have they found anything?

[JoeTheJuggler]

Another factopr to consider with the "Fermi 'Paradox'" is that we are refining our "broadcast technology so NOW we "leak" LESS. We're using fiber optics, have more finely focused signals, etc. So, given a theoretical lifespan of a civilization, how long are they really, really noisy? And as has already been shown, even that noise isn't that easy to detect beyond a few lightyears (relative to the size of the galaxy) really.

Good point. Another explanation for no SETI result, then, might be that most civilizations regard radio that we might think of smoke signals.

On the subject, do you know how far away our "leakage" could be detected by an Arecibo-sized radio telescope? I'm pretty sure we would only be able to detect that sort of signal from a handful of the nearest stars (if that), and we're mostly just ruling out someone focusing a strong signal right at us (at just the right moment).

 

[LarianLeQuella]

In post #226, davefoc posted a good link on radio wave propegation: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/astronomy/faq/part6/section-12.html The site is blocked by CENTAF, but as I recall, it's not that far at all. Dismayingly short distance even.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Ah thank you. It's even a shorter distance than I thought:

Detection of broadband signals from Earth such as AM radio, FM
radio, and television picture and sound would be extremely
difficult even at a fraction of a light-year distant from the
Sun. For example, a TV picture having 5 MHz of bandwidth and 5
MWatts of power could not be detected beyond the solar system
even with a radio telescope with 100 times the sensitivity of the
305 meter diameter Arecibo telescope.

So really, about all we can rule out from SETI's failure to detect a signal so far is that no one in our area has been focussing a signal at us. It doesn't even rule out a civilization with exactly our technological characteristics in the nearest star systems in recent years.

 

[amb]

And there's plenty of experimental evidence that shows that humans are not unique in that regard. (The spot-on-the-face/looking-in-a-mirror tests come to mind immediately.) There are a number of other species on Earth that are demonstrably self-aware. (There may be more than that, but we don't know.)

It sounds like now you're arguing that humans aren't animals--that we're fundamentally different than other life on Earth.

Of course we are different to other animals, or other life forms. We are self aware, we are self-conscious beings, we can manufacture a computer, send a man to the moon and back. We are the same as any animal on Earth, the big difference is our brain power.
Like comparing a message in a bottle to a DVD/CD player.
No other creature on Earth has our brain power and I doubt there ever will be.
Whales and dolphins have been on Earth longer than us. What progress have they made, or look like making in the distant future.
I believe homo sapiens struck a lotto jackpot in acquiring our intelligence.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

It sounds like now you're arguing that humans aren't animals--that we're fundamentally different than other life on Earth.

Of course we are different to other animals, or other life forms. We are self aware, we are self-conscious beings,

Yes, but just as matters of fact, we are not the ONLY self-aware and self-conscious species on the Earth. We are also not fundamentally different than other animals--we are in fact demonstrably related to other animals and indeed share a common ancestor with all eucaryotic life on Earth (and probably with most procaryotes as well).

There's plenty of evidence to support what I say. It sounds like maybe you're not aware of it? Mirror studies (with the dot on the face) for self-awareness in many animals (but not in others). Evidence of role reversal, trickery, etc. especially in other primates.

we can manufacture a computer, send a man to the moon and back. We are the same as any animal on Earth, the big difference is our brain power.
Like comparing a message in a bottle to a DVD/CD player.
No other creature on Earth has our brain power and I doubt there ever will be.

I agree. Interesting analogy you used. The message in a bottle technology-using civilization eventually grew into the DVD/CD player using civilization. It's strictly a difference of degree not kind that you're speaking of.

At any rate, you keep missing my "even if" rebuttal. Even if you look at it that humans are the only radio-technology using species on the planet, that doesn't really help you in the numbers game. You're not talking about radio-tech civilizations per billion stars or planets, but now talking about it per billion species in the galaxy. If you go back to the planet ratio, the Earth is still 1:1.

Whales and dolphins have been on Earth longer than us. What progress have they made, or look like making in the distant future.
I believe homo sapiens struck a lotto jackpot in acquiring our intelligence.

First, are you comparing an order (Cetacea) to a species (Homo sapiens)? What does that even mean? If you compare order to order, I'm not so sure Cetacea is so much more long-lived than Primata. Even so, this speculation still doesn't say so much about intelligence in itself (because Cetacea are noted for being intelligent), but only for technology-use and development.

There's a bit of goalpost moving going on. For a while, it sounded like you were saying while microbes might be common, more complex forms (which would surely include whales and dolphins) aren't possible besides the one time in our galaxy. Then it was intelligence, then self-awareness, and now it sounds like it's strictly technology-using intelligence. Will this continue until your claim is that humans are the only humans in the galaxy?

