Complex organic molecules from Enceladus detected by Cassini

[bilby]

With complex organic molecules emanating from its liquid water ocean, this moon is the only body besides Earth known to simultaneously satisfy all of the basic requirements for life as we know it.

https://www.phys.org/news/2018-06-scientists-evidence-complex-molecules-enceladus.html

It would be very interesting to know if these organic compounds exhibit chirality - If so, that would be a very strong indication of biological origins. Something for a future mission to investigate.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I think what I would like to know at this point is, "why wouldn't there be life there?" What is technically missing?

 

[fast]

I think what I would like to know at this point is, "why wouldn't there be life there?" What is technically missing?

You may have all the ingredients for a cake, but if that's all you have, you have no cake. A car is more than the sum of its parts; it's also the assemblage of those parts.

 

[Rhea]

So yes, what’s missing to prevent life from forming. (If it is not indeed present)
Time? How long has there been water there? Maybe.

 

[rousseau]

I'm going to offer the unsubstantiated opinion that organic molecules and life itself widely exist throughout the universe. And also that humans are bad at space travel.

 

[Elixir]

I think what I would like to know at this point is, "why wouldn't there be life there?" What is technically missing?

You may have all the ingredients for a cake, but if that's all you have, you have no cake. A car is more than the sum of its parts; it's also the assemblage of those parts.

Cars and cakes don't self-replicate, nor can they emerge from a single molecule (under any known conditions of course).

 

[rousseau]

So yes, what’s missing to prevent life from forming. (If it is not indeed present)
Time? How long has there been water there? Maybe.

AFAIK scientists are still somewhat uncertain about the origins of life, but what's certain is that it was a chemical reaction that happened under very specific conditions.

So where life doesn't form, all of the conditions to form life are missing, whatever those conditions are (probably a very specific temperature, water, atmosphere, and chemicals being present).

Sans actual chemistry, Dawkins has a very good explanation of how this likely occurred in The Selfish Gene.

 

[bilby]

My gut feeling is that if you have organic molecules forming of the order of a couple of hundred Daltons, you are bound to get some kind of self catalysing replicator sooner rather than later, and that given millions (much less billions) of years, and the power of natural selection to drive increases in replicator efficiency, life is inevitable.

If I am right, then it's vanishingly improbable that life does NOT exist on Enceladus. Or to put it another way, if we take a proper look and don't find life there, that would be strong evidence that my gut is wrong.

It would certainly be very interesting to know whether life is that inevitable; A second example (after Earth) in our one solar system, of life existing in suitable conditions, would be a strong hint that the universe is teeming with it.

 

[fast]

I think what I would like to know at this point is, "why wouldn't there be life there?" What is technically missing?

You may have all the ingredients for a cake, but if that's all you have, you have no cake. A car is more than the sum of its parts; it's also the assemblage of those parts.

Cars and cakes don't self-replicate, nor can they emerge from a single molecule (under any known conditions of course).

Anything that can be considered alive is certainly more complex than any cake or car, but the broad principle I am getting at is the same. If you have every thing for something, you don't necessarily have everything for that something. A car part is both some thing and something, but assemblage though something is not some thing.

If every thing you need for life to exist is present, that does not therefore mean that everything needed is accounted for. There is something that is not some thing. He wanted to know what was missing, and I'm pointing out that what is missing might not in fact be a thing at all--like how mixing is not a thing.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Cars and cakes don't self-replicate, nor can they emerge from a single molecule (under any known conditions of course).

Anything that can be considered alive is certainly more complex than any cake or car, but the broad principle I am getting at is the same. If you have every thing for something, you don't necessarily have everything for that something. A car part is both some thing and something, but assemblage though something is not some thing.

If every thing you need for life to exist is present, that does not therefore mean that everything needed is accounted for. There is something that is not some thing. He wanted to know what was missing, and I'm pointing out that what is missing might not in fact be a thing at all--like how mixing is not a thing.

I am sure I was vague so my fault. However, the question is a valid concept. What is the gap? Be specific.

 

[fast]

Cars and cakes don't self-replicate, nor can they emerge from a single molecule (under any known conditions of course).

Anything that can be considered alive is certainly more complex than any cake or car, but the broad principle I am getting at is the same. If you have every thing for something, you don't necessarily have everything for that something. A car part is both some thing and something, but assemblage though something is not some thing.

If every thing you need for life to exist is present, that does not therefore mean that everything needed is accounted for. There is something that is not some thing. He wanted to know what was missing, and I'm pointing out that what is missing might not in fact be a thing at all--like how mixing is not a thing.

I am sure I was vague so my fault. However, the question is a valid concept. What is the gap? Be specific.

A sequence of events to occur.

 

[bilby]

I am sure I was vague so my fault. However, the question is a valid concept. What is the gap? Be specific.

A sequence of events to occur.

Sure; but you are talking about an ocean sized experiment in organic chemistry. It's hard to see how every possible sequence of events is not going to occur over the course of a few million years. If you buy millions of lotto tickets every week for millions of years, it's very unlikely that you will never win the jackpot.

 

[fast]

I am sure I was vague so my fault. However, the question is a valid concept. What is the gap? Be specific.

A sequence of events to occur.

