if you were smart enough to figure out what colour plants could be due the result of the orbit of a certain star. than any lifeform with the technology to get that clear an image from a telescope light years away could figure it out as well.
@thoughtpattern0 Not with a single picture like that. They'd have to do a spectral analysis of the star and look for appropriate results in a spectral analysis of the planet. And even then, they'd be playing in probabilities. Remember his claim: green automatically means life, and anyone who says otherwise is an idiot deserving of the most immature mocking on YouTube.
I thought what colour would water or the main liquid from the planet be? could it be reflected through space to be seen by our eyes ... could our visions of colours be related to the life we have absorbed so in someone else's eyes colours would be different? imagination of science in the mind ..
To be fair, you could use the color of a planet as a clue to if there's life there if you consider the type of star. But yes, color alone wouldn't necessarily mean life.
I get what you are saying but in light of what you have just said, if I see a particular color on a particular planet then maybe I would make the extra effort to examine the planet's star's spectrum. So, the answer would be dependent on a correlation between the spectrograph of the planets star and the planet's surface. It may not be green but the color it could be isn't a mystery.
@jskokonas Sure, but again, that wasn't the claim I was debunking. The claim I was debunking was that you can't see life just by looking through a telescope. You'd probably want to do a lot of other things, too, like look for oxygen, or look for radio transmissions of an intelligent, technological species.
@shanedk What I meant is that in the nation of England they found crops resemble a similar coding to Arecibo message as I said watch the video "The Arecibo message ANSWERED?" it's a plan for your next episode on Bogisty.
@shanedk Back in 1974 Carl Sagen transmitted a signal that was sent 25,000 light years for some odd reason extraterrestrials contacted back in 2001 not that I believe in it, watch the video called "The Arecibo message" ANSWERED?
@n64wilbert you do realize if they transmitted a signal to a location 25,000 light years away, with the signal sent out in 1974, by 2001 the signal would be only 0.108% of the way to its location, right? . . .
You are assuming the absolute ignorance of the aliens. If they see green, they would not just assume life or non-life based on visual recognition alone, massive copper deposits on the surface would be a very rare thing to encounter, so spectrographic analysis would be done. Also, spectral analysis of the sun would tell them which colors would be selected for, should there be life. Everything you mention would be something the aliens would check for. Just like we are checking other planets.
@Wraithofvolsunga That was the ignorance of the person I was responding to: that merely seeing the color green tells you that there's life.
Realistically speaking, I would think that, long before they got around to doing a spectrographic analysis, they would find that this planet is absolutely buzzing with radio communications.
@Wraithofvolsunga Intresting fact is no one yet able to give any evidence in support of how chlorophyll was evolved.No satisfactory scientific explanation of it,why chlorophyll has evolved to "ignore" green and near-green light, which are a major part of the visible spectrum. see en.wikipedia/wiki/Chlorophyll .Without chlorophyll no higher life could ever possible on earth beyond bacteria,think on it, why so called supporters of blind evolution not able to answer it yet? THINK & let me know
Chlorophyll was a protobacteria which formed a symbiotic relationship with early cell structures. This symbiotic relationship developed into the organelle structure we see in plants and some bacteria today. Natural selection caused the ignoring of green light, because it is the most efficient. If you take the time to look, you'll find that we've already filled that gap of your "god of the gaps" argument.
@Wraithofvolsunga really..give me any reference from internet supporting evolutionary evidence why and how Chlorophyll was evolved. i am talking about here evolutionary evidence why chlorophyll was evolved. and why it happened in plants only why not in fish, animals and birds etc. why not all bacteria followed to developed chlorophyll? when you say evolution is blind and random then why not we ever found single example of chlorophyll evolved life forms i mentioned. i need solid scientific reason
@shanedk Because the chloroplasts merged with the cells after the ancestral cells of plants and animals diverged..
I C how you know it. any authentic scientifc proof before this assumption? FYI chlorophyll evolved first, than any higher life form, so chances are same that some chlorophyll containing bacteria evolved to animals, birds or humans. so your assumption is wrong.
Because evolution is a nested hierarchy and doesn't jump lines...
@woleez "FYI chlorophyll evolved first, than any higher life form"
As I tried to explain to you earlier, there are no "higher life forms"--that's the earlier garbage that Darwin disproved. Chlorophyll evolved in the form of cyanobacteria, and it was a population of those bacteria that merged with the cells that became plant cells. They didn't "evolve" into plants; they merged with those particular eukaryotes.
@shanedk in begning only microbes/green algae,modified our atmosphere breathable to sustain life. no one on earth yet able to give any valid explanation or evolutionary pressure for evolving chlorophyll. this is my primary question.
youtube is encylopedia of science and knowledge, also try google. send me any material you find on "theory of evolving of chlorophyll, or what factors or evolutionary pressure resulted in evolution of chlorophyll. if you cant then dont defend this theory PERIOD
@woleez "in begning only microbes/green algae,modified our atmosphere breathable to sustain life"
Um, no. Algae are eukaryotes; they didn't evolve until later. It was cyanobacteria that did it, like I said. Stop pretending like you know what you're talking about.
"no one on earth yet able to give any valid explanation or evolutionary pressure for evolving chlorophyll."
Bullshit. Richard Dawkins, for one, has written extensively about it, and I gave you a link to LOTS of scientific sources.
@woleez "why not all bacteria followed to developed chlorophyll?"
See, this is the problem of you and most creationsits: you're still stuck in the ancient Aristotilian idea of a great chain of life, a concept adopted by Christian dogma. Evolution is NOT a line, and there's NOT an order from lesser to greater that evolution follows. Darwin disproved all of that. This question shows you just don't understand that evolution is a nested hierarchy and we wouldn't expect any such thing to happen.
@shanedk HERE we go... whenever some one cant answer an valid argument rationally and logicallys starts blaming.. it always happens.. you are not the first one.. i just asked a simple question, i need a simple logical answer.. if you have it i will welcome it and accept it.. if you dont have then stop replying.. i have a question for you, why you believe on something that logics dont supports? or why you believe on what you cant prove by logic or reasoning??? THINK
@woleez But reality ISN'T as simple as that. Your questions contained invalid assumptions, meaning that the only proper way to answer them is to attack the assumptions. And this has been done. Evolution does NOT work the way you think it does, and you need to understand that.
@woleez The video says why: because the amount of energy they would get from absorbing the green light wouldn't be worth the costs of producing the pigment. Again, we know perfectly well how and why chlorophyll evolved the way it did.
So what would be the resulting color of the most advantageous chlorin for Earth? Let's say that scientists are genetically engineering plants or something of the sort.
Your making the assumption that chlorophyl is the most effective one for earth. I doubt having the ability to absorb all light which would not arise earth due to a lack of environmental pressures such as survival of the fittest, would not be more advantageous on earth, and that given logic it would not be green.
@dookiecheez *facepalm* do you know what you are saying? Earth already has "environmental pressures" for chlorophyl. The result is Green. That is the most dominant chlorophyl. (if it wasn't we would have had plants with different colored chlorophyl) If you change the parameters of Earth then you won't have Earth. i,e color of sunlight or changing or Earth atmosphere to more argon
Do you realize what I AM SAYING. How clearly do I have to spell this out. The current forms we have on earth are not perfect, every species has the capacity to gain more efficient and beneficial traits and genes. What would those be given earth such that pressures that would not arise on earth somehow occurred. I sincerely doubt chlorophyll is the utmost perfection achievable. I would appreciate it if you would read what I write before continuing to talk down to me.
@dookiecheez wait what? You are mixing local and global evolution. the most dominant chlorophyll on the planet is the green coloration in plants. The efficiency of it depends on local weather patterns. That is why we have the diversity in leaf design for instance (compare a palm tree with a oak). On a global scale If all the plants had purple chlorophyll they would be less efficient on Earth than the Green ones (because of our sunlight) That is why we don't have purple chlorophyll in abundance.
