Are we alone?

[dawdler]

I dont know when, it wasnt that far ago. Some probe which did 3 different tests for signs of life. One was negative, one was inconclusive and one was positive. There is of course a chance it got contaminated before launch. There is an equally good chance it didnt. "Experts" picked the first and dismissed it.

 

[mchammer75040]

Got a link Dawdler??

 

[Mr.Reak]

it is neither obvious that there is extra-terrestrial life, nor foolish and ludicrous to believe we are alone. indeed, in many ways it may be the most reasonable stance to take. you might speak of statistics, yet what is the basis for your statistical resoning? one way to look at it is that every other planet we know of either has no life, or it is inconclusive (with extra-solar planets). there is really no statiscally logical reason for assuming that htere is other intelligent life out there. the infamous drake equation is based on so many implicit and unproven assumptions that it could easily be meaningless. discovering past life on mars would certainly add something to the expectaions of finding life elsewhere, but we're still waiting for that.

Okay, let’s post an answer to the Lil Timmy, or he will start to cry

Unproven theory? Eh… how do you think people reacted when some crazy mofo said that Earth is indeed round? Or what about evolution theory? People couldn’t have discovered things like that if they didn’t have specific tools or weren’t advanced enough. Point is, with our current technology, we won’t be able to prove anything, only if aliens come to us instead. Discovering life on mars won’t prove that there is live in universe. Again, this is simple HUMAN logic, in something THAT big, there is SOMETHING out there. You are thinking about life form that needs to breath, to wash, to eat. What about life form that doesn’t need it at all? That can live in crazy conditions? We both know that human body is very fragile. But again, we will never prove that there is/not something out there, because we will never explore whole damn space. It’s like proving if God exists or not.

 

[Brian Damage]

Pardon?

The fact that life exists on this planet shows that life exists in this universe. Elsewhere in this universe, however, is another matter. Discovering life on Mars would, in my opinion, raise the observable likelihood of there being life outside the solar system.

And we may prove that there is something out there, if we actually encounter it...

 

[Sprafa]

Doesn't anyone sees SG-sg1 ?
The gods are Goaul'd that are trying to make us their slaves...

Seriously, what if Jesus was just some guy that found some alien technology and started healing people? If he said - «I found this and it I can fly, heal and immortal» - people would have killed him.
And all religions have the same base - afterlife.


Now aliens, hmmm.. If other life exists, without a doubt! But conscient life... Maybe we are the 1st ones to get conscience, has anyone thinked about that? Maybe we'll go to their sistems and be their gods, helping them to reach our level...

Besides everything is relative.

 

[RoyalEF]

Given the size of the universe you can really only believe one of two things... we are not alone, or "God" created us and everything around just us. If you don't believe in some omniscient being creating the universe just around us , then it is pure hubris to assume that we are randomly so special and unique in the universe as to be the only life.

However, for those of us that don't believe in the God theory, I find Evolutionary theory to be, well wrong or at the very least incomplete or flawed. Science has already frund cretures who evolve in just months. Darwinism says it occurs over many years slowly. There a bird that is born with webbed feet during monsoon season, but will be born without them during regular season. But more important is the theory of Natural Selection--it certainly seems to make sense at first, until you look at the diversity of the world. The idea that evvery aspect of every species developed because it gae it an advantage in survival seems silly when applied en masse. The leopard develops spots and short hair, the tiger stripes, the rhino and elephant develop hides, the elephant has a long thin till and tusk, the giraffe a long neck. I just don't see these things randomly outsurviving others. FOr instance if the first generations of Giraffe had an inch longer neck, that would help them survive, so much so that when some starting developing an extra inch of two they survived even better. We can look at the giraffe and see it has access to food at high levels, but did it sprout that neck over night? Darwinism says no, it took centuries or milleniums. And if long necks were so much better why didn't the rhino sprout one too? Were tiny little one inch tusk helpful in survival? or did elephant sprout 5 foot husks in one generation. Only quick drastic changes make sense to me.

ANd here is where it falls apart for me the most. Why did only one creature develop higher intelligence. It is hard to believe that of all the species on the planet only one found it advantageous to develop higher brain function. Just one in all the world. Seems to me all creatures would randomly have better brain genes and those would ALWAYS be an advantage, so they would always outsurvive the others... but they don't.

So before we question is there intelligent life out there, I think we need to better understand why so little life developed intelligence here.

