Talk:Extraterrestrial life/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Extraterrestrial life. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060929000841/http://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/multimedia/images/image-details.cfm?imageID=2214 to http://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/multimedia/images/image-details.cfm?imageID=2214

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:48, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 December 2018

In the article the reference to viruses is completely missing. Some evolutionary biologists see viruses as the precursor to cellular life (virus first hypothesis or fourth domain hypothesis), so that there are demands to search for viruses on other planets (for example Mars), not just cells. (see paper: https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/10.1089/ast.2018.1851). 2A02:810D:4AC0:2B90:F9B5:25CB:92B8:3CFC (talk) 08:28, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: - I agree that viruses should be mentioned (although not discussed too much per WP:NPOV as this is a minority viewpoint). However, you haven't made a specific request, so it's difficult to answer this request since you're the one who has the idea and not us. If you could post the text you'd like to have included here (with good sources) and say where you want it to go, I would be happy to add it. Feel free to post on my talk page to get my attention if you do this. A2soup (talk) 22:17, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

"Ceres has a thin water-based atmosphere"

Come on, are you serious? You can say sth similar about the Moon or planet Mercury. Those bodies just have exospheres, no thicker atmospheres that would be necessary for surface or atmospheric life. 212.186.15.191 (talk) 09:46, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Science Fiction - have you heard of it?

It is so ridiculous that not even in the See Also section
there is no mention of this being a major topic
of science fiction writing, art, movies, etc.
50.70.236.24 (talk) 06:28, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

It's in the lede, 3rd paragraph. What are you asking?--Dmol (talk) 06:47, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

I would add somewhere at the beginning of the article that there is no (or at least, insufficient) evidence of the existence of Extraterrestrial life. The Drake Equation is speculative. 2600:6C48:7006:200:B056:6066:1296:EF0B (talk) 22:17, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

The introduction already states such life is "hypothetical" and that the Drake equation is "speculative". Rowan Forest (talk) 23:12, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Recentism

@Brachney: Hello. Yes, the opinion by Green is WP:Recentism and has absolutely no informational value. The Mars 2020 rover will be launched next year and it will be focused on searching biosignatures. If the rover finds any, then NASA will make the announcement. That is the factual context. The headlines are click-bait that suggest they already found something that will be revealed soon. That is not accurate nor informational. In other words, his opinion that NASA is getting closer to discovery of life on Mars is only related to the readiness of the rover as the launch date approaches. Now, if what you find valuable in that news report is that he believes that humanity is not ready for ET, then it may be mentioned in that context at Potential cultural impact of extraterrestrial contact. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 16:26, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Earth just happens to have been lucky - enabling intelligent life to evolve

There is a minority opinion which maintains that our planet just happens to be extremely fortunate; i.e., advanced life developed only because Earth was blessed with a series of favourable astronomical and geological circumstances and events:

1. For example, compared with the size of its mother-planet, apart from the Pluto-Charon pair our moon is much bigger than all the other satellites in our Solar System. Because it is so massive, the moon’s gravity ensures that Earth’s axis of rotation does not undergo large fluctuations in its angle of inclination. Without that constraint, the variations in our surface temperature and in our climate would be insufferable, making it much more difficult for advanced life-forms to survive. In comparison, Mars only has two very tiny satellites, so its spin-axis is free to oscillate through a wide range of angles; thus, on a time-scale of millions of years Mars does not enjoy a stable climate.

2. Also helping to avoid extreme temperatures, is the fact that 70 percent of Earth’s surface consists of oceans, seas and lakes. That water is of course indispensable for life, and at the same time it guarantees that our summers will not be scorchingly hot, and that our winters are not impossibly cold. No other planet in our solar system has large areas of water on its surface. At the same time, we can be thankful that our planet does not have too much water. Without large continental land-masses, advanced terrestrial life (including human beings) would not have evolved. By a lucky chance, we could say, our land-sea proportion happens to be a good one. (It is difficult to imagine sub-marine creatures becoming capable of inter-stellar travel).

3. In the Solar System, the orbits of most planets (including ours) are almost circular. Astronomers have discovered thousands of planets belonging to other stars, and it seems that, in general, their orbits are markedly elliptical. Configurations like those would not remain stable, because the varying gravitational pull of the largest planets would disrupt the orbits of the smaller ones (like ours).

Thus, advanced civilizations capable of rivalling ours are unlikely to be found close to our Solar System - perhaps not even in our own galaxy - thereby explaining the "Fermi Paradox".