@dookiecheez "The current forms we have on earth are not perfect"
They're more perfect than anything humans have been able to do. Plants can use something like 99.9% of the energy from the sunlight that hits them. We don't have anything anywhere NEAR that level of efficiency. Evolution over millions of years selected these chlorins to be as efficient as it possibly can be.
Thank you, the efficiency is very relevant. I take it from your comment that no artificial environmental pressures, even hypothetical ones, would produce a chlorin that would be more effective for Earth that would not result in a green coloration.
On the Science Channel this is talked about a lot. I have seen at least four shows that are specifically about life on other planets and how it would differ from life on earth, including, the differences in the chlorophyll. I find it amazing that there are people who don't know, or understand, this basic concept.
I’m not claiming Aliens exist, and even if it was possible to look at colours to find life on planets, it does not mean Aliens can see colours as we do. It could be possible for Aliens to see a different spectrum of light, Aliens could be what we would call colour blind. =)
I concluded you was going on the basis of someone’s claim, green stuff means life, but I was just shedding more light on the subject. I actually know someone who sees no different in the colours of red and green, both colours are the same colour of red. =)
@Destroyer470 There's no particular reason to assume that a planet orbitting a sun-like star would necessarily have green plants. After all, the vascular plants on land evolved from green alga, but there are also red and brown alga groups that could have been the forerunners of land plants but weren't, and there are other photosynthetic bacteria with other pigment systems that could have been incorporated into algal cells.
The biochemist George Wald has suggested that chlorophyll may be widespread in the Universe despite its inefficiencies. Point taken about different star types
@odenskrigare That strikes me as being rather unlikely, given that I can think of at least 3 other pigment systems that are used in photosynthesis by organisms on Earth, 2 of which are used by other groups of plants. (Admittedly, neither of the other plant groups colonized land, but it's hard to colonize the land when there already are vascular plants there.)
If you Google 'George Wald chlorophyll' or something you'll find his explanation of why he thinks chlorophyll may be common. I'm not a biochemist so I can't articulate his position well but I thought it was interesting if not uncontroversial. (Also, I wonder how albedo plays into pigment selection.)
@odenskrigare The results of that search are not encouraging. Wald's quoted statements indicate a distinct threat of Earth-chauvinism. For instance, he is quoted as saying words to the effect that biochemistry is going to be essentially the same everywhere. That's true in one sense (all life has the same basic challenges to address) but false in all the important ones (specifically, all independent biologies are going to take randomly selected approaches to the problems).
I don't know. Given that we see a lot of the same life precursors in inorganic interstellar clouds one wonders how much biochemical convergence is the case.
@odenskrigare Well, look at it this way: Earth life uses 20 amino acids, out of several thousand amino acids of similar size and chemistry. Some of the selections are likely because the molecule itself is pretty basic, but some are complex and clearly could be substituted easily. Similarly, we use 5 nucleotides (mostly, there are actually a few more in some tRNAs), out of several dozen.possible choices.
Right. There is diversity and constraint also. Would you at least agree that carbon is a more likely basis of cellular machinery than, say, silicon? Imagine trying to excrete lots of oxidized silicon as waste. Oh and didn't know tRNAs used other nucleotides until now. Goddamn.
@odenskrigare Carbon is definitely a more likely choice than silicon. It isn't just that silicon dioxide is vastly more difficult to dispose of than carbon dioxide, either. Silicon doesn't form such a wide variety of types of bonds nearly as easily as carbon.
I didn't learn much of the details of the unusual nucleotides in tRNAs until I got to upper-year genetics courses in university. Some of it is the mechanism the lets the wobble effect occur.
Right. Is it not true that silicon does not (naturally) form substantial polymers? And that bit about tRNA really is incredible. I need to look into it soon. My thoughts about life in other worlds in a nutshell: how much would we have to do to make it edible? lol
@odenskrigare We don't see silicon-based polymers forming easily under the kind of conditions that carbon-based polymers form, and I'm not sure that a silicon-based analog of a protein would work at all.
As for what we'd need to do to make alien life edible, it might vary from nothing to not being possible. Alien sugars are relatively likely to be edible, but alien proteins could be made of the wrong isomers for us to eat them, and there's no real fix for that.
@odenskrigare Denaturation changes the tertiary structure of the protein, but chirality is deeper than the primary structure, so it won't do a thing for this problem. SOME of the amino acids might be usable (Alanine, for instance, has no chirality and is so simple I can't imagine a protein system without it) but some of them might even be toxic (at least in some degree). After all, the ones we use can be toxic if the breakdown pathways for them aren't working properly.
as I am typing this, @ 7:41 PM mountain time (Colorado), I realize that not only is this a good video, but this video was rated 777 times-the same number as used in Kuwait to contact the police emergency.
The thought of a Red-Dwarf solar system where the plants are black on surrounding planets due to evolution sounds amazing (though it might be an ideal place to live as a species). Five-stars, and subscribed.
It might be the only option, though, as entropy causes the universe to wind down. The last life in the cosmos might be around those red dwarfs, which last so much longer.
Wauv, this is by far one of your best vidoes, shane.
it just blew my mind.
it expanded the borders of what i percieve reality....... that life can be and look like much more than what i believed, based on my biased earth-upbringing.
he mentioned explicitly that the color is tied to the spectral emission of the star.
so yes, a planet with life around a yellow-white star might well have green "plants".
but....
even if you found a green planet/green tinted, round a yellow-white star, you still have to rule out other possibilities (CuO2, green marble, ultrmafic rocks, high iron levels in an Ocean, malachite deposits, etc). once you eliminate every possibility, then you can assume that there may be life.
The spots that look greenish when viewed through a telescope by a human are usually grey in color.
The human visual system tries to do a white balance of the whole field of view. If you've got a red object with gray blotches, and nothing else, you'll likely see greenish tinges to the blotches, at least.
(I once had this happen in a bright hotel room. I marveled at how white it was when I came in. It wasn't until I looked at my computer's screen I realized it was light green.)
I respect your methods Shane, but you should be clearer in your statements. Scientists do use telescopes as a starting point to gather evidence. They of course cannot make a claim, lets say about Mars and life on it, just based on observing polar caps, but they can theorize that the potential was or is there based on limited evidence until more evidence is gathered. If you are going to pick apart peoples words be prepared to defend your own.
Yes, I understand that. But you are being sloppy. It also seems like you are trying to pick a fight by calling the man an idiot. I think you were being sloppy in your arguments. One may have suppositions that may lead to theory. I understand this man is ignorant of facts, but you repay him with insult and misquoting him. This does not win an argument. It only causes rancor.
Understand that this guy is NOT an ignoramus who's putting bogus stuff on the internet; he's someone who is DELIBERATELY out to attack my character and undermine me.
Yes, I understand that is irritating. But remember the old saying; the proof is in the pudding. Ignore the fool on your front lawn and he will move on to your neighbor. He is begging for attention. He doesn't really care if he wins an argument. He wants attention, that's all.
These clowns always crumble when asked to crunch some numbers. It is shocking to hear there are still people who claim the earth is the center of the solar system. LOL. Hang in there Shane.
Actually, he said we had not observed life anywhere else in the universe and we can see billions of stars. That is not exactly the same thing you said. You said "with a telescope" You made a leap of connecting the two statements. You most likely did this to clarify, but it is still not the same. In addition, the alien could look at the vast oceans and conclude that there is a possibility of life on Earth.
Am I wrong when I say that we cannot see those close-up pictures of other planets (yet), but we do know about the chlorophyll and what colour it should be around different stars. Logic tells me that any species capable of knowing how to look at other planets from that long a distance, does know about the chlorophyll and thus, they would have guessed which colour it SHOULD have, and then looked after. Am I wrong?
