is coming from anymore. There was a throwaway post somewhere in there about singularities but that was at odds with the general thrust of conversation.


----------



## Robert_S (Mar 20, 2013)

Lewdog said:


> Do you guys think Sam Jones is the blue print male for the Illuminati?



I'm not a big believer in such large scale conspiracies.  I don't think 9/11 was an inside job, other than an incompetent prez showed how big a boob he was. I don't believe Sandy Hook was staged, etc. I don't think people can hold such secrets for long when there is a great tragedy involved. The logistics aren't there.


----------



## Lewdog (Mar 20, 2013)

Don't be so surprised what can happen with death is the alternative.


----------



## Brock (Mar 20, 2013)

Deleted due to being off topic.  Sorry.

Believe it... or not?


----------