 

[PvtRyan]

Yes but theres only one problem with that, birth. If we were to have much bigger heads like the "greys" suggest that would cause a problem at birth since we might not be able to fit through the womb! Ofcorse you could do a C-section but it would still cause problems. So even if we are to have huge brains its going to take massive adaptations over a long long time.

You're right about that.
Humans are the only animals having such trouble with giving birth. Our heads are already too big for our pelvis

EDIT:
RoyalEF, what you're basically implying is the argument of irreducible complexity. The main argument is that half a wing or leg has no use, but the system is too complex to have just orginated and removing one part makes the system useless.
This was the main argument in Michael Behe's book "Darwin's Black Box".
This argument has been proven wrong by molecular biologists.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe.html

 

[Brian Damage]

I think you misunderstand evolution. About the giraffe's necks... it doesn't quite work like that. It probably wasn't an inch at a time (Though that still might have presented an advantage, if most giraffes were more or less the same height. The longer necked mutant would still have had access to the substantial amounts of leaves that the others would have missed.), but probably a half a foot or so at once. Mutations like that happen all the time (Though they're not always beneficial.). The giraffe with the longer neck could eat the stuff on the trees that the other giraffes couldn't reach. It passed the longer neck onto it's offspring. Later, sucsessive mutations occurred which further lengthened the necks.

The rhino didn't sprout a long neck because it doesn't eat what a giraffe eats. It has it's own niche. It crops grass. It wouldn't have evolced to compete with the giraffe, either, as competing against an established tree-browser would have been supremely difficult for a creature just starting out at it (Translation: the giraffes got there first).

And, working from current research, ours isn't the only species to develop intelligence. Dolphins, certain apes, even types of parrots have intelligences that in some ways match, in some ways are lower than, and in some ways exceed human intelligence.

You need to look up some information on evolution, especially human evolution and the evolution of intelligence. Bipedal walking evolved first, then hands, then the big brain, each as a consequence of the other. The big brain produced society and higher social behaviour, which in turn enlarged the brain further.

Oh, and that stuff about the birds feet changing? I think you'll find that that's only partly genetic. Environment, hormones and seasonal variations in biochemistry enter the equation too. It's a bit simailar to the way that temperature controls the gender of baby crocodiles.

 

[dawdler]

ANd here is where it falls apart for me the most. Why did only one creature develop higher intelligence. It is hard to believe that of all the species on the planet only one found it advantageous to develop higher brain function. Just one in all the world. Seems to me all creatures would randomly have better brain genes and those would ALWAYS be an advantage, so they would always outsurvive the others... but they don't.

Fall apart how? We arent the only "intelligent" animal by defintion. Squids, dolphins, monkeys and a multitude of other creatures can learn things, thus by definition being intelligent.

Also you are forgetting all the different human species. We where not the only ones, what about the neanderthals? You have your solution there too why it remains only one talking sapiens left: We wiped them out or have become one...
One also have to consider earth size (above sealevel, below is an entirerly different world). Once you get a race above the point of no return, there can only be one. There isnt enough space for more. Humans where well enough spread across the globe thousands of years ago.
Could be different on a planet the size of Jupiter of course...

On the opposite we can think on all the smaller planets. How far can you go as a race if you aint got the space to grow and not nearly as much natural resources, even if you are an intelligent species? It will most likely become civil war for territory and chaos, thus no hope in seeing a more advanced race. What evolution it has will be undone by itself.

 

[Brian Damage]

I like Jupiter Fish.

 

[mchammer75040]

Seriously, what if Jesus was just some guy that found some alien technology and started healing people? If he said - «I found this and it I can fly, heal and immortal»
.

Eh I dont really see this being too possible. Plus your basing your argument on the assumption that Jesus existed AND that he did heal people. Alot of the incidents in The Bible where it talks of him healing are based on "witnesses" which you really cant take seriously. But if your to follow the theory of aliens you could say its possible that he might have been alien and healed those people with their technology. But eh sounds like a dumb theory but we dont really have much of anything to prove it wrong so it is a option...

 

[Sprafa]

Hey I was just adding my 2 cents...

Besides, everything is relative. For example the colours I see aren't the colours you see.

 

[mchammer75040]

Hey I was just adding my 2 cents...

Besides, everything is relative. For example the colours I see aren't the colours you see.