Well sorry if I'm a bit uneducated, I am only sixteen .
But Hydrogen is the most common element in the universe, after that comes helium (but it can't bind with anything) and third after that comes oxygen. That makes Water the MOST common molecule in the entire universe! // Andromedas Wake
Further on this, if this planets (plants) doesn't use water (the most common molecule in the universe) as it's main nourishment, it is a very low chance of this even happening.
Life--and water--existed on this planet for probably billions of years before there was chlorophyll. Chlorophyll isn't even soluble in water. So please explain what you're talking about.
Yet again, the chance of life developing without water is so close to zero that it is silly!
If there even is water and carbon there, the creatures build with this as a base will be much stronger and therefore, through natural selection, will live on.
It is possible to have life without liquid water. It was hypothesized that if there was life on Saturn's moon, it would live off of liquid methane because the temperature would be to cold to sustain liquid water. Although there was no life found on Titan, nor was there as much liquid methane as the scientists expected, there is still the distinct possibility that life could exist with methane. The only reason we look for water when we look for life is because we see it here on earth.
couldn't the aliens come to the conclusion that the planet supports life based on the type of star it revolves around and if they eliminate all other possibilities?
Keep in mind Shane's point that you'd need spectroscopic analysis to determine that there was a likelihood of biological origin. With JUST THE IMAGE you have no real idea what the surface composition actually is.
It is UNLIKELY that there would be THAT MUCH gold-thorium alloy on the surface, but you cannot eliminate the possibility just from the image, and you also cannot eliminate exotic minerals that you've never heard of because of quirks of local composition.
Shane, I'm no expert, so I could easily be wrong. But if I remember correctly, our Oceans are blue is a result of having an Oxygen-rich atmosphere that oxidized most of the dissolved metals out. And Oxygen, because it is so reactive, does not remain in those high concentrations unless something is continuously releasing more. And the only known mechanism that does this is photosynthesis (of whatever color). Thus, aren't blue bodies of liquid water a strong indicator of life?
Within the past year or two there was a TV show on Discovery Channel/History Channel about Earth's formation & history. I wish I could remember the name of the show for you. In one episode, they covered the formation of our Oxygen-rich atmosphere, and the composition of the Oceans.
Prior to the 'Great Oxygenation Event', the dissolved metals (especially Iron), would have made the Oceans a different color than they are today. Is this incorrect?
Intrigued by this question, I did some poking around, and the answer seems to be 'it depends', mostly on what ELSE is in the water as well.
If you're talking about a solution containing a wide range of simple organics in addition to the Fe2+, I expect it would be a sort of grayish cloudy color, since a fair number of organic compounds react to form a variety of colored complexes in the presence of dissolved metals.
no-you're dead on. the seas would have been green, mostly from reduced iron. the same phenomenon explains why deap sea clays-deposited anoxically, are also green.
once the iron was oxidised (which took a long time), the seas were relieved of iron, and the sea turned blue.
We know its life because we are from this planet, but plant life on other habitable planets (if they even used photosynthesis to make their energy) could have a different effect on the many different variables available, in this case it could be red like Mars. They could look at Mars and try to make the case that it has plant life because it is red but we know from fact that it does not, because we have examined it semi-thoroughly. On the surface it is just superficial, not enough evidence there
Narsil hits it on the head, and in fact scientists involved in the search for extraterrestrial life consider spectroscopy one of the things that would provide evidence for it. You pretty much outlined exactly why it would work too - evolution would cause plants to adopt colors closely suited to the light given off by their star. So it's not as simple as just seeing the color green, but seeing a planet covered in color closely suited to it's star's emission spectrum would be strong evidence.
You already said all you needed to say in a previous video anyway.... we can't see light from extrasolar planets (ok, we've seen a couple gas giants)... so far they are only detected by gravity. That's why even if plant/animal life is out there, we wouldn't expect to have found it yet.
Also, if it were copper, they'd know because it would have the precise emission spectrum of copper ions... ditto any misleading chemical you can think of...
Wouldn't they use their giant telescope and just look at our sun first and identify it's type, then using your same method look at Earth and think to themselves its green! there is probably plant life on that planet? Also how likely is it that most of a planet is covered with a green copper mix or green marble etc.?
I've gotten myself caught up with a decent bit of this, and from what I understand, MGK seems to just be slamming at the tiniest of details (and even getting his own corrections wrong multiple times) just because he doesn't like your political views, correct?
I've skimmed their forums, and even a fair share of LoR seems to agree MGK is something of a nitpicking douche. That handful that ran you off probably just can't deal with differing viewpoints. They'd rather agree and high five all day.
The reason we see the 510 nm wavelength of light as green, is also grounded in evolution. Lots of animals don't see 510 nm wavelength of light as green, but very different, in "shades of black and white" or not at all.
Aliens would surely have evolved under different circumstances, and thus may experience 510 nm light waves differently from us, as their "nature" is not the same as ours, giving natural selection different benefits.
Hm, I don't think that would be an argument. Ignoring the video and assuming all chlorophyl were green, it might look different to aliens than it does to us, but nevertheless the picture of our planet would look the same colour as their plants.
A minor, but important point: Chlorophyll is GOING to be green everywhere in the universe, because that's the color those specific molecules ARE. The point is that Chlorophyll is only 2 pigments out of an almost limitless array of POSSIBLE pigments that COULD be used to harvest light.
Just here on Earth, we have no less than three distinct, independent acquisitions of photo-receptive pigments in algae: The red, green, and brown algae. Only the green lineage produced vascular plants on land.
But, a question as to the last part of it. You described how evolution would produce certain colors of plants around certain stats. Doesnt that mean we could look at a planet, and knowing the type of star it gets its energy from, predict the color we expect plants to have?
I mean, couldnt an alien look at our sun and conclude that plants on earth would be green, and that therefore, the image it sees of our earth suggests there is life?Not prove it, just...make it likely, maybe?
Maybe, if their light were significant enough, like the fictional Blue Planet of Metebelis 3 on Doctor Who. The moonlight there is blue, and if that light were significant, plants might evolve more of those pigments to keep generating energy throughout the night.
I agree with what this guy says but I think he goes about it in a completly arrogant self-obsessed narcisstic manner, which will only cause division rather than uducating the uneducated.
do you have to call everyone else "idiots" how retarded are you? Can't you be a proper fucking journalist not a hateful little troll, the only persons idiocy you are highlighting is your own,
he has that attitude because of morons firing the same bullshit at him and his peers constantly. you'd b like that two if u had morons who know nothing telling you that you're wrong and they're right on a regular basis.
I partially agree with you. But seriously, tell me, when have you ever seen a creationist respond respectably to civility? When have you ever seen a creationist stop responding with baseless assertions when not treated this way? By my experience, stubborn idiots do not respond to a civil approach.
The idiot that he referenced responded to the video this guy refuted with the video he refuted once again. That ought to tell you something.
A few months ago, I left a negative comment for AndromedasWake after he made an obnoxious video debunking a crazy geocentrist. I didn't like the way he charmlessly belittled the guy. It was juvenile narcissistic wounding no matter how deluded he was.
Now, I don't like the attitude in this vid either.
So it seems fitting that shanedk has clashed with A'wake after this vid. 2 narcissists calling each other idiots. Voices of reason? Hardly.
exactly. He was talking about chlorins and the color of the plants to answer the question why cant we see life from a telescope... we have seen very few planets, mainly we are looking for water (blue), could be hidden or not visible and so on but noooo the purple plants is what counts! his answer was closer to mysticism and proving his ego than to a logical argument. douchebag..
and as an answer to why they wouldnt recognize that earth has life from the green color the answer is that our blue oceans would give them a strong indication of life here and thats the best you can have from a picture.. but again nooo he preferred to answer about chlorins and purple plants... are you familiar with ocams razor?
