Do you think Aliens Exist?

[Pineal]

We have?

Yes. now note. The success is extremely modest and involves either information or light. But....if we can teleport information, this might mean we could make things 'at the other end'. So things could be made at the other end and information sent back. What is made at the other end could potentially be anything.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1888-teleporting-larger-objects-becomes-real-possibility.html
http://www.fastcompany.com/blog/kit...eport-ions-few-meters-shifting-kirk-still-far
http://www.popsci.com/technology/ar...reakthrough-could-lead-instantanous-computing
http://www.switched.com/2009/01/26/scientists-succeed-with-teleportation-experiment/

 

[gmilam]

Well considering that it took about 4 billion years for intelligent life to form and that life on earth came close to being wiped out at least several times during that interval, and because the sun continues to get hotter, like on earth won't last another billion years (I've seen scientific estimates as low as 1/2 a billion years), I think it's fair to say that we are somewhat special.

Arthur

Or lucky.

My point is that we are the result of a natural process that theoretically could have happened in any suitable environment. And who knows how many other environments could be suitable for other forms of life, whatever they may be?

Even on our own planet, we have dolphins and whales which appear to be highly intelligent. But, due to a lack of opposable thumbs, they will never create technology as we have come to know and love it.

 

[Telemachus Rex]

No it's very easy to say yes. He didn't say "intelligent", he didn't say our galaxy. It could be a doglike animal on some spiral arm of a galaxy in the virgo cluster. Even the most pessimistic numbers plugged into the drake equation will give you more than 1 for the whole universe. Yes is a very valid answer. Maybe even in our own solar system if you include small life like bacteria.

I had written: "Personally I think there is other life in the universe, though see no reason to assume it's multicellular (let alone intelligent) without better information."

This is what sparked the narrowing of the discussion above.

 

[Pincho Paxton]

I had written: "Personally I think there is other life in the universe, though see no reason to assume it's multicellular (let alone intelligent) without better information."

This is what sparked the narrowing of the discussion above.

I looked at the structure of cells, very complex for their size. So I think a study of pre-cells is required to make any further opinion on the likelihood of life elsewhere. Then a study of pre-pre-cells.

 

[nietzschefan]

Nope.

The most pessimistic number for any of the variables in the Drake Equation would be ZERO, which would make the end result equal to zero.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation

And it is certainly not inconceivable that if it turns out that fℓ = the fraction of the planets that actually go on to develop life at some point is very low, then fi = the fraction of fℓ that actually go on to develop intelligent life and fc = the fraction of fi civilizations that develop technology that releases detectable signs of their existence into space could be zero.

Arthur

Somehow I thought you'd be the kinda guy that would Zero out the whole Human race.

 

[adoucette]

Somehow I thought you'd be the kinda guy that would Zero out the whole Human race.

Nope, since we are using the equation to estimate the likelihood of OTHER communicating intelligent life in the galaxy besides our own you can't start out with the assumption that any of the values are necessarily greater than zero.

Doing that you would always have a result greater than zero and so your formula would then be starting out with a predetermined conclusion.

The net is that it is not impossible for the answer to the Drake Equation to be zero.

Arthur

 

[nietzschefan]

Assburgers...confirmed.

 

[adoucette]

Or lucky.

We seem to be very lucky

My point is that we are the result of a natural process that theoretically could have happened in any suitable environment. And who knows how many other environments could be suitable for other forms of life, whatever they may be?

Well a couple of points.
Even though earth is apparently suitable, still in 4.5 billion years apparently life only formed once, so that gives you some idea of how unlikely a process it is.

I'd put it in the catagory of a HIGHLY unusual occurance.

Secondly since it then took 4 billion years to evolve into an intelligent species that could communicate (which is what we are discussing) that is most of the life expectancy of suitable stars, it would appear that a more likely outcome would be in those highly unlikely times that life does form, that the planet doesn't remain habitable long enough for intelligent life to evolve.

Arthur

 

[adoucette]

Assburgers...confirmed.

So apparently your doctor confirmed your diagnosis.

You know we could have saved you the time and trouble since your condition is friggin obvious.

Arthur

 

[gmilam]

We seem to be very lucky



Well a couple of points.
Even though earth is apparently suitable, still in 4.5 billion years apparently life only formed once, so that gives you some idea of how unlikely a process it is.

I'd put it in the catagory of a HIGHLY unusual occurance.

Secondly since it then took 4 billion years to evolve into an intelligent species that could communicate (which is what we are discussing) that is most of the life expectancy of suitable stars, it would appear that a more likely outcome would be in those highly unlikely times that life does form, that the planet doesn't remain habitable long enough for intelligent life to evolve.

Arthur

Then again, we only have one example to work with. (“Far out in the uncharted backwaters of the unfashionable end of the Western Spiral arm of the Galaxy") As far as we know, we could be one of the planets that had to ride the "special" bus.

 

[adoucette]

Then again, we only have one example to work with. (“Far out in the uncharted backwaters of the unfashionable end of the Western Spiral arm of the Galaxy") As far as we know, we could be one of the planets that had to ride the "special" bus.

I think it's more special then you give it credit for.

A good case can be made that without our huge moon, life on earth would not be possible. and from what we can see, a moon like ours is not common.

Arthur

 

[Boris2]

I think it's more special then you give it credit for.

and the reason why i don't think intelligent life is common, or even uncommon but existing, in the galaxy. we are "special" and a unique set of circumstances has created us and our biosphere.

 

[Arioch]

@adoucette --

Even though earth is apparently suitable, still in 4.5 billion years apparently life only formed once, so that gives you some idea of how unlikely a process it is.