There is only a very brief acknowledgement of this theory in the main article here: reference [190] cites Peter Ward and Donald Brownlee, together with a link to https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Rare_Earth_hypothesis#The_right_location_in_the_right_kind_of_galaxy

Other authors supporting this view include:

Paul Davies: The Eerie Silence: Searching for Ourselves in the Universe; (Wikipedia reference [1] links to an article which he wrote);

John Gribbin: Alone in the Universe: Why Our Planet is Unique; (the main page's "Further Reading" section mentions an article written by him);

Max Tegmark: Our Mathematical Universe. --DLMcN (talk) 10:39, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Intelligence may be uncommon, but life itself could still be common (especially microbial life). 24.51.242.175 (talk) 12:39, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

The theory is detailed in Rare Earth hypothesis. Cambalachero (talk) 20:39, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Extraterrestrial life

I think this subject is so fascinating cause when you think about it ,it sounds so unrealistic and fictional.But when you come to terms with it ,it's quite scary and curiously believable.The are about 4,000 exoplanets in 2,747 systems that have been identified, and other planets so as moons potentially host life such as microorganisms said by our experts.The question is are microorganisms dangerous? Philscie (talk) 18:12, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

830 myo potentially alive microorganisms?

On 6 May 2022, scientists reported the discovery of 830 million year old microorganisms in fluid inclusions within halite that may, potentially, still be alive. According to the researchers, "This study has implications for the search for life in both terrestrial and extraterrestrial chemical sedimentary rocks." - Drbogdan (talk) 22:02, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

References

Government responses

Do we really need that section? All subsections are tiny, just 1 or 2 small paragraphs about a time someone said something. And most of those times, it's either redundant or better suited for Unidentified flying object or Potential cultural impact of extraterrestrial contact. I propose to remove the subsections for specific countries, and focus instead on the international treaties (which are just listed, and may require a more in-depth description) and the policies of the space agencies towards this investigations. Cambalachero (talk) 15:02, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Mention in lead that extraterrestrial life not yet found

I agree that the lead should summarise the article body by saying explicitly that extraterrestrial life has not yet been found.

I therefore request that the old version

Extraterrestrial life, sometimes colloquially referred to as alien life, is life that may occur outside Earth and which did not originate on Earth. Such life might range from simple forms comparable to prokaryotes, to intelligent beings and even sapient beings, possibly bringing forth civilizations that might be far more advanced than humankind.

be replaced by the proposed new version (recently reverted)

Extraterrestrial life, sometimes colloquially referred to as alien life, is life that may occur outside Earth and which did not originate on Earth. No extraterrestrial life has yet been conclusively detected, although efforts are underway. Such life might range from simple forms comparable to prokaryotes, to intelligent beings and even sapient beings, possibly bringing forth civilizations that might be far more advanced than mankind.

Please consider. There is a natural human tendency to seek companionship out there in the universe, the final frontier, but that emotion should not compromise Wikipedia as an unemotional Spock-like source of information. Live long and prosper...2A00:23C6:549D:C301:B0AA:A4E9:B290:36F2 (talk) 10:12, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

There is already a paragraph that says "Since the mid-20th century, active research has taken place to look for signs of extraterrestrial life, encompassing searches for current and historic extraterrestrial life, and a narrower search for extraterrestrial intelligent life. Depending on the category of search, methods range from the analysis of telescope and specimen data[9] to radios used to detect and send communication signals.". Cambalachero (talk) 12:58, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Presumably you are referring to the brief passage "although efforts are underway". We could indeed omit those four words, but then the subsequent sentence "Such life etc" would sound disjointed.2A00:23C6:549D:C301:B0AA:A4E9:B290:36F2 (talk) 13:50, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

No, the whole added text would be redundant with it. If we are searching for alien life, it's clear that we have not found any alien life yet. Cambalachero (talk) 14:03, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

It was not clear to me from reading the lead. Be that as it may, the lead needs to summarise the main points of the article, and one main point of the article is that extraterrestrial life has not yet been discovered. 2A00:23C6:549D:C301:B0AA:A4E9:B290:36F2 (talk) 14:17, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps our disagreement is a generation problem, if you are young. Until the 1970s, astronomy textbooks were widely reporting that green patches on Mars represent vegetation. And even a few years ago, nanostructures in a Martian meteorite, and methane releases into Mars' atmosphere, were published, scientifically, as probable signs of life. The lead needs to be crystal clear here. 2A00:23C6:549D:C301:B0AA:A4E9:B290:36F2 (talk) 14:21, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

As Cambalachero rightly states, there is already text that refers. You should not delete until all discussion are finished. Regards, David J Johnson (talk) 16:53, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

The lead sounds as if it was written by an enthusiastic child hoping there are aliens out there. I understand where you two are coming from (I was young once), but it is an embarrassment to Wikipedia, and puts off the intelligent reader. Please do the right thing and make it sound more professional, by implementing the proposed sober factual sentence that extraterrestrial life has so far not been detected. 2A00:23C6:549D:C301:B0AA:A4E9:B290:36F2 (talk) 18:21, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Actually, I'm a supporter of the Rare Earth hypothesis, as that sounds to me the most reasonable conclusion to the available data; but I don't let my personal beliefs get in the way of my edits to the articles. And I suppose I do a good job at that, because you're not the first one who accuses me of believing things that I don't. Having said that, our personal backgrounds are of no concern here: redundancy is redundant, and it should be avoided simply because of that. Cambalachero (talk) 18:44, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Loads of prebiotic molecules found in Milky Way?