I disagree with this video as the argument against the "aliens" judgement is too absolute. A telescope powerful enough to resolve that image would also be powerful enough to allow the spectra to be analysed to indicate the prescense of Chlorins (in this case chlorophyll), although another alien's planet may use a different chlorin in its ecosystem any alien capable of making such a telescope would also understand the effect of a sun's light output.
Yes, but just from looking at Earth, seeing green... that does not mean that their first thoughts would be "LIFE!" Which, was the point of the previous video.
"Again, I'm going off the claim. The claim is, look at stars through telescopes,"
The problem I have with the claim is when looking at planets in other solar systems from earth, no one actually looks with their eyes. For instance, the light might be to faint to see. So they track the planet and record light over a period of time on to film or some recording medium.
If the recording device is of sufficient quality and design, you can do spectrographic analysis (and possibly find life).
"the only way we HAVE looked at most of those is through telescopes!"
Yes, through telescopes which focus light onto a recording medium over a period of time. And we probably have spectra of most of those stars.
But, looking at a star doesn't tell about life on a planet. You have to actually look at the planet to do that.
I think your definition of "look" is confusingly restrictive on a cosmological scale. I think most would accept spectra as satisfying the word "look" in this context.
Again, I'm JUST responding to Pawel's claim. HE is the one who said we should be able to see life just by looking at billions of stars. You got a problem, take it up with him.
"Again, I'm JUST responding to Pawel's claim. HE is the one who said we should be able to see life just by looking at billions of stars."
I know Pawel's an idiot, but I think your response is wrong. I don't think we haven't found life because we can't see it by looking. I think we haven't found life because we haven't looked for it due to limitations in our tech. Limitations which are now going away, and we will start finding such planets soon, because we just started to look for them.
"I don't think we haven't found life because we can't see it by looking. I think we haven't found life because we haven't looked for it due to limitations in our tech."
Same thing, right? If we COULD see it by looking, we would have found it by now.
This guy sounds like a fool. Why not talk also about the flying unicorn that lives on the rainbow planet!
mironyuk 6 days ago
Very fascinating.
leonheart00 1 month ago
I learned this stuff about chlorophyll in bio. I love it when i know something before someone told me :D
WonderfulDenmark 5 months ago
if you were smart enough to figure out what colour plants could be due the result of the orbit of a certain star. than any lifeform with the technology to get that clear an image from a telescope light years away could figure it out as well.
thoughtpattern0 5 months ago
@thoughtpattern0 Not with a single picture like that. They'd have to do a spectral analysis of the star and look for appropriate results in a spectral analysis of the planet. And even then, they'd be playing in probabilities. Remember his claim: green automatically means life, and anyone who says otherwise is an idiot deserving of the most immature mocking on YouTube.
shanedk 5 months ago
I thought what colour would water or the main liquid from the planet be? could it be reflected through space to be seen by our eyes ... could our visions of colours be related to the life we have absorbed so in someone else's eyes colours would be different? imagination of science in the mind ..
paddisaxs 9 months ago
To be fair, you could use the color of a planet as a clue to if there's life there if you consider the type of star. But yes, color alone wouldn't necessarily mean life.
Keitaro2011 11 months ago
Comment removed
crusadeskates13 11 months ago
Comment removed
crusadeskates13 11 months ago
I get what you are saying but in light of what you have just said, if I see a particular color on a particular planet then maybe I would make the extra effort to examine the planet's star's spectrum. So, the answer would be dependent on a correlation between the spectrograph of the planets star and the planet's surface. It may not be green but the color it could be isn't a mystery.
jskokonas 11 months ago
@jskokonas Sure, but again, that wasn't the claim I was debunking. The claim I was debunking was that you can't see life just by looking through a telescope. You'd probably want to do a lot of other things, too, like look for oxygen, or look for radio transmissions of an intelligent, technological species.
shanedk 11 months ago
@shanedk Can you do one on Arecibo message being replied.
n64wilbert 6 months ago
@n64wilbert I can't do a video on something that never happened.
(Although a couple of very creative circle-makers did one that was kind of cool, but completely terrestrial, of course.)
shanedk 6 months ago
@shanedk What I meant is that in the nation of England they found crops resemble a similar coding to Arecibo message as I said watch the video "The Arecibo message ANSWERED?" it's a plan for your next episode on Bogisty.
n64wilbert 6 months ago
@shanedk Back in 1974 Carl Sagen transmitted a signal that was sent 25,000 light years for some odd reason extraterrestrials contacted back in 2001 not that I believe in it, watch the video called "The Arecibo message" ANSWERED?
n64wilbert 6 months ago
@n64wilbert I KNOW what it was, but no one has EVER received and answer.
shanedk 6 months ago
@n64wilbert Yeah, that's the crop circle garbage again. That was made by guys with boards! See circlemakersDOTorg/totc2001.html
shanedk 6 months ago
@n64wilbert you do realize if they transmitted a signal to a location 25,000 light years away, with the signal sent out in 1974, by 2001 the signal would be only 0.108% of the way to its location, right? . . .
Beyondisme 1 month ago in playlist More videos from shanedk
@Beyondisme Yes, they'll receive it in the year 26,974, and we should expect an answer somewhere around the year 28,948.
It's just a LITTLE early to be expecting a response...
shanedk 1 month ago
that was cool :) im glad i found this
C0nstellati0ns 1 year ago
You are assuming the absolute ignorance of the aliens. If they see green, they would not just assume life or non-life based on visual recognition alone, massive copper deposits on the surface would be a very rare thing to encounter, so spectrographic analysis would be done. Also, spectral analysis of the sun would tell them which colors would be selected for, should there be life. Everything you mention would be something the aliens would check for. Just like we are checking other planets.
Wraithofvolsunga 1 year ago
@Wraithofvolsunga That was the ignorance of the person I was responding to: that merely seeing the color green tells you that there's life.
Realistically speaking, I would think that, long before they got around to doing a spectrographic analysis, they would find that this planet is absolutely buzzing with radio communications.
shanedk 1 year ago
@Wraithofvolsunga Intresting fact is no one yet able to give any evidence in support of how chlorophyll was evolved.No satisfactory scientific explanation of it,why chlorophyll has evolved to "ignore" green and near-green light, which are a major part of the visible spectrum. see en.wikipedia/wiki/Chlorophyll .Without chlorophyll no higher life could ever possible on earth beyond bacteria,think on it, why so called supporters of blind evolution not able to answer it yet? THINK & let me know
woleez 1 year ago
@woleez
Chlorophyll was a protobacteria which formed a symbiotic relationship with early cell structures. This symbiotic relationship developed into the organelle structure we see in plants and some bacteria today. Natural selection caused the ignoring of green light, because it is the most efficient. If you take the time to look, you'll find that we've already filled that gap of your "god of the gaps" argument.
Seriously, I learned this in 7th grade biology.
Wraithofvolsunga 1 year ago
@Wraithofvolsunga really..give me any reference from internet supporting evolutionary evidence why and how Chlorophyll was evolved. i am talking about here evolutionary evidence why chlorophyll was evolved. and why it happened in plants only why not in fish, animals and birds etc. why not all bacteria followed to developed chlorophyll? when you say evolution is blind and random then why not we ever found single example of chlorophyll evolved life forms i mentioned. i need solid scientific reason
woleez 1 year ago
@woleez ".give me any reference from internet supporting evolutionary evidence why and how Chlorophyll was evolved." gooDOTgl/G5pHH
"and why it happened in plants only why not in fish, animals and birds etc."
Because the chloroplasts merged with the cells after the ancestral cells of plants and animals diverged.
"and why it happened in plants only why not in fish, animals and birds etc."
Because evolution is a nested hierarchy and doesn't jump lines.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk Because the chloroplasts merged with the cells after the ancestral cells of plants and animals diverged..
