Building bocks, Chemicals and Life

[Subduction Zone]

Are we? As far as we know it takes generation one stars to form habitable planets. They aren't around for that long.

I thought our sun is a third generation star. Its been around for around 5 billion years.

Edit... With around 10 billions years left go.

Yes, I do believe that @Heyo may have made a mistake. It also takes at least a second generation star to form planets.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Astronomers are weird in that way as they count backwards. Their first generation stars are those which formed from exploded second generation stars. Silly nomenclature, possibly for hysterical reasons.

Darn, I was too fast. Yep, we are first generation star by that definition.

What would the very first stars be generation wise?

 

[We Never Know]

Astronomers are weird in that way as they count backwards. Their first generation stars are those which formed from exploded second generation stars. Silly nomenclature, possibly for hysterical reasons.

I don't know much about astronomybut what I read. And our sun is supposedly a third generation star that has been around for around 5 billion years with around 10 billions years left go.

 

[Heyo]

Darn, I was too fast. Yep, we are first generation star by that definition.

What would the very first stars be generation wise?

Third generation. And they were only hypothesised until recently JWST may have found one.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Okay a clarification. When I Googled "first generation stars" they are referred to the earliest stars. The proper terminology appears to be Population I, II, and III stars with III stars being the earliest:

Stellar population - Wikipedia

 

[Heyo]

I don't know much about astronomybut what I read. And our sun is supposedly a third generation star that has been around for around 5 billion years with around 10 billions years left go.

5 billion. After that it will leave the main sequence and become a red giant.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Third generation. And they were only hypothesised until recently JWST may have found one.

Yes, I found it while you were responding. And this may be an English/German problem. In English they would be Population III stars, but they would also be "first generation stars" the latter is not a scientific term.

 

[Brian2]

How so? That is what appears to have happened here. That it could only happen here in spite of the evidence that very similar conditions would exist elsewhere would be a statement of faith. That life could have arisen elsewhere is a conclusion based upon the available evidence.

If life had been synthesised by science from just chemicals then you could say that there is probably life elsewhere in the universe.
But it has not, so you cannot do that as a statement from the evidence, just as a statement of faith.
The argument from ignorance fallacy in this case is that since it has not been shown that God gave life, therefore it arose naturally......................... and so has arisen elsewhere in the universe.

 

[Subduction Zone]

5 billion. After that it will leave the main sequence and become a red giant.

Yeah. I might have to move by then. The good news is that my house will be worth more than that asteroid loaded with gold by that time.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If life had been synthesised by science from just chemicals then you could say that there is probably life elsewhere in the universe.
But it has not, so you cannot do that as a statement from the evidence, just as a statement of faith.
The argument from ignorance fallacy in this case is that since it has not been shown that God gave life, therefore it arose naturally......................... and so has arisen elsewhere in the universe.

No. We do not need to go that far. It is an unrealistic demand because life arising by abiogenesis could have easily have been a multi million year process. That may not be replicable in the laboratory. You are misunderstanding how evidence and knowledge would be applied in this case. And you are using a strawman so your claim of an argument from ignorance fallacy fails as well.

It is never wise to accuse others of one's own flaws.

 

[We Never Know]

5 billion. After that it will leave the main sequence and become a red giant.

Was doing some googling. it seems there is a little disagreement on whether our sun is second or third generation star.

If its third generation, it supposedly has 10 billion years left. Didn't find an answer of how long if its a second generation

 

[ChristineM]

Nope! This is it. The one and only earth.

If that is so the this universe is a awfully big waste of space

 

[Revoltingest]

And that can pretty much explain the Fermi Paradox. If interstellar travel is impractical then there will be no "aliens". That leaves long distance communication. And that appears to be very difficult to do. With odds like yours there may be only a few intelligent lives that come into existence in a galaxy. And they are unlikely to exist at the same time if intelligence does not guarantee long term survival. And even if it did the distance problems may make even detecting intelligent life an impossibility.

With all of the odds against intelligent life, and the problems with distance I do not see any paradox in a lack of communication.

IOW, the Fermi Paradox isn't a paradox at all.
It's a question with some good answers, ie,
interstellar life detection, communication, &
travel are very difficult.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

If life had been synthesised by science from just chemicals then you could say that there is probably life elsewhere in the universe.

We can say that anyway based on other evidence. If abiogenesis can occur, like every other chemical process, it will occur whenever the conditions are right for it, like ice melting.