If you take words out of their context, then yes we are seeing different colors. I can point to something i know as red and you might have been taught it is called purple. BUT without taking these words out of context of our society, the only reason you would see a different color is if you were color blind. There is only a spectrum of colors we can perceive so the only way you can tell me you see a different color is if your taught otherwise by labels, or your color blind. Also do you support universal skepticism? Please please tell me you dont...

 

[BlackWolfdrk]

are we alone no out of the millions of planets in space i highly doubt that we have the only intelligent life forms have they visited us almost defiently no. If we visited anover planet we may stay in secret for a few months to make sure their friendly but then we would reveal are self we wouldnt fly billions of miles to anover planet just to abduct a load of simpletons. A more intresting question is how does space end or doesnt it if it goes on forever that means it must be continuesly growing if thats the case what if we could go faster then space was being created could we catch up with it then what would happen. Or is space looped you go to one end and come out the other.

 

[Letters]

No we are not alone... and no, other intelligent beings (outside the so-called 'Greys' that is ) don't have two arms, two legs, a body, and a head... I'm so sick of seeing that...

 

[Sprafa]

Also do you support universal skepticism? Please please tell me you dont...

What the hell is «universal skepticism»?
And the whole «different colours» thing, however possible due to small retinal changes...but it would be basically colour «myopia» in small scale...

A more intresting question is how does space end or doesnt it if it goes on forever that means it must be continuesly growing if thats the case what if we could go faster then space was being created could we catch up with it then what would happen. Or is space looped you go to one end and come out the other.

The Universe is never-ending...It's like the Earth, but in major scale - you can go straight ahead and in time you would be back...It's not round but you can circun-navigate around it...

 

[dawdler]

we wouldnt fly billions of miles to anover planet just to abduct a load of simpletons.

Yet we already travel millions of miles to dig up a few grams of dirt and then throw it back again, the step to abducting simpletons isnt THAT far

 

[mchammer75040]

A more intresting question is how does space end or doesnt it if it goes on forever that means it must be continuesly growing if thats the case what if we could go faster then space was being created could we catch up with it then what would happen. Or is space looped you go to one end and come out the other.

Its shaped like a football:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/spacedocumentary/story/0,2763,1058903,00.html

 

[mchammer75040]

What the hell is «universal skepticism»?

Universal Skepticism is a philosophical position where the person basically says nothing can be certain, and we cant even trust our own senses when it comes to percieving anything. From a Universal Skeptics point of view one cant trust the fact that one is sitting in front of a computer reading what others have typed on this forum.

 

[Sprafa]

Universal Skepticism is a philosophical position where the person basically says nothing can be certain, and we cant even trust our own senses when it comes to percieving anything. From a Universal Skeptics point of view one cant trust the fact that one is sitting in front of a computer reading what others have typed on this forum.

No I just don't believe in anything anyone tells me....except if they have proof.

By the way, you seem like a smart guy... I'll send you a buddy thingy.

 

[crabcakes66]

it is neither obvious that there is extra-terrestrial life, nor foolish and ludicrous to believe we are alone. indeed, in many ways it may be the most reasonable stance to take. you might speak of statistics, yet what is the basis for your statistical resoning? one way to look at it is that every other planet we know of either has no life, or it is inconclusive (with extra-solar planets). there is really no statiscally logical reason for assuming that htere is other intelligent life out there. the infamous drake equation is based on so many implicit and unproven assumptions that it could easily be meaningless. discovering past life on mars would certainly add something to the expectaions of finding life elsewhere, but we're still waiting for that.

The basis for my reasononing is that we know exactly Jack and shit about the universe.

your looking at far to small of a picture. the solar system is a grain of sand on the beach.

how many planets can we look at in detail outside of our imediate area? none.

mars is very close to us, relativly speaking.....so finding signs of life there would not be spectaculary suprising to me.

 

[Sprafa]

We have found 500 planets outside of our sistem and we're starting to calculate weather for the nearest ones.
So we could know in a few decades -

« - Weather is calculated perfect for life in X-77-1(water isn't even rare so...).»
« - X-77-1 continues to surprise cientists as several supercomputers calculate 1 to 2 odds of life in the planet.»
« - New ICT (international consortion telescope) reports lights in X-77-1. Could be cities...»
« - Reported that Pluto based SETI F.I.N.D. (transmission Finder and INvestigation Disk) receive a transmission from X-77 system... Scientists say could be first radio signals from the long-awaited X-77-1 «civilization» .....


You can imagine the rest

 

[mchammer75040]

No I just don't believe in anything anyone tells me....except if they have proof.