I C how you know it. any authentic scientifc proof before this assumption? FYI chlorophyll evolved first, than any higher life form, so chances are same that some chlorophyll containing bacteria evolved to animals, birds or humans. so your assumption is wrong.
Because evolution is a nested hierarchy and doesn't jump lines...
i though your version of evolution was by chance
woleez 1 year ago
@woleez "FYI chlorophyll evolved first, than any higher life form"
As I tried to explain to you earlier, there are no "higher life forms"--that's the earlier garbage that Darwin disproved. Chlorophyll evolved in the form of cyanobacteria, and it was a population of those bacteria that merged with the cells that became plant cells. They didn't "evolve" into plants; they merged with those particular eukaryotes.
And evolution IS NOT CHANCE.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk in begning only microbes/green algae,modified our atmosphere breathable to sustain life. no one on earth yet able to give any valid explanation or evolutionary pressure for evolving chlorophyll. this is my primary question.
youtube is encylopedia of science and knowledge, also try google. send me any material you find on "theory of evolving of chlorophyll, or what factors or evolutionary pressure resulted in evolution of chlorophyll. if you cant then dont defend this theory PERIOD
woleez 1 year ago
@woleez "in begning only microbes/green algae,modified our atmosphere breathable to sustain life"
Um, no. Algae are eukaryotes; they didn't evolve until later. It was cyanobacteria that did it, like I said. Stop pretending like you know what you're talking about.
"no one on earth yet able to give any valid explanation or evolutionary pressure for evolving chlorophyll."
Bullshit. Richard Dawkins, for one, has written extensively about it, and I gave you a link to LOTS of scientific sources.
shanedk 1 year ago
@woleez "send me any material you find on "theory of evolving of chlorophyll,"
Already have. I sent you a link to a Google Scholar search chock full of them. But you didn't even LOOK, did you?
shanedk 1 year ago
@woleez "why not all bacteria followed to developed chlorophyll?"
See, this is the problem of you and most creationsits: you're still stuck in the ancient Aristotilian idea of a great chain of life, a concept adopted by Christian dogma. Evolution is NOT a line, and there's NOT an order from lesser to greater that evolution follows. Darwin disproved all of that. This question shows you just don't understand that evolution is a nested hierarchy and we wouldn't expect any such thing to happen.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk HERE we go... whenever some one cant answer an valid argument rationally and logicallys starts blaming.. it always happens.. you are not the first one.. i just asked a simple question, i need a simple logical answer.. if you have it i will welcome it and accept it.. if you dont have then stop replying.. i have a question for you, why you believe on something that logics dont supports? or why you believe on what you cant prove by logic or reasoning??? THINK
woleez 1 year ago
@woleez But reality ISN'T as simple as that. Your questions contained invalid assumptions, meaning that the only proper way to answer them is to attack the assumptions. And this has been done. Evolution does NOT work the way you think it does, and you need to understand that.
shanedk 1 year ago
@woleez The video says why: because the amount of energy they would get from absorbing the green light wouldn't be worth the costs of producing the pigment. Again, we know perfectly well how and why chlorophyll evolved the way it did.
shanedk 1 year ago
So what would be the resulting color of the most advantageous chlorin for Earth? Let's say that scientists are genetically engineering plants or something of the sort.
dookiecheez 1 year ago
@dookiecheez really, you don't know that? just look at a plant. GREEN
robinvan1983 1 year ago
@robinvan1983
Misunderstanding my question and acting like a total jackass makes you look like the fool.
dookiecheez 1 year ago
@dookiecheez no you don't understand the most effective clorin aka chlorophyl on earth is the one that is green
robinvan1983 1 year ago
@robinvan1983 Or, more accurately, the ones that are NOT green.
shanedk 1 year ago
@robinvan1983
Your making the assumption that chlorophyl is the most effective one for earth. I doubt having the ability to absorb all light which would not arise earth due to a lack of environmental pressures such as survival of the fittest, would not be more advantageous on earth, and that given logic it would not be green.
dookiecheez 1 year ago
@dookiecheez *facepalm* do you know what you are saying? Earth already has "environmental pressures" for chlorophyl. The result is Green. That is the most dominant chlorophyl. (if it wasn't we would have had plants with different colored chlorophyl) If you change the parameters of Earth then you won't have Earth. i,e color of sunlight or changing or Earth atmosphere to more argon
robinvan1983 1 year ago
@robinvan1983
Do you realize what I AM SAYING. How clearly do I have to spell this out. The current forms we have on earth are not perfect, every species has the capacity to gain more efficient and beneficial traits and genes. What would those be given earth such that pressures that would not arise on earth somehow occurred. I sincerely doubt chlorophyll is the utmost perfection achievable. I would appreciate it if you would read what I write before continuing to talk down to me.
dookiecheez 1 year ago
@dookiecheez wait what? You are mixing local and global evolution. the most dominant chlorophyll on the planet is the green coloration in plants. The efficiency of it depends on local weather patterns. That is why we have the diversity in leaf design for instance (compare a palm tree with a oak). On a global scale If all the plants had purple chlorophyll they would be less efficient on Earth than the Green ones (because of our sunlight) That is why we don't have purple chlorophyll in abundance.
robinvan1983 1 year ago
@dookiecheez "The current forms we have on earth are not perfect"
They're more perfect than anything humans have been able to do. Plants can use something like 99.9% of the energy from the sunlight that hits them. We don't have anything anywhere NEAR that level of efficiency. Evolution over millions of years selected these chlorins to be as efficient as it possibly can be.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk
Thank you, the efficiency is very relevant. I take it from your comment that no artificial environmental pressures, even hypothetical ones, would produce a chlorin that would be more effective for Earth that would not result in a green coloration.
dookiecheez 1 year ago
Shane have you ever heard of Michio Kaku. His ideas are bold enough that you still have approach with decent skepticism but interesting none less.
mrphoo67 1 year ago
Great video.
Boethius3007 1 year ago
On the Science Channel this is talked about a lot. I have seen at least four shows that are specifically about life on other planets and how it would differ from life on earth, including, the differences in the chlorophyll. I find it amazing that there are people who don't know, or understand, this basic concept.
MobileThinker 1 year ago
fav because this relevant to my channel.
mrphoo67 1 year ago
I’m not claiming Aliens exist, and even if it was possible to look at colours to find life on planets, it does not mean Aliens can see colours as we do. It could be possible for Aliens to see a different spectrum of light, Aliens could be what we would call colour blind. =)
Wh47n0w1517 1 year ago
@Wh47n0w1517 True, but I was going on the basis of the claim: green stuff means life.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk
I concluded you was going on the basis of someone’s claim, green stuff means life, but I was just shedding more light on the subject. I actually know someone who sees no different in the colours of red and green, both colours are the same colour of red. =)
Wh47n0w1517 1 year ago
@Wh47n0w1517 Yes, there are color-blind people, and there are also women who can see FOUR primary colors instead of three (Google "tetrachromat").
shanedk 1 year ago
@Destroyer470 There's no particular reason to assume that a planet orbitting a sun-like star would necessarily have green plants. After all, the vascular plants on land evolved from green alga, but there are also red and brown alga groups that could have been the forerunners of land plants but weren't, and there are other photosynthetic bacteria with other pigment systems that could have been incorporated into algal cells.
evensgrey 1 year ago
The biochemist George Wald has suggested that chlorophyll may be widespread in the Universe despite its inefficiencies. Point taken about different star types
odenskrigare 1 year ago
@odenskrigare That strikes me as being rather unlikely, given that I can think of at least 3 other pigment systems that are used in photosynthesis by organisms on Earth, 2 of which are used by other groups of plants. (Admittedly, neither of the other plant groups colonized land, but it's hard to colonize the land when there already are vascular plants there.)
evensgrey 1 year ago
@evensgrey
If you Google 'George Wald chlorophyll' or something you'll find his explanation of why he thinks chlorophyll may be common. I'm not a biochemist so I can't articulate his position well but I thought it was interesting if not uncontroversial. (Also, I wonder how albedo plays into pigment selection.)