Sure; but you are talking about an ocean sized experiment in organic chemistry. It's hard to see how every possible sequence of events is not going to occur over the course of a few million years. If you buy millions of lotto tickets every week for millions of years, it's very unlikely that you will never win the jackpot.

Although I think there is a flaw in that logic, I don't see it with that example, which is neither here nor there because despite that, I agree with you, which makes me wonder why you're making the point you are. That makes me think somebody is confused (possibly me), but dang, I'm not denying what you say here.

If every tangible item of physical substance is present for the making of life and yet there is no life, then what is missing is not a tangible physical substance but something else which of course is not a tangible physical substance. As you point out, it will take time. As different substances move, shift, and combine and whatever other movements are necessary for the building blocks of life to evolve, there will be no missing fundamental substance; rather, like your example, eventually the right mixture will begin to spawn the beginnings of what is necessary for life to emerge. The jackpot, given enough time of having the right conditions, there will be life.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I would note it isn’t merely ingredients but also environmental stresses that can impede (promote) the start of life.

 

[fast]

I would note it isn’t merely ingredients but also environmental stresses that can impede (promote) the start of life.

Yes, and that supports the heart of the notion that I'm bringing to the forefront of this discussion. "Some thing" implies "something," but "something" doesn't imply "some thing." The creature lurking in our midst is the faulty notion that language is as precise as mathematics. There is almost always something inherient in the usage of language that deceives us into thinking that language is on par with mathematical manipulation. Some (for instance) actually think that adding "a" to "theist" has a meaningful equivalent as if adding a negative sign to a number. It's no wonder (some) people think rocks are atheists. "Something" is more than adding "some" to "thing." Yes, a rock is a thing and yes, a rock is something, but environmental stresses (surely something to consider) is not on par as if to to say it is some thing--although that too has the ambiguous baggage of being so depending on context of usage--which even to the trained eye can only seemingly seem to contradict my overall point, as it's only in special circumstances that "some thing" and "something" are precisely identical. Awe, the craziness of it all!

Think of a noun as being a person, place, or thing. Is Bob the vacuum salesman a thing? Only in one sense--not in every correct usage of the term.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

If I write "what technically is missing," how does that imply that ONLY the ingredients are present and not the sufficient time, energy, and closeness of said ingredients for a sequence of events to occur or for that matter why is a process such as a sequence of events not being considered a what? Why get hung up on the mental masturbation of semantics when instead we can get hung up on the mental masturbation of science? Science is so much more fun and thinking about off-world life is orgasmic.

Personally, as I wrote above, I think what is needed are sufficient time, energy and concentration of the complex organic molecules. The energies need to be constantly disruptive in some locales but sustaining, providing heat in other locales. Hydrothermal vents could be an example of such phenomena. Now, I think these are the necessary elements, the dependencies for the Sequence Of Events to likely occur. If this were a gazillion year experiment, then repeating it a gazillion times on a gazillion moons might give life 50% of the time or more.

Am I wrong and something else is missing?

 

[fast]

If I write "what technically is missing," how does that imply that ONLY the ingredients are present and not the sufficient time, energy, and closeness of said ingredients for a sequence of events to occur or for that matter why is a process such as a sequence of events not being considered a what?

You're right, it doesn't imply that, but I wasn't merely responding to what you said but also to what (I thought) you were thinking as well--after reading the "all" in the following:

"With complex organic molecules emanating from its liquid water ocean, this moon is the only body besides Earth known to simultaneously satisfy all of the basic requirements for life as we know it."

That's my bad. Sorry. I do like science, and I'd love to have the knowledge of it that I could maybe say something enlightening once in awhile.

I'll do better.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

If I write "what technically is missing," how does that imply that ONLY the ingredients are present and not the sufficient time, energy, and closeness of said ingredients for a sequence of events to occur or for that matter why is a process such as a sequence of events not being considered a what?

You're right, it doesn't imply that, but I wasn't merely responding to what you said but also to what (I thought) you were thinking as well--after reading the "all" in the following:

"With complex organic molecules emanating from its liquid water ocean, this moon is the only body besides Earth known to simultaneously satisfy all of the basic requirements for life as we know it."

That's my bad. Sorry. I do like science, and I'd love to have the knowledge of it that I could maybe say something enlightening once in awhile.

I'll do better.

No worries. I pretty much feel the same way.

 

[Elixir]

Cars and cakes don't self-replicate, nor can they emerge from a single molecule (under any known conditions of course).

Anything that can be considered alive is certainly more complex than any cake or car, but the broad principle I am getting at is the same. If you have every thing for something, you don't necessarily have everything for that something. A car part is both some thing and something, but assemblage though something is not some thing.

If every thing you need for life to exist is present, that does not therefore mean that everything needed is accounted for. There is something that is not some thing. He wanted to know what was missing, and I'm pointing out that what is missing might not in fact be a thing at all--like how mixing is not a thing.

You missed the point. Complex organic molecules "self assemble" under some conditions*, and such molecules in turn self-assemble into definable organized groups of molecules. Nucleic acids even create self-assembling branched DNA complexes.
Carburetor jets and casings don't self-assemble into carburetors. Your analogy is misguided.

* The raw materials are pure atomic elements (some necessarily created in supernovae) in chaotic arrangement.