By the way, you seem like a smart guy... I'll send you a buddy thingy.

Yea Im the same way, empirical thinking all the way baby! Yippy i have a new friend :cheers:

 

[theotherguy]

now, I belive that there is probably SOME form of life out there, but I dont belive in all this conspiracy theory stuff

personally my preference is that there were never any real alien spaceships here, no greys, no area 51. Thats just made up by paraniod people.

IF there is life out there, the most logical assumption would be bacteria. And if there are complex forms of life, I would assume that they are less advanced than we. for simple reasons...

1. No discernibale radio transmissions

2. Hardly any planets can even support life, as far as we know

3. Our definition of intelligence may be different than the actual thing.

4. There might actually be beings that are intelligent that have lived in the very distant past, but were wiped out by random events. In essence, we could be the last ones alive. Simply put, the Hypernova and Black Hole theory completley throws the drake theory out of whack.

5. The Hypernova and black hole theories are based on calculations and observations of distant phenomena. Based on this assumption, a Hypernova, and the black hole that came out of it would wipe out all life in the entire GALAXY that they are in, and these are very frequent in the universe, but not in our galaxy, at least not yet.

So based on all of these things, if there wasintelligent life that we would classify both as life and intellignet it would have to live close enough to us that it is not victim to radiation from the center of the galaxy, and close enough to where it wouldn't be destroyed by various hypernovae, but also far enough that it's radio signals wouldn't be picked up by us yet, or possibly are to weak for our current equipment. If they were at the same thechnological level as us, this would put them on our arm of the galaxy, at least 100 lightyears from us. But, of course, if they were less or more intelligent than us, this puts their distance either farther or closer to us.

And city lights are impossible to discern at such a distance as that planet, and there isnt anything pluto-based that looks at objects that I know of, as far as I knew, no one has even seen pluto up close.

 

[LoneDeranger]

I would just like to point out that black holes do not "suck"

For example, if our sun turned into a balck hole all of a sudden we would continue to orbit around it in the same fashion because it would still have the same mass.

 

[CokeLite]

Mabye the reason we are not recieving any radio waves from any other lifeforms is probibly because they didnt evolve with the same materials and inventions as we have. Any other civilizations might not even register with us as true lifeforms and might go unnoticed to us at first.

 

[Lil' Timmy]

/me stops crying

The basis for my reasononing is that we know exactly Jack and shit about the universe.

exactly my point, so what possible basis could you have to assume that there must be life elsewhere in the universe? the most positive thing one could say following your reasoning is "who knows"?

your looking at far to small of a picture. the solar system is a grain of sand on the beach.

right, but it's the only grain we have. again, the logical consequence of this statement is that we simply don't have enough evidence (statistically speaking) to say anything about the occurance of extra-terrestrial life. a less careful approach would say, "well, we've got one sample of 9ish planets, and only one has life, so 1 in 9 chance for any given solar system!" another way to think of it is "well, we've got one sample and only one planet with life, so it's probably unique". neither conclusion is based on hard statistical reasoning. generally in the sciences it's more useful to take the negative position and try to prove the positive, rather than vice versa (it's more easily accomplished).

mars is very close to us, relativly speaking.....so finding signs of life there would not be spectaculary suprising to me.

well, whether it surprises you or not, it could certainly right away disprove the idea that life is unique to earth, unless you are assuming there is some material communication (capable of transporting life) between the two planets.

Unproven theory? Eh… how do you think people reacted when some crazy mofo said that Earth is indeed round? Or what about evolution theory?

well thankfully, they didn't just accept it all at face value (i'm speaking of the more scientifically minded people), because the work that goes into proving a theory is the basic structure of science itself. i'm not denying the possibility, just taking umbrage with the notion that life MUST necessarily exist elswhere in the universe (it is not obvious, as pointed out above).

People couldn’t have discovered things like that if they didn’t have specific tools or weren’t advanced enough. Point is, with our current technology, we won’t be able to prove anything, only if aliens come to us instead.

agreed. but we can start with an assumption (to me the negative being more useful than the positive).