odenskrigare 1 year ago
@odenskrigare The results of that search are not encouraging. Wald's quoted statements indicate a distinct threat of Earth-chauvinism. For instance, he is quoted as saying words to the effect that biochemistry is going to be essentially the same everywhere. That's true in one sense (all life has the same basic challenges to address) but false in all the important ones (specifically, all independent biologies are going to take randomly selected approaches to the problems).
evensgrey 1 year ago
@evensgrey
I don't know. Given that we see a lot of the same life precursors in inorganic interstellar clouds one wonders how much biochemical convergence is the case.
odenskrigare 1 year ago
@odenskrigare Well, look at it this way: Earth life uses 20 amino acids, out of several thousand amino acids of similar size and chemistry. Some of the selections are likely because the molecule itself is pretty basic, but some are complex and clearly could be substituted easily. Similarly, we use 5 nucleotides (mostly, there are actually a few more in some tRNAs), out of several dozen.possible choices.
evensgrey 1 year ago
@evensgrey
Right. There is diversity and constraint also. Would you at least agree that carbon is a more likely basis of cellular machinery than, say, silicon? Imagine trying to excrete lots of oxidized silicon as waste. Oh and didn't know tRNAs used other nucleotides until now. Goddamn.
odenskrigare 1 year ago
@odenskrigare Carbon is definitely a more likely choice than silicon. It isn't just that silicon dioxide is vastly more difficult to dispose of than carbon dioxide, either. Silicon doesn't form such a wide variety of types of bonds nearly as easily as carbon.
I didn't learn much of the details of the unusual nucleotides in tRNAs until I got to upper-year genetics courses in university. Some of it is the mechanism the lets the wobble effect occur.
evensgrey 1 year ago
@evensgrey
Right. Is it not true that silicon does not (naturally) form substantial polymers? And that bit about tRNA really is incredible. I need to look into it soon. My thoughts about life in other worlds in a nutshell: how much would we have to do to make it edible? lol
odenskrigare 1 year ago
@odenskrigare We don't see silicon-based polymers forming easily under the kind of conditions that carbon-based polymers form, and I'm not sure that a silicon-based analog of a protein would work at all.
As for what we'd need to do to make alien life edible, it might vary from nothing to not being possible. Alien sugars are relatively likely to be edible, but alien proteins could be made of the wrong isomers for us to eat them, and there's no real fix for that.
evensgrey 1 year ago
@evensgrey
Not even substantial denaturation would work in that instance, right? (mismatched isomers)
odenskrigare 1 year ago
@odenskrigare Denaturation changes the tertiary structure of the protein, but chirality is deeper than the primary structure, so it won't do a thing for this problem. SOME of the amino acids might be usable (Alanine, for instance, has no chirality and is so simple I can't imagine a protein system without it) but some of them might even be toxic (at least in some degree). After all, the ones we use can be toxic if the breakdown pathways for them aren't working properly.
evensgrey 1 year ago
@evensgrey
Cool, cool. Well I learned something today.
odenskrigare 1 year ago
You make my geek heart sing.
nothingUnrealExists 1 year ago
Good video.
123backinyerface 1 year ago
as I am typing this, @ 7:41 PM mountain time (Colorado), I realize that not only is this a good video, but this video was rated 777 times-the same number as used in Kuwait to contact the police emergency.
Albukhshi 2 years ago
The thought of a Red-Dwarf solar system where the plants are black on surrounding planets due to evolution sounds amazing (though it might be an ideal place to live as a species). Five-stars, and subscribed.
ThiefofKnives 2 years ago 6
*might not be
ThiefofKnives 2 years ago
It might be the only option, though, as entropy causes the universe to wind down. The last life in the cosmos might be around those red dwarfs, which last so much longer.
shanedk 2 years ago
That would make an awesome dystopian sci-fi story.
ThiefofKnives 2 years ago
There was a bit of that in the Doctor Who trilogy Utopia/The Sound of Drums/Last of the Time Lords.
shanedk 2 years ago
this one of the few video I seen from evolution simple and easy understand. Exellent.
Wolverine9mm 2 years ago
Wauv, this is by far one of your best vidoes, shane.
it just blew my mind.
it expanded the borders of what i percieve reality....... that life can be and look like much more than what i believed, based on my biased earth-upbringing.
JegHarEnLillePik 2 years ago 5
Thanks!
shanedk 2 years ago
he mentioned explicitly that the color is tied to the spectral emission of the star.
so yes, a planet with life around a yellow-white star might well have green "plants".
but....
even if you found a green planet/green tinted, round a yellow-white star, you still have to rule out other possibilities (CuO2, green marble, ultrmafic rocks, high iron levels in an Ocean, malachite deposits, etc). once you eliminate every possibility, then you can assume that there may be life.
Albukhshi 2 years ago
You know, there are actually green spots in Mars, and in the past people used to believe it was vegetation, and today we obviously know it is not.
So, LOL.
Chaos511 2 years ago
The spots that look greenish when viewed through a telescope by a human are usually grey in color.
The human visual system tries to do a white balance of the whole field of view. If you've got a red object with gray blotches, and nothing else, you'll likely see greenish tinges to the blotches, at least.
(I once had this happen in a bright hotel room. I marveled at how white it was when I came in. It wasn't until I looked at my computer's screen I realized it was light green.)
evensgrey 2 years ago
I respect your methods Shane, but you should be clearer in your statements. Scientists do use telescopes as a starting point to gather evidence. They of course cannot make a claim, lets say about Mars and life on it, just based on observing polar caps, but they can theorize that the potential was or is there based on limited evidence until more evidence is gathered. If you are going to pick apart peoples words be prepared to defend your own.
chopin65 2 years ago
The claim was that we can know that life is there just by the green. That is what I was refuting.
shanedk 2 years ago
Yes, I understand that. But you are being sloppy. It also seems like you are trying to pick a fight by calling the man an idiot. I think you were being sloppy in your arguments. One may have suppositions that may lead to theory. I understand this man is ignorant of facts, but you repay him with insult and misquoting him. This does not win an argument. It only causes rancor.
chopin65 2 years ago
Understand that this guy is NOT an ignoramus who's putting bogus stuff on the internet; he's someone who is DELIBERATELY out to attack my character and undermine me.
shanedk 2 years ago
Yes, I understand that is irritating. But remember the old saying; the proof is in the pudding. Ignore the fool on your front lawn and he will move on to your neighbor. He is begging for attention. He doesn't really care if he wins an argument. He wants attention, that's all.
chopin65 2 years ago
I tried ignoring him. He got worse.
shanedk 2 years ago
These clowns always crumble when asked to crunch some numbers. It is shocking to hear there are still people who claim the earth is the center of the solar system. LOL. Hang in there Shane.
chopin65 2 years ago
He only finally let up when ladyattis here on youtube threw down his gauntlet.
Surhotchaperchlorome 2 years ago
Actually, he said we had not observed life anywhere else in the universe and we can see billions of stars. That is not exactly the same thing you said. You said "with a telescope" You made a leap of connecting the two statements. You most likely did this to clarify, but it is still not the same. In addition, the alien could look at the vast oceans and conclude that there is a possibility of life on Earth.
chopin65 2 years ago
Ford Prefect comes from a planet where the plants are blue. lol
hobbitsarecool 2 years ago
omg shane you totalley PWNED those guy's butt.. haha great job
pinochska 2 years ago
Am I wrong when I say that we cannot see those close-up pictures of other planets (yet), but we do know about the chlorophyll and what colour it should be around different stars. Logic tells me that any species capable of knowing how to look at other planets from that long a distance, does know about the chlorophyll and thus, they would have guessed which colour it SHOULD have, and then looked after. Am I wrong?
olleboll93 2 years ago
What if their planet doesn't even HAVE chlorophyll?
shanedk 2 years ago
Well sorry if I'm a bit uneducated, I am only sixteen .
