Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber
As I said, this is a recent discovery and I am very sure about it, no confusions on my part.
Scientists Find The First Animal That Doesn't Need Oxygen to Survive
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The answer isn't 42, but it's close...
- Thread starter beenherebeforeagain
- Start date
Scientists Find The First Animal That Doesn't Need Oxygen to Survive
Meh...scientists gonna science.
It's all about them grants cheques, baby.
Ultimately we have to be better (as a species) at understanding what a headline like this really means.
Imran, I know you get it, but some seem not to.
It will soon become vacant. He appears to be getting his double-talk skills ready for a career in politics.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
It's all Marvin's fault.Not 42?!
Nooooo! My life is ruined...
74x12
Well-Known Member
Likely a contrived number according to numerology rules same with the number 42.
Both numbers are 6 significant obviously. 6x6 and 7x6. 7 being the number of completion. One full week. And so you have completion tied with the number 6.
36 is also an interesting number because if you add every number from 1 - 36 together you end up with 666.
Triplet of any number is to strengthen it or magnify it according to Biblical rules let every word be established by two or three witnesses.
That's why 11 is the master number. You multiply any number (1-9) by 11 you get it doubled in strength. Same principle applies with 111 but even stronger.
It was 42, but number 6 is rather aggressive and has gone a-ridin' into numbers 3, 7, 8, 19, 23 and 41's part of the galaxy, a whampin' and whompin' every livin' thing that moves within an inch of its life. Except the women folks, of course.
What about the children? Won't somebody think of the children??
I am not certain those six species had children in the sense we understand them. They all reproduced by a type of binary fission known locally as 'this buds for you'. Of course, this is all speculation I insist be regarded as established fact.
SA Huguenot
Well-Known Member
It took me about 3 days and 3 nights to check their calculations, and I found an error.
The true number of alien civilisations we can get into contact with is 43.
These scientists, they are so careless in checking what they say, they make silly mistakes.
They did not count life on Mars for instance, and making contact with some single cell organism will also count as alian live we contacted with.
As for intelligent, well how do we know the future one celled organism on Mars is not intelligent, perhaps even more intelligent than our best scientists?
But, I am not talking about this life form at all.
We had an encounter of the first kind in 1445BC
Then in 33AD
the next one is close.
Alien life was proven a long time ago.
The true number of alien civilisations we can get into contact with is 43.
These scientists, they are so careless in checking what they say, they make silly mistakes.
They did not count life on Mars for instance, and making contact with some single cell organism will also count as alian live we contacted with.
As for intelligent, well how do we know the future one celled organism on Mars is not intelligent, perhaps even more intelligent than our best scientists?
But, I am not talking about this life form at all.
We had an encounter of the first kind in 1445BC
Then in 33AD
the next one is close.
Alien life was proven a long time ago.
exchemist
Veteran Member
Ah OK, I see what you're thinking. The point of that article was it is an animal, i.e. the first complex multicellular organism to have been found that is an anaerobe. It has been known for a long while that life does not require free oxygen, but until recently all the examples were single celled organisms.
exchemist
Veteran Member
Would that be why Nigel Tufnell's amp goes up to 11, then?
exchemist
Veteran Member
Well I suppose all that assumption amounts to is an application of the principle of uniformitarianism. After all there is no reason to think the Earth is special. So it's not unreasonable, per se.
My uneasiness about the exercise is its untestability. As such it can only ever be a conjecture, rather than a scientific hypothesis. These conjectures grab headlines but give the public the wrong idea about science, I feel.
Extrapolating from a sample size of one? It seems to me that the operating "principle" is: "If it can happen it will." Maybe.
exchemist
Veteran Member
Yes I think's right. They assume if you have the right environment, suitable chemistry and enough time, then POOF.
But it is certainly an unverifiable assumption.
Last edited:
exchemist
Veteran Member
Er, well, more like 800 million to a billion years, I think. But not more than a billion, apparently.
Yep, I screwed up the math on that one. Actually, it's some three billion years of life cheerfully doing not very much before the advent of multicellular animals. We're a butterfly effect.
exchemist
Veteran Member
A nice point!The hypothesis isn't untestable...just not testable in anything less than [probably] several hundred to several thousand years...
It is in principle* testable, I suppose, in that signals could be received eventually by humanity to show these life forms were there.
*From "en principe, oui", a French expression meaning, "non" - to quote Walter J Moore, the author of my undergrad physical chemistry textbook.
I think it's important for scientists and lay readers alike to understand the time component in science...as well as the effort component...there are some who argue from "the Great Silence," ignoring that we 1) haven't been listening anywhere near long enough, and 2) haven't been listening to all of the radio, light and other EM frequencies available, and 3) haven't got nearly enough data about the origins of life and the development of intelligence and civilizations to make anything better than bald-faced guesses...but, it keeps the publish-or-perish crowd busy, and most of the articles like this rarely get read by more than a few hundred other people...A nice point!
It is in principle* testable, I suppose, in that signals could be received eventually by humanity to show these life forms were there.
*From "en principe, oui", a French expression meaning, "non" - to quote Walter J Moore, the author of my undergrad physical chemistry textbook.
Heyo
Veteran Member
There is one method to extrapolate from a sample size of one that I find reasonable. Time. By slicing up our one example into aeons, we can estimate the probabilities to find certain characteristics. We have life on earth for about 4 out of 4 and 1/2 billion years. The chance of finding life on an earth like planet is about 80%. Out of those 25% have multicellular life. (1 billion years out of 4) Out of those about 0.2% have intelligent life. (2 million out of 1 billion) Out of those 0.005% have the technology that we can detect. (100 years out of 2 million)
Plug those numbers into the Drake Equation and you get about 1 civilization per galaxy.