If so, I completely agree with that claim, but not at all for the reasons given by the rare Earth theory.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I checked and your guess was wrong. The earliest cetaceans, pakicetids (4 legged wading mammals), arose about 53 mya. (The first fully marine cetaceans--the first thing you might think of as a "whale" or "dolphin" ancestor were the basilaurids and dorundontids that date from about 38 mya.)

Primates go back "at least 65 mya" with the earliest known fossils dating to 55-58 mya.

This is all from wikipedia pages on "evolution of cetaceans" and "primates"

So is your argument that since cetaceans haven't developed technology yet, they never under any circumstances will? (Actually, I think the lack of anything like a hand to do fine manipulation of things probably means their intellectual development will not be anything like that of humans, so you may be right.) And from this--I don't know--that no marine life form anywhere in the galaxy can develop technology-using intelligence? Or that dry land is required?

 

[LarianLeQuella]

Homo-erectus and homo-neanderthalensis were considered separate species, and they developed intelligence. Their exctinction nevel let us know if they coud have reached the technological levels we have. I will agree that we have suffered from an incredible advance in technology (i.e. we developed nucreal arms before we learned how to give up dangerous delusions for instance). Maybe as a species we've experienced a sort of leapfrog in our technology, and are atypical in that regard. We shouldn't be at this point yet.

And how can you say conclusivelly that cetacians haven't developed some philisopical trains of thought that far surpass our own? Have you perhaps developed some sort of translation tool that the rest of the scientific community is unaware of? Please share.

 

[amb]

Yes, but just as matters of fact, we are not the ONLY self-aware and self-conscious species on the Earth. We are also not fundamentally different than other animals--we are in fact demonstrably related to other animals and indeed share a common ancestor with all eucaryotic life on Earth (and probably with most procaryotes as well).

There's plenty of evidence to support what I say. It sounds like maybe you're not aware of it? Mirror studies (with the dot on the face) for self-awareness in many animals (but not in others). Evidence of role reversal, trickery, etc. especially in other primates.


I agree. Interesting analogy you used. The message in a bottle technology-using civilization eventually grew into the DVD/CD player using civilization. It's strictly a difference of degree not kind that you're speaking of.

At any rate, you keep missing my "even if" rebuttal. Even if you look at it that humans are the only radio-technology using species on the planet, that doesn't really help you in the numbers game. You're not talking about radio-tech civilizations per billion stars or planets, but now talking about it per billion species in the galaxy. If you go back to the planet ratio, the Earth is still 1:1.


First, are you comparing an order (Cetacea) to a species (Homo sapiens)? What does that even mean? If you compare order to order, I'm not so sure Cetacea is so much more long-lived than Primata. Even so, this speculation still doesn't say so much about intelligence in itself (because Cetacea are noted for being intelligent), but only for technology-use and development.

There's a bit of goalpost moving going on. For a while, it sounded like you were saying while microbes might be common, more complex forms (which would surely include whales and dolphins) aren't possible besides the one time in our galaxy. Then it was intelligence, then self-awareness, and now it sounds like it's strictly technology-using intelligence. Will this continue until your claim is that humans are the only humans in the galaxy?

If so, I completely agree with that claim, but not at all for the reasons given by the rare Earth theory.

Then, if you are right, that's all the more reason to stop the whaling nations in the slaughter of these magnificent creatures of the sea.
My point here is that among all the creatures on this planet, which most zoologists agree numbered in the millions, only one has acquired a technology that enables us to have this discussion.
Sure some biologists have noted some self awareness in some primates, but this awareness will never surpass, or evolve into something more.
At the present time, our knowledge of the origin of life remains a mystery. That is not to say, of course, that it will remain so.
We do know that the physical and chemical processes that led to the emergence of life from non-life were immensely complicated, and it is no wonder that w find such processes hard to model mathematically or to duplicate in the laboratory.
There are only two possibilities of how life come about.
1. It was a stupendously improbable accident.
2. It was an inevitable consequence of the outworking of the laws of physics and chemistry,given the right conditions.
No. 2 is a very big ask given all the elements and conditions having to be just right.
I remind you that I have stated over and over, that Earth is extremly rare, not impossible given the trillions of stars that are out there in all the galaxies.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Then, if you are right, that's all the more reason to stop the whaling nations in the slaughter of these magnificent creatures of the sea.

I agree. This has nothing to do with the topic though.

My point here is that among all the creatures on this planet, which most zoologists agree numbered in the millions, only one has acquired a technology that enables us to have this discussion.

I agree. This observation does not support the claim that we are unique in the galaxy in that regard.

Sure some biologists have noted some self awareness in some primates, but this awareness will never surpass, or evolve into something more.

This is absurd. Evolution doesn't follow predictable paths. You simply cannot support the claim that I have highlighted. I'm not arguing that other primates will evolve to be humans. I'm merely pointing out that your assertion that humans are the only intelligent, self-aware beings on the Earth is factually wrong.