But Hydrogen is the most common element in the universe, after that comes helium (but it can't bind with anything) and third after that comes oxygen. That makes Water the MOST common molecule in the entire universe! // Andromedas Wake
Further on this, if this planets (plants) doesn't use water (the most common molecule in the universe) as it's main nourishment, it is a very low chance of this even happening.
olleboll93 2 years ago
What does water have to do with chlorophyll?
shanedk 2 years ago
You honestly asked that question?
Wikipedia Chlorophyll. Please?
olleboll93 2 years ago
Life--and water--existed on this planet for probably billions of years before there was chlorophyll. Chlorophyll isn't even soluble in water. So please explain what you're talking about.
shanedk 2 years ago
Chlorophyll=Photosynthesis
Photosynthesis uses water and carbon dioxide to create oxygen and sugar via sunlight.
This process requires the Chlorophyll, carbon dioxide, sunlight and WATER to work!
olleboll93 2 years ago
Yet again, the chance of life developing without water is so close to zero that it is silly!
If there even is water and carbon there, the creatures build with this as a base will be much stronger and therefore, through natural selection, will live on.
olleboll93 2 years ago
If they didn't use water, then the first thing they would discover about life in the universe is chlorophyll!
And THEN they would still be ages of technology ahead of us and have all the time in the world to experiment on this.
And if you are going to say that the first planet these non-chlorophyll users discover, is Earth.
I'd say that I do not want to do the maths on this since it's chance would be so tiny that it would be closer to zero than to anything else.
olleboll93 2 years ago
It is possible to have life without liquid water. It was hypothesized that if there was life on Saturn's moon, it would live off of liquid methane because the temperature would be to cold to sustain liquid water. Although there was no life found on Titan, nor was there as much liquid methane as the scientists expected, there is still the distinct possibility that life could exist with methane. The only reason we look for water when we look for life is because we see it here on earth.
hobbitsarecool 2 years ago
Interesting.
camino1ca 2 years ago
Thank you so much for finally putting that idiot in his place. League of reason my ass...
fakeham 2 years ago
Comment removed
ZincFuse 2 years ago
couldn't the aliens come to the conclusion that the planet supports life based on the type of star it revolves around and if they eliminate all other possibilities?
atheistnarutofan 2 years ago
They could probably, but that wasn't the point.
JamesJimRaynor 2 years ago
Keep in mind Shane's point that you'd need spectroscopic analysis to determine that there was a likelihood of biological origin. With JUST THE IMAGE you have no real idea what the surface composition actually is.
It is UNLIKELY that there would be THAT MUCH gold-thorium alloy on the surface, but you cannot eliminate the possibility just from the image, and you also cannot eliminate exotic minerals that you've never heard of because of quirks of local composition.
evensgrey 2 years ago
@ gigaboy47 what?!?!?!? 0-o this is a great video. not a waste of time by any means!
Thanks for all your time shanedk!
defect530 2 years ago
Shane, I'm no expert, so I could easily be wrong. But if I remember correctly, our Oceans are blue is a result of having an Oxygen-rich atmosphere that oxidized most of the dissolved metals out. And Oxygen, because it is so reactive, does not remain in those high concentrations unless something is continuously releasing more. And the only known mechanism that does this is photosynthesis (of whatever color). Thus, aren't blue bodies of liquid water a strong indicator of life?
MultiSteveB 2 years ago
No, oceans are blue because water refracts blue light.
shanedk 2 years ago
I'm genially curious, but what would different types of stars with their different wave lengths do to the color refraction of water?
Would it be possible to get green or purple water?
glukolover 2 years ago
Theoretically, I guess, but it'd probably be more likely due to the minerals dissolved in the water.
shanedk 2 years ago
I guess that would make more sense.
glukolover 2 years ago
Within the past year or two there was a TV show on Discovery Channel/History Channel about Earth's formation & history. I wish I could remember the name of the show for you. In one episode, they covered the formation of our Oxygen-rich atmosphere, and the composition of the Oceans.
Prior to the 'Great Oxygenation Event', the dissolved metals (especially Iron), would have made the Oceans a different color than they are today. Is this incorrect?
MultiSteveB 2 years ago
Intrigued by this question, I did some poking around, and the answer seems to be 'it depends', mostly on what ELSE is in the water as well.
If you're talking about a solution containing a wide range of simple organics in addition to the Fe2+, I expect it would be a sort of grayish cloudy color, since a fair number of organic compounds react to form a variety of colored complexes in the presence of dissolved metals.
evensgrey 2 years ago
no-you're dead on. the seas would have been green, mostly from reduced iron. the same phenomenon explains why deap sea clays-deposited anoxically, are also green.
once the iron was oxidised (which took a long time), the seas were relieved of iron, and the sea turned blue.
Albukhshi 2 years ago
We know its life because we are from this planet, but plant life on other habitable planets (if they even used photosynthesis to make their energy) could have a different effect on the many different variables available, in this case it could be red like Mars. They could look at Mars and try to make the case that it has plant life because it is red but we know from fact that it does not, because we have examined it semi-thoroughly. On the surface it is just superficial, not enough evidence there
Shirazzikkdh 2 years ago
wow bravo.
drayos2 2 years ago
your right but what about at the night time where lots of the lights are visitable
hunhun14 2 years ago
They're not visible, unless you do a timed exposure.
shanedk 2 years ago
This video is a waste of your time. What you are saying makes sense but who cares.
gigaboy47 2 years ago
You don't think it's at all interesting, how plants on other planets might look?
shanedk 2 years ago
Frankly, I want to find some black emo plants and sell them just outside of Hot Topic. =P
Virgil0211 2 years ago 2
not really
gigaboy47 2 years ago
Well you obviously cared enough to "waste your time" commenting here, you pseudo-nonchalant...
338dmac 2 years ago
Another brilliant video.
civver3 2 years ago
Narsil hits it on the head, and in fact scientists involved in the search for extraterrestrial life consider spectroscopy one of the things that would provide evidence for it. You pretty much outlined exactly why it would work too - evolution would cause plants to adopt colors closely suited to the light given off by their star. So it's not as simple as just seeing the color green, but seeing a planet covered in color closely suited to it's star's emission spectrum would be strong evidence.
scoopapa 2 years ago
You already said all you needed to say in a previous video anyway.... we can't see light from extrasolar planets (ok, we've seen a couple gas giants)... so far they are only detected by gravity. That's why even if plant/animal life is out there, we wouldn't expect to have found it yet.
Also, if it were copper, they'd know because it would have the precise emission spectrum of copper ions... ditto any misleading chemical you can think of...
scoopapa 2 years ago
Wouldn't they use their giant telescope and just look at our sun first and identify it's type, then using your same method look at Earth and think to themselves its green! there is probably plant life on that planet? Also how likely is it that most of a planet is covered with a green copper mix or green marble etc.?
vainamoinen17 2 years ago 2
Please see my response to the last 87 times this has been suggested...
shanedk 2 years ago
It's actually quite plenty according to the Marbolians.
scottintulsa 2 years ago
I've gotten myself caught up with a decent bit of this, and from what I understand, MGK seems to just be slamming at the tiniest of details (and even getting his own corrections wrong multiple times) just because he doesn't like your political views, correct?
I've skimmed their forums, and even a fair share of LoR seems to agree MGK is something of a nitpicking douche. That handful that ran you off probably just can't deal with differing viewpoints. They'd rather agree and high five all day.
HelplessVictim 2 years ago
So how did that go? You saw the logo of League of Reason on MGK's video and assumed it was a site for pseudoscience or the like?
Mithcoriel 2 years ago
No, I have a LONG history with them...
shanedk 2 years ago
I bet it's enoug to do a at least a 10 minute video on you tube. If it were worth the stress.