FWIW - (For being aware only of newly published relevant studies - not necessarily to incorporate into the main article) - On 8 July 2022, astronomers reported the discovery of massive amounts of prebiotic molecules, including for RNA, in the galactic center of the Milky Way Galaxy. - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 13:05, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

References

Drbogdan (talk) 13:05, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Better "short description" of "ET life"?

@GhostInTheMachine and Kitchen Knife: (and others) - My newly added short description for "Extraterrestrial life" has been "reverted" - my short description of "Extraterrestrial life" was => "Life in the universe outside of life on Earth" - and replaced the older description (ie, "Life that did not originate on Earth"). This older description would suggest, for instance, that newly created life-forms on the "International Space Station" may be considered "Extraterrestrial life" since such life-forms may have been newly created in space and not on Earth in fact - my newer short description (ie, "Life in the universe outside of life on Earth") seems clearer - "Extraterrestrial life" means, by definition, that there is no relationship whatsoever with life on planet Earth - in addition, my newer short description seems more consistent with the related "Encyclopedia Britannica" definition => "Extraterrestrial life [is] life that may exist or may have existed in the universe outside of Earth" - Comments Welcome - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 13:30, 15 October 2022 (UTC) Drbogdan (talk) 13:30, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

ADD - @BD2412, Cambalachero, Chiswick Chap, Cyclopia, Dekimasu, Dunkleosteus77, Huntster, PaleoNeonate, Paul H., Snow Rise, Tgeorgescu, Vchimpanzee, and Viriditas:
If possible (and if interested), related "Comments Welcome" regarding Short Description of "Extraterrestrial life" - in any case - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 16:27, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

The older description is fine. The life on the ISS originated on earth, that it has changed and evolved on the ISS makes no difference to its origins. Leave it in the original form until you can get a consensus for change. That is how these things are normally done.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 15:44, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Exactly, well said. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:31, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

"Outside" is a spatial term. It was useful a pair of centuries ago, but now that we can leave the planet, and even take other lifeforms with us, it is not enough to set the distinction. "Originate" has the problem that it can lend itself to interpretation. We all use it to mean the species, but it can also be understood to be the individual. I'm sure that the day a baby is born in a base on Mars or the Moon everybody will call him an "extraterrestrial", even if he's not. And the ISS is not a stable environment (in some years its orbit will decay and it will fall back to the planet), but what if we left a lot of extremophiles on Mars, an extinction event takes place here, and they have some millions of years to thrive undisturbed and evolve their own way? Would they still be terrestrial life? Perhaps not.

I propose "Hypothetical life unrelated to life on Earth" Cambalachero (talk) 23:42, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

I also favor the older version: "life in the universe outside of life on Earth" is fairly cumbersome in its wordiness and flow, even to the point of having notable cognitive load. The difference isn't massive, but a short description ought to be instantaneously easy to parse, and "life originating on earth" or something to that effect, is the most instantly recognizable idiomatic phrasing for describing this topic. And personally, I don't think the syntactic issue with "originates" the OP sees in the wording is likely to be an issue for even relatively uninformed readers: I think it's fairly clear that when we talk about such life in the context of the ISS (or even anything moving beyond the mesosphere or even LEO or HEO), when we say it "originates" from earth, we are talking about the organism as a lifeform, not the particular specimen in question. Who knows if the day may come (perhaps even faster than we expect) where an organism may alter so significantly in some observable evolutionary aspect that we will perhaps have to really start to consider new and more nuanced wording here--but even then, when I say "we", I mean humanity and scientific nomenclature broadly, not we as the editors on this article. Because ultimately this still has to come down to a WP:WEIGHT call, and in my opinion, "life originating on Earth" seems to me the obvious choice in those terms, and likely to stay that way for some time to come. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 00:39, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Comment - As OA of this discussion re a "better" short description of "ET life", Thanks to all those who contrtibuted - it's appreciated - seems the original short description of "ET life" (ie,Life that did not originate on Earth) may be preferred at this time - this is *entirely* ok with me - no problem whatsoever - however - the discussion may be a bit more interesting if one were to consider a definition of "Life" itself - not easy - there are "many, many different attempts" to define "Life", but an easy worthy definition may be "somewhat challenging" (over 123 different definitions?) - a short description of "ET life" may be related - incidentally, "my current preferred definition" of "Life" is a "chemical that is able to reproduce itself" - and seems supported by some - [NOTE - the aforementioned definition is broad - a Virus may be considered Life since a virus would be a chemical that can reproduce itself - in spite of the fact that the needed reproducing function (mechanism) is provided by (hijacked from) some host entity and that is not contained within itself] - "NASA" currently prefers "a self-sustaining chemical system capable of Darwinian evolution" - [NOTE - this definition is less broad - a Virus may NOT be considered Life since essential parts may be missing, and require a needed host entity to provide any missing parts - especially those parts needed in reproducing itself] - nonetheless - exactly how "viruses", "viroids", "virusoids", "prions", "biochemcal precursors to life", etc, enter into the definition(s) of life is unclear afaik at the moment - perhaps how such life/non-life(?) substances enter into a short description of "ET life" may be even less clear I would think - in any case - these concerns informed my attempt to find a better short description of "ET life" on this talk-page - Thanks again for all your comments - and - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 15:35, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