At the present time, our knowledge of the origin of life remains a mystery. That is not to say, of course, that it will remain so.

No. Even though we may not have observed it in the lab just yet, we've got a pretty good idea of how it happened. It's not all that mysterious.

There are only two possibilities of how life come about.
1. It was a stupendously improbable accident.
2. It was an inevitable consequence of the outworking of the laws of physics and chemistry,given the right conditions.
No. 2 is a very big ask given all the elements and conditions having to be just right.

Again, this sounds like you're talking about theological things. How does "accident" in number 1 differ from "consequence of the outworking of the laws of physics and chemistry" in number 2? It seems to me "accident" is one of those loaded words. Is the opposite of "accident" something like "intention"? If not, is there anything in the universe that is not "accidental"?

Otherwise, you've only falsely categorized an unknown probability (that can range from just above zero--but not zero--to one) into two options. That's just not an accurate representation. We don't know how probable abiogenesis is. That probability could be anywhere from just above zero up to one. There are an infinity of possible values it could have--not just two.

I remind you that I have stated over and over, that Earth is extremly rare, not impossible given the trillions of stars that are out there in all the galaxies.

Yes, and I pointed out that the word "rare" is completely relative. There could be thousands of tech-using intelligent civilizations in our galaxy (spread out over space and time), and it might still be a "rare" enough thing that we'd never find evidence of the existence of any of them.

I agree that we're not likely ever to run into another intelligent civilization--perhaps not for the entire duration of the existence of our own. That still doesn't prove that we are unique in the galaxy. And, we could well find one!

What is the purpose of asserting that we are unique? That we should quit looking or close our minds to the possibility?

I still side with Sagan's statement. No matter how "rare" life might be, what the billions and billions, I would be shocked if we were unique. But, we still have no evidence, so we just don't know.

As I've shown, the tiny amount of the galaxy that we've been able to explore even a little bit doesn't give us enough of a dataset to conclude that we are unique in the galaxy.

 

[amb]

In spite of the huge growth in the subject of astrobiology, there is still no direct evidence for any extraterrestrial life. In the event that life is discovered elsewhere in the solar system, for example on Mars, then the most likely explanation will be that it dod not originate there, but was transplanted from Earth in rocks ejected from our planet by comet and asteroid impacts.. We know that Earth and Mars trade rocks, and it seems very probable that microbes have hitched a ride many times throughout the solar system's long 4.5 billion year history. So finding life on Mars would not in itself prove that life has formed from scratch more than once. To draw that stronger conclusion, it would be necessary to demonstrate that Mars life and Earth life were sufficiently different to have had independent origins.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

In spite of the huge growth in the subject of astrobiology, there is still no direct evidence for any extraterrestrial life.

I agree. Again, I side with the Sagan quote I offered earlier. We don't know, and anyone who claims otherwise is making conclusions that go beyond the available evidence.

But the evidence and knowledge we have of our own galaxy is so incredibly limited that at the very least it is extremely premature to claim that we are probably unique in the galaxy.

In the event that life is discovered elsewhere in the solar system, for example on Mars, then the most likely explanation will be that it dod not originate there, but was transplanted from Earth in rocks ejected from our planet by comet and asteroid impacts.. We know that Earth and Mars trade rocks, and it seems very probable that microbes have hitched a ride many times throughout the solar system's long 4.5 billion year history. So finding life on Mars would not in itself prove that life has formed from scratch more than once. To draw that stronger conclusion, it would be necessary to demonstrate that Mars life and Earth life were sufficiently different to have had independent origins.

I disagree with the highlighted bit. Until you have any evidence of that event happening at least once, I don't think you can make any claim that it "seems probable" to have happened numerous times.

At any rate, none of this says anything about ET life or ET intelligence. I suppose you're back to making the case that Mars is necessary for life on Earth. I've already addressed that. I can repeat it.

The idea that life arose on Mars but not on Earth, and that life couldn't begin on Earth but only on Mars, but then life travelled to Earth where conditions allowed it to become complex (but conditions on Mars prevented it from becoming complex) is far less parsimonious than the more conventional hypothesis that abiogenesis happened on Earth, and we have no idea right now whether life even ever existed on Mars.

Even if this configuration was a requirement for life on Earth, there's no saying that it's a requirement for complex life forms in general. There could be situations that provide conditions amenable to life that we can't even yet imagine, and we can already imagine some non-Earth type situations. (Silicon-based life, life in the twilight zones of tidally locked planets, life on moons of gas giants, etc.)

Even if a Mars-like planet in relation to an Earth-like planet is a requirement for life in general, there is no reason to think this configuration is unique or even particularly rare. We just don't know. We've only got relatively detailed information on one solar system. Our observations of extrasolar planets is extremely limited. We know very little about them. I believe I posted a link earlier in this thread that one study suggests that "super Earths" (planets up to around 5 Earth masses) could be as common as 1 per every 3 single stars. It could be that solar systems very much like our own number in the tens or hundreds of thousands. We just don't know.