GumbaMasta 2 years ago
It's not.
shanedk 2 years ago
Comment removed
GumbaMasta 2 years ago
I quick point you could have included.
The reason we see the 510 nm wavelength of light as green, is also grounded in evolution. Lots of animals don't see 510 nm wavelength of light as green, but very different, in "shades of black and white" or not at all.
Aliens would surely have evolved under different circumstances, and thus may experience 510 nm light waves differently from us, as their "nature" is not the same as ours, giving natural selection different benefits.
koldtoft 2 years ago
Hm, I don't think that would be an argument. Ignoring the video and assuming all chlorophyl were green, it might look different to aliens than it does to us, but nevertheless the picture of our planet would look the same colour as their plants.
Mithcoriel 2 years ago
A minor, but important point: Chlorophyll is GOING to be green everywhere in the universe, because that's the color those specific molecules ARE. The point is that Chlorophyll is only 2 pigments out of an almost limitless array of POSSIBLE pigments that COULD be used to harvest light.
Just here on Earth, we have no less than three distinct, independent acquisitions of photo-receptive pigments in algae: The red, green, and brown algae. Only the green lineage produced vascular plants on land.
evensgrey 2 years ago
Ok. So I guess a better word would be "alien equivalents of chlorophyll" or something.
Mithcoriel 2 years ago
Neat video. I prefer economics to biology, but it's always good to get well rounded academics from sources other than public education.
LiberalofLiberty 2 years ago
at night earth lights up enough to notice at that altitude,I mean if you were THAT close anyway.
NYjon888 2 years ago
Again, only with timed exposures.
shanedk 2 years ago
Awesome video...
But, a question as to the last part of it. You described how evolution would produce certain colors of plants around certain stats. Doesnt that mean we could look at a planet, and knowing the type of star it gets its energy from, predict the color we expect plants to have?
I mean, couldnt an alien look at our sun and conclude that plants on earth would be green, and that therefore, the image it sees of our earth suggests there is life?Not prove it, just...make it likely, maybe?
narsil1984 2 years ago
But again, they'd have to have a reason to do that; casually observing it would not lead them to that conclusion.
shanedk 2 years ago
Not by casually observing, no.
But we are actually looking very intesively for alien life, why wouldnt they?
narsil1984 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
HAHA! Nice video.
jebus6kryst 2 years ago
Could plants in this solar system be different colors due to atmospheric shifts in light on the other planets and moons?
WouldbeSage 2 years ago
Maybe, if their light were significant enough, like the fictional Blue Planet of Metebelis 3 on Doctor Who. The moonlight there is blue, and if that light were significant, plants might evolve more of those pigments to keep generating energy throughout the night.
shanedk 2 years ago
I agree with what this guy says but I think he goes about it in a completly arrogant self-obsessed narcisstic manner, which will only cause division rather than uducating the uneducated.
Science isn't about ego, but this guy is all ego.
emperorzong 2 years ago 2
Excellent! I learn so much from your videos.
Thanks!
N21X 2 years ago 3
do you have to call everyone else "idiots" how retarded are you? Can't you be a proper fucking journalist not a hateful little troll, the only persons idiocy you are highlighting is your own,
not to mention your unappealing nature.
Be nice.
RevolutionaryJam 2 years ago
"do you have to call everyone else 'idiots'
how retarded are you?...Be nice."
:P
Surhotchaperchlorome 2 years ago
true, he may be correct but he's an arrogant sod.
emperorzong 2 years ago
he has that attitude because of morons firing the same bullshit at him and his peers constantly. you'd b like that two if u had morons who know nothing telling you that you're wrong and they're right on a regular basis.
Ringo2k7 2 years ago
I partially agree with you. But seriously, tell me, when have you ever seen a creationist respond respectably to civility? When have you ever seen a creationist stop responding with baseless assertions when not treated this way? By my experience, stubborn idiots do not respond to a civil approach.
The idiot that he referenced responded to the video this guy refuted with the video he refuted once again. That ought to tell you something.
PachucoDesigns 2 years ago
The moral of the story:
Physics is Phun! :D
Surhotchaperchlorome 2 years ago
Very good video. Thumbs up and thanks for the lesson on pigments and plants ;D
Sneipez 2 years ago
and what if the aliens are religious fundamentalists whose religious dogma is that plants must be green?
illbetilbake 2 years ago 2
A few months ago, I left a negative comment for AndromedasWake after he made an obnoxious video debunking a crazy geocentrist. I didn't like the way he charmlessly belittled the guy. It was juvenile narcissistic wounding no matter how deluded he was.
Now, I don't like the attitude in this vid either.
So it seems fitting that shanedk has clashed with A'wake after this vid. 2 narcissists calling each other idiots. Voices of reason? Hardly.
Learn from Potholer and get some class guys.
MrCFruitfly 2 years ago 2
exactly. He was talking about chlorins and the color of the plants to answer the question why cant we see life from a telescope... we have seen very few planets, mainly we are looking for water (blue), could be hidden or not visible and so on but noooo the purple plants is what counts! his answer was closer to mysticism and proving his ego than to a logical argument. douchebag..
ffcrazy 2 years ago
and as an answer to why they wouldnt recognize that earth has life from the green color the answer is that our blue oceans would give them a strong indication of life here and thats the best you can have from a picture.. but again nooo he preferred to answer about chlorins and purple plants... are you familiar with ocams razor?
ffcrazy 2 years ago
I disagree with this video as the argument against the "aliens" judgement is too absolute. A telescope powerful enough to resolve that image would also be powerful enough to allow the spectra to be analysed to indicate the prescense of Chlorins (in this case chlorophyll), although another alien's planet may use a different chlorin in its ecosystem any alien capable of making such a telescope would also understand the effect of a sun's light output.
Naeron66 2 years ago
Yes, but just from looking at Earth, seeing green... that does not mean that their first thoughts would be "LIFE!" Which, was the point of the previous video.
AisuSeijin 2 years ago
Again, I'm going off the claim. The claim is, look at stars through telescopes, don't see life, there is no life, we're the only ones.
shanedk 2 years ago
"Again, I'm going off the claim. The claim is, look at stars through telescopes,"
The problem I have with the claim is when looking at planets in other solar systems from earth, no one actually looks with their eyes. For instance, the light might be to faint to see. So they track the planet and record light over a period of time on to film or some recording medium.
If the recording device is of sufficient quality and design, you can do spectrographic analysis (and possibly find life).
amcnea 2 years ago
But for those billions of stars he mentioned, the only way we HAVE looked at most of those is through telescopes!
shanedk 2 years ago
"the only way we HAVE looked at most of those is through telescopes!"
Yes, through telescopes which focus light onto a recording medium over a period of time. And we probably have spectra of most of those stars.
But, looking at a star doesn't tell about life on a planet. You have to actually look at the planet to do that.
I think your definition of "look" is confusingly restrictive on a cosmological scale. I think most would accept spectra as satisfying the word "look" in this context.
amcnea 2 years ago
Again, I'm JUST responding to Pawel's claim. HE is the one who said we should be able to see life just by looking at billions of stars. You got a problem, take it up with him.
shanedk 2 years ago
"Again, I'm JUST responding to Pawel's claim. HE is the one who said we should be able to see life just by looking at billions of stars."
I know Pawel's an idiot, but I think your response is wrong. I don't think we haven't found life because we can't see it by looking. I think we haven't found life because we haven't looked for it due to limitations in our tech. Limitations which are now going away, and we will start finding such planets soon, because we just started to look for them.
amcnea 2 years ago
"I don't think we haven't found life because we can't see it by looking. I think we haven't found life because we haven't looked for it due to limitations in our tech."
Same thing, right? If we COULD see it by looking, we would have found it by now.
shanedk 2 years ago