Well of course it only happened once(or possibly twice with the life from that event being wiped out very early on), after there was extant life the conditions were absolutely hostile towards new life(not having had the chance to adapt and evolve like the older lifeforms). This doesn't speak so much to the probability of abiogenesis so much as it does to the conditions necessary for it to occur. As the Earth is now there are hardly any free(i.e. unused) organic materials around which would be necessary for new life to emerge.

I'd put it in the catagory of a HIGHLY unusual occurance

I would too, but not necessarily for that reason. Regardless of just how improbable it is, it has happened at least once so we know that it's possible. Given that it's possible in the right circumstances and the unfathomable size of the universe, I'd say that it's still highly likely that there's some form of life out there somewhere. What form of life it is, or even if it would be recognizable as life to us, is something that nobody can answer yet.

Of course, even if there is life out there, and even if it is intelligent, it's still highly unlikely that it could be communicating with us or even visiting us. The complications involved with interstellar and/or intergalactic travel(what with the laws of thermodynamics being what they are) means that any species which was advanced enough to communicate with us would have almost no possible reasons to do so. If they want/need resources(biological or otherwise) they could just make them(we can do it now so it's a safe assumption that a more advanced species could do the same only better). If they need space then they would have the technology needed to terraform planets of their choosing. They stand to gain nothing by interacting with us.

A good case can be made that without our huge moon, life on earth would not be possible.

I'd like to see you make that case because so far as I can tell you're pulling this out of your ass.

and from what we can see, a moon like ours is not common.

Irrelevant. If we've detected others(and we have) then we can easily see that there would likely be trillions of them out there somewhere.

@Boris2 --

we are "special" and a unique set of circumstances has created us and our biosphere.

1. You can't possibly know this.

2. Even if you could know this you'd have to explain just how you discovered that our planet and circumstances are unique in all the cosmos as this implies a knowledge source beyond even Google.

 

[Pineal]

Well a couple of points.
Even though earth is apparently suitable, still in 4.5 billion years apparently life only formed once, so that gives you some idea of how unlikely a process it is.

How would we know that? That's a bit like having a jar full of marbles - which for all we know while we are away hundreds of marbles are being tossed at it - and saying, see it only got filled once, this jar getting filled is a highly unlikely occurance.

I'd put it in the catagory of a HIGHLY unusual occurance.

Secondly since it then took 4 billion years to evolve into an intelligent species that could communicate (which is what we are discussing) that is most of the life expectancy of suitable stars, it would appear that a more likely outcome would be in those highly unlikely times that life does form, that the planet doesn't remain habitable long enough for intelligent life to evolve.

Is our sun going to be a problem in the near future? Is it an odd Sun?

Isn't this basing ideas about a whole category one a single instance?

Of course, that's what we have to work with, but this kind of hypothesizing would not get anywhere near passing peer review as science.

 

[adoucette]

I'd like to see you make that case because so far as I can tell you're pulling this out of your ass.

Nah, well known http://www.astrosociety.org/education/publications/tnl/33/moon2.html
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=moon-life-tides

etc

 

[Pincho Paxton]

A moon isn't at all rare though is it. Our own planets have moons.

 

[adoucette]

A moon isn't at all rare though is it. Our own planets have moons.

It's not just having a moon, it's having one the size of the Earth's moon in relation to the earth, sufficient to moderate our seasons and cause the tides that help to moderate our weather.

None of the others even come close to the dynamics of our system.

We got one by a relatively improbable event, a Mars size collision that was sufficiently a glancing blow to create this unique dual system.

Arthur

 

[Arioch]

@adoucette --

In your first link it mentions abiogenesis occurring in the oceans due to solar irradiance, and while this is the most commonly accepted theory it's far from the only one. Another good source of energy for abiogenesis would have been thermal vents at the bottom of the ocean, so even without the moon hitting the FF button through increased tides, abiogenesis still could have occurred. And your second link states the same thing but actually goes on to refute your position that the moon was vital for abiogenesis by explicitly stating that all the moon did was speed up the process.

To say that it was a vital component for life is a gross exaggeration. The moon may have been necessary for intelligent life to emerge as quickly as it did(though we can't even say that for sure because we have a sample size of one), but that's not the same thing as the moon being vital for the emergence of life itself. Taking longer to occur is not the same thing as not occurring.

(Hint: It's usually a good idea to actually read the entire article you're citing to support your argument.)

Do you have any links which make better arguments, you know, ones that might actually support your position? Or is this what pretty much all of them say?

 

[Ophiolite]

We got one by a relatively improbable event, a Mars size collision that was sufficiently a glancing blow to create this unique dual system.

There is good reason to think this may not be so improbable. Current views on planetary formation envisage the creation of many Moon to Mars sized planetesimals, which then collide, coallesce and form the terrestrial planets.

There is good evidence to suggest that all four terrestial planets may have experienced major collisions towards the end of their formation:
Mercury - the abnormally thin mantle
Venus - the anomalous retrograde rotation
Earth - the moon
Mars - the crustal dichtomy

While a collision clearly does not ensure the formation of a large moon, the seeming ubiquity of collisions greatly enhances the probability.

 

[Telemachus Rex]

I looked at the structure of cells, very complex for their size. So I think a study of pre-cells is required to make any further opinion on the likelihood of life elsewhere. Then a study of pre-pre-cells.

You are absolutely right. I was using the word "personally" in "[p]ersonally I think there is other life in the universe . . ." to indicate that that was my subjective belief, not something I believe is compelled by the evidence. In other words, I do not believe there is any strictly logical proof that I am correct in my belief, as that too would require more knowledge about how life arose on Earth (and how it might arise elsewhere) than we actually have.

It would ultimately require that we know more about the very first, pre-life, self-replicating molecules that formed and the likelihood of self-replicating molecules forming under a variety of possible conditions.