The status of viruses, prions etc has always been a problem because they don't have a metabolic system, which is usually seen as a problem. There will be a big upheaval in the system if life is discovered on Mars and seems to be part of the same tree as life on Earth, as the gravity well makes it far more likely that life moved from Mars to Earth not vice versa making us all extraterrestrial. Any form of Panspermia is going to mean the entire question needs to be revised. The ability of life to survive on the outside of the ISS suggests panspermia is possible.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 16:23, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

For crying out loud, people, it's a short description. It's meant to be a quick identifier of the topic of the article, not a catch-all that handles every possible subtlety -- see WP:SDNOTDEF. The current "Life that did not originate on Earth" is perfectly fine. Slightly better still would be: "Life not originating on Earth" -- a bit less wordy even. All this nonsense about panspermia and all these refs are smoke and mirrors. This isn't complicated. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 16:34, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Oh, and if folks want to add a qualifier of "hypothetical" at the beginning, that would be fine too. Either way, really. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 16:39, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

My comments about panspermia were not intended to change the definition but just some point for discourse, as any reasonably intelligent person would have been able to tell. Try to pay attention.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 16:42, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

The conversation appears to be heading in the right direction, but as a non-American speaker of English I just ask, if we do end up using the word "outside", please don't attach the completely unnecessary word "of" to it. In case Americans don't know, it's actually seen as bad English outside their country. HiLo48 (talk) 23:46, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

References

Recent bad source

I'm sort of dismayed that we actually have to discuss this, but if so, then here it is. The recent source that was added (this article from The Guardian) should not be in the lead. Per WP:LEADCITE, "Because the lead will usually repeat information that is in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. Leads are usually less specific than the body, and information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source [...]".

This was a case of a source in search of text, rather than the other way around, and this is not how sources should be added. The text in the lead was a very very broad, general statement which is gone into in much more detail in the body of the article with dozens of appropriate citations for more specific aspects. The Guardian article, on the other hand, was much more specific, talking mostly about missions to some of the Jovian moons. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 16:07, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

I cannot agree with your rather aggressive attitude and your constant hiding behind a IP number, rather than creating an account - so that we may something about you; your interests and motivations. Having said that would you be happy if the Guardian story was referenced in the Jupiter and moons section further in the page text? I am trying to resolve what I, and others, consider the Guardian article to be relevant to the page. Regards, David J Johnson (talk) 17:06, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Embargo?

I was checking the sources and the first one at the Exoplanets section, this one, says "EMBARGO NOTICE: All information provided on this page and its links is embargoed until Wed 25-Jan, 18:00 GMT". What is that even supposed to mean? Cambalachero (talk) 19:12, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

David Grusch UFO whistleblower claims

There should be an article around the leadup to David Grusch's Whistleblower claims on this page and his claims Nabotor (talk) 18:55, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Mmm? That article already exists: David Grusch UFO whistleblower claims. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 19:57, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Enceladus - more possible life chemicals found?

NOTE: May not be worth addng to the main extraterrestrial life article (after all, no such life has yet been found), but perhaps worth being aware of the latest related news about extraterrestrial life chemicals found in the solar system?

On 14 December 2023, astronomers reported the first time discovery, in the plumes of Enceladus, moon of the planet Saturn, of hydrogen cyanide, a possible chemical essential for life as we know it, as well as other organic molecules, some of which are yet to be better identified and understood. According to the researchers, "these [newly discovered] compounds could potentially support extant microbial communities or drive complex organic synthesis leading to the origin of life."

References

Drbogdan (talk) 17:48, 15 December 2023 (UTC)