Discovering life on mars won’t prove that there is live in universe. Again, this is simple HUMAN logic, in something THAT big, there is SOMETHING out there. You are thinking about life form that needs to breath, to wash, to eat. What about life form that doesn’t need it at all? That can live in crazy conditions? We both know that human body is very fragile. But again, we will never prove that there is/not something out there, because we will never explore whole damn space.

er, i don't recall ever speaking as to the character of extra-terrestrial life.. it can be as crazy as you want, i still don't see how that affects the statistics. exploring all of space has nothing to do with it. i'm not concerned whther there is life out there that will not ever be known, i'm concerned with the 'effective' existence of extra-terrestrial life (this kinda speaks to your god remark).[/quote]

It’s like proving if God exists or not.

not really, one is a physical exploration and the other is generally cohnsidered some sort of metaphysical exploration, the two are completely unrelated, as far as i can tell.. unless you want god(s) to be physical entities, but that's a different thread

 

[Letters]

I would just like to point out that black holes do not "suck"

For example, if our sun turned into a balck hole all of a sudden we would continue to orbit around it in the same fashion because it would still have the same mass.

That would kinda suck, though, eh? :cheese:

 

[Lil' Timmy]

I would just like to point out that black holes do not "suck"

For example, if our sun turned into a balck hole all of a sudden we would continue to orbit around it in the same fashion because it would still have the same mass.

well, that all depends on whether or not the orbit of the earth would be inside the black-hole sun's (soundgarden!!) event horizon or not. ion that particular case, i'm nearly positive it wouldn't be, but i'm just saying.

 

[Top Secret]

What happens if we encounter life thats a billion or so years ahead of us in evolution?

Then they will kick our ass if we go to war with them.

 

[LoneDeranger]

well, that all depends on whether or not the orbit of the earth would be inside the black-hole sun's (soundgarden!!) event horizon or not. ion that particular case, i'm nearly positive it wouldn't be, but i'm just saying.

Thats correct, it would only be a few miles in size.

 

[crabcakes66]

/me stops crying
well, whether it surprises you or not, it could certainly right away disprove the idea that life is unique to earth, unless you are assuming there is some material communication (capable of transporting life) between the two planets.

Today no..... billions of years ago when our solar system was forming they did communicate materials and the possible basis for life to form.

 

[Lil' Timmy]

Today no..... billions of years ago when our solar system was forming they did communicate materials and the possible basis for life to form.

well, they do infact communicate material today, at least in the mars-to-earth direction (theoretically, the earth-to-mars direction appears to be possible). the question is whether or not the material can contain extant life or compounds that might somehow "jump-start" life (like amino acids) that would survive the trip through space. the planets were essentially done with the accretionary processes by the time life appears to have formed on earth (~3.5-4 gya), so one should probably concentrate on things that happened after that.

 

[Sprafa]

now, I belive that there is probably SOME form of life out there, but I dont belive in all this conspiracy theory stuff

personally my preference is that there were never any real alien spaceships here, no greys, no area 51. Thats just made up by paraniod people.

IF there is life out there, the most logical assumption would be bacteria. And if there are complex forms of life, I would assume that they are less advanced than we. for simple reasons...

1. No discernibale radio transmissions

2. Hardly any planets can even support life, as far as we know

3. Our definition of intelligence may be different than the actual thing.

4. There might actually be beings that are intelligent that have lived in the very distant past, but were wiped out by random events. In essence, we could be the last ones alive. Simply put, the Hypernova and Black Hole theory completley throws the drake theory out of whack.

5. The Hypernova and black hole theories are based on calculations and observations of distant phenomena. Based on this assumption, a Hypernova, and the black hole that came out of it would wipe out all life in the entire GALAXY that they are in, and these are very frequent in the universe, but not in our galaxy, at least not yet.

So based on all of these things, if there wasintelligent life that we would classify both as life and intellignet it would have to live close enough to us that it is not victim to radiation from the center of the galaxy, and close enough to where it wouldn't be destroyed by various hypernovae, but also far enough that it's radio signals wouldn't be picked up by us yet, or possibly are to weak for our current equipment. If they were at the same thechnological level as us, this would put them on our arm of the galaxy, at least 100 lightyears from us. But, of course, if they were less or more intelligent than us, this puts their distance either farther or closer to us.

And city lights are impossible to discern at such a distance as that planet, and there isnt anything pluto-based that looks at objects that I know of, as far as I knew, no one has even seen pluto up close.

I was just speculating no need to refute... And the pluto thing and telescopes, however possible they're imagined in 200 years or so...

By the way I said it before but no one listened... What if we are the 1st one to gain conscience... Maibe we'll make their ID4 a world holiday when they blow up our ships...

 

[Thadius Dean]

Anyone here read the His Dark Materials series?

thats what i belive. and with that, its off to my crappy homework.