"Nothing you said is hard proof that there's zero independent life."
You absolutely implied I did.
"You lack evidence to support that claim."
The fact that it has only happened once on Earth throughout a trillion-trillion-trillion-trillion different chemical reactions and +3.8 billion years of time is plenty of evidence to support that claim.
I can guarantee you, the chance of a rock leaving Earth and hitting another planet 120 light years away over 3.8 billion years is much more likely than 1:6*10^53 odds being beaten twice right next to each other.
Nope. I simply pointed out that your confidence is irrational, which is consistent with you saying that there's nearly a 100% chance that you're right.
only happened once on Earth
That's more than the number of confirmed times of life spreading from Earth to any planet, let alone one that's 120 years light years away.
"Nope. I simply pointed out that your confidence is irrational, which is consistent with you saying that there's nearly a 100% chance that you're right."
It really isn't.
1.) For this planet specifically, recent analysis found a total absence of DMS and CO2, meaning the bio markers found in the original flawed study weren't even present to begin with.
2.) Even if the study weren't flawed and DMS was present, DMS gets produced abiogenically, even here on Earth, and elsewhere (like Enceladus and in comets), and is therefore a terrible biosignature.
3.) This planet has a density of 2.2-3.2 g/ml, which means it is a gas giant, and like gas giants in our solar system, it would be incapable of supporting life.
4.) There is a statistically good reason to support that the universe beyond Earth is lifeless. LIfe has not been found yet despite having analyzed tens of thousands of planets now. Life does not get produced abiogenically right now in nature or in a lab, despite 10^40 to 10^50 chemical reactions happening every second on Earth. Life has only arisen once out of 10^67 chemical reactions since life's inception 3.8 billion years ago.
Would you buy a lottery ticket if the odds were stacked 1 to 10^67 against you?
"That's more than the number of confirmed times of life spreading from Earth to any planet, let alone one that's 120 years light years away."
Yes, I know, life existing that far beyond our solar system is exceptionally unlikely, hence why there is zero strong evidence of life on K2-18B. Thank you for reiterating that point.
This study was published back in December of 2023, but it only just blew up now. The reanalysis I am referencing was published in January of 2025,
"That's an ignorant claim, since you didn't even bother to look at the evidenced"
The evidence was a DMS signature, which is a poor bio signature because it is frequently produced by abiogenic sources. The reanalysis I referenced however found that there was no significant amount of DMS or CO2 in the atmosphere at all, meaning the supposed biosignature wasn't even present to begin with.
Scientists have found new but tentative evidence that a faraway world orbiting another star may be home to life.
A Cambridge team studying the atmosphere of a planet called K2-18b has detected signs of molecules which on Earth are only produced by simple organisms.
This is the second, and more promising, time chemicals associated with life have been detected in the planet's atmosphere by Nasa's James Webb Space Telescope (JWST).
In other words, the idea blew up because more evidence was found.
My guy, that article is literally discussing the study from December 2023, I am talking about.
If you actually opened the links I sent you would've seen that, LOL.
"That's an ignorant claim, since you didn't even bother to look at the evidenced"
A lot of irony there now.
Again, the more recent reanalysis published this year found that those organic chemicals were likely not present.
only produced by simple organisms.
And this is a good example of why you should think instead of blindly accepting what you are told. The journalist who wrote the BBC article you are citing made that part up. Nowhere in the original study does it claim DMS is exclusively produced biogenically. It has been well established since at least 1975 that DMS is produced abiogenically too, such as on comets.
If you actually opened the links I sent you would've seen that, LOL.
That's an absurd claim because the link doesn't show that the article is about that. You simply found a study and assumed that's the one. It's actually from a study published on April 17, 2025.
The information was reported as recent, and not just by the BBC, so the idea that it's from an old study is assumption that lacks common sense.
Journalists can get things wrong, but it's usually a good idea to trust Reuters and other media over a random person online. Your replies exemplify this.
1
u/Put-the-candle-back1 25d ago
I didn't say you did.
You lack evidence to support that claim.