Life is synthesized from chemicals every day, and it occurs in living cells without intelligent oversight. It is obviously just a matter of arranging the right ingredients in the right milieu. They bind together of their own accord.

But it has not, so you cannot do that as a statement from the evidence, just as a statement of faith.

No, faith is insufficiently justified or supported belief. It is perfectly reasonable to believe that if it happened once, it could have and probably did happen countless times, like every other possible physical process.

The argument from ignorance fallacy in this case is that since it has not been shown that God gave life, therefore it arose naturally.

And hopefully, very few people are making it. The proper claim is that since life is possible and actually exists on at least one planet, it may have arisen naturally there and if so, it may have arisen naturally elsewhere. Do you think you can refute that claim? I don't. I know I can't.

 

[Heyo]

Was doing some googling. it seems there is a little disagreement on whether our sun is second or third generation star.

If its third generation, it supposedly has 10 billion years left. Didn't find an answer of how long if its a second generation

Do you conflate that with a total life expectancy of 10 billion years? All I can find is that there are about 5 billion years left (which gives a total life expectancy of 10 billion together with the 5 that the sun already existed)?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Do you conflate that with a total life expectancy of 10 billion years? All I can find is that there are about 5 billion years left (which gives a total life expectancy of 10 billion together with the 5 that the sun already existed)?

Well, unless something dramatic happens to the Sun it is not scheduled to become anything else. Most III Population stars were probably rather short lived they would . They would have been the first stars to form when the universe was much denser. They were thought to me very large stars, which means that they would have had very short lives. This seems to be contradictory at first, but the larger a star is that means the stronger the gravitational force would be which would lead to a denser interior, that would be hotter and have a higher percentage of fusion reactions. The first stars would have formed when the universe was a mere 100 million years old or so.

The First Stars and Galaxies - Department of Physics and Astronomy - Uppsala University, Sweden.

Many of those would have gone supernovae in record time, perhaps only a few million years:

How Do Stars Die and How Long Do Stars Live?

And stars like ours will go red giant but then slowly fade towards a black dwarf. At least theoretically. The universe is too young to have any black dwarfs yet. That takes a loooooooooooooooooooooooong time.

 

[Brian2]

No. We do not need to go that far. It is an unrealistic demand because life arising by abiogenesis could have easily have been a multi million year process. That may not be replicable in the laboratory. You are misunderstanding how evidence and knowledge would be applied in this case. And you are using a strawman so your claim of an argument from ignorance fallacy fails as well.

It is never wise to accuse others of one's own flaws.

So the argument from ignorance fallacy only applies to me but not to you even when you fit the criteria?
Hmmm.

 

[Brian2]

We can say that anyway based on other evidence. If abiogenesis can occur, like every other chemical process, it will occur whenever the conditions are right for it, like ice melting.

Life is synthesized from chemicals every day, and it occurs in living cells without intelligent oversight. It is obviously just a matter of arranging the right ingredients in the right milieu. They bind together of their own accord.

You are making the hypothesis of abiogenesis into a proven fact even before it has been proven.

No, faith is insufficiently justified or supported belief. It is perfectly reasonable to believe that if it happened once, it could have and probably did happen countless times, like every other possible physical process.

So all you need to show is that it happened once.

And hopefully, very few people are making it. The proper claim is that since life is possible and actually exists on at least one planet, it may have arisen naturally there and if so, it may have arisen naturally elsewhere. Do you think you can refute that claim? I don't. I know I can't.

I doubt that I can refute that claim, but I was not refuting that proposal. I was refuting the claim that because it exists on earth that means it does exist elsewhere. That is a claim that life did begin without a life giver. It is a claim of faith and not of science.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So the argument from ignorance fallacy only applies to me but not to you even when you fit the criteria?
Hmmm.

No, you do not even know what the argument from ignorance fallacy is. It is made when one only has no evidence against one's beliefs but no evidence for it. There is scientific evidence for life on other planets. It was even brought up here. You probably did not understand it.

 

[Heyo]

I doubt that I can refute that claim, but I was not refuting that proposal. I was refuting the claim that because it exists on earth that means it does exist elsewhere. That is a claim that life did begin without a life giver. It is a claim of faith and not of science.

It is a claim that results from a basic axiom of science. Scientists believe in an orderly universe. I.e. that the laws of nature are the same, independent of space or time. Deviations and exception must have reasons and must be evidenced.
Magical thinking allows for exceptions without reason or evidence.