 

[arthwollipot]

Something occurred to me the other day, while thinking about the recent discovery of a methane pocket on Mars. I don't think this is evidence of life. Here's why.

On earth, life fills every conceivable niche environment, and more than a few inconceivable ones. Life permeates all parts of the globe from the deepest seas to the most remote deserts. Life has been found deep inside the crust.

It is in the nature of life to do this. Life reproduces, it evolves, it occupies niches until there are no more niches left to occupy.

On Mars, we have an isolated methane plume in one area. This is not how life behaves, so far as we can tell.

For this one little methane plume to be indicative of life, some mechanism would have to exist that prevents that life from spreading further over Mars' surface.

My thoughts only.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Actually there have been several methane plumes found--and they're not little. Some are associated with water vapor, and some not.

At any rate, until we at least get the hydrogen/deuterium ratios (or some other evidence as to its origin), I'm not comfortable saying this methane is or is not of biological origin. We just don't know.

Life has filled every conceivable niche on the Earth. It could be that some underground microbes is the result of filling every conceivable niche on Mars. It could also be that the ecological rules are different there. Or it could be that the methane is of non-biological origin.

Again, we just don't know.

In '76, I thought I'd be witnessing the definitive answer to the question, "Is there life on Mars?" Now I understand it's not such an easy question to answer. I hope I live to see it answered with some confidence. (And I hope it's "Yes" so we can raise a whole other passel of questions!)

 

[amb]

I also wish to live long enough for such a discovery, purely to see how the major religions react, and an assurance that we are not alone. I curse the time period I was born in. A child born today, providing we don't blow ourselves up, or destroy mother Earth by our stupidity, will surely live long enough to find out one way or the other.
As I stated above, if life is discovered in any other place in our solar system, and it's proved to be completely different to any life form on Earth, that will prove beyond any doubt that life exists in all planets or moons that have the right conditions.
Until that day arrives, all we have is the evidence of one planet with all the right conditions for life to have emerged.
I think silicone based life is the stuff of science fiction. Only carbon based life leads to complex life forms. Silicone may lead to very primitive life, but not animal life as we know it.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

As I stated above, if life is discovered in any other place in our solar system, and it's proved to be completely different to any life form on Earth, that will prove beyond any doubt that life exists in all planets or moons that have the right conditions.

No it won't. The "right conditions" is here only defined as the places where life exists. The question is, what are the right conditions?

And even if we knew what the right conditions are, finding life in one such place doesn't guarantee that it exists in "all planets or moons that have the right conditions." It only proves that it exists on that planet or moon.

ETA: Similarly, not finding life somewhere that has the "right conditions" doesn't prove that life doesn't occur anywhere else except on the Earth.

I think silicone based life is the stuff of science fiction. Only carbon based life leads to complex life forms. Silicone may lead to very primitive life, but not animal life as we know it.

How do you know?

 

[Radrook]

I also wish to live long enough for such a discovery, purely to see how the major religions react,......

How do you imagine they'll react? There is absolutely NOTHING which restricts an ID from doing his thing on other planets. Neither does Judaism, Christianity, nor Islam have any teaching which prohibits life being created on other worlds.


BTW
Each generation wishes it could live far into the future as each furtue becomes the present. I feel the same as you do. Wish to see colonies on Mars, at the least. Yet I know that my chances aren't good. However, what we have seen and experienced most of mankind during all human history never did. So we definitely have been privileged in that way--at least.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

How do you imagine they'll react?

I imagine mostly the same way they do with any other advance in science (that is increase in our knowledge of the natural world), but shrinking their claims to fit into the remaining gaps.


I suppose they'll have to invent answers to questions that are largely meaningless to the rest of us. For example, if they believe only humans have souls (not dogs, not other primates, not cetaceans), what do they say about aliens intelligent enough to use a fully-developed language and radio technology?

 

[arthwollipot]

How do you imagine they'll react? There is absolutely NOTHING which restricts an ID from doing his thing on other planets. Neither does Judaism, Christianity, nor Islam have any teaching which prohibits life being created on other worlds.

Would intelligent aliens be saved by Jesus Christ?

 

[amb]

How do you imagine they'll react? There is absolutely NOTHING which restricts an ID from doing his thing on other planets. Neither does Judaism, Christianity, nor Islam have any teaching which prohibits life being created on other worlds.


BTW
Each generation wishes it could live far into the future as each furtue becomes the present. I feel the same as you do. Wish to see colonies on Mars, at the least. Yet I know that my chances aren't good. However, what we have seen and experienced most of mankind during all human history never did. So we definitely have been privileged in that way--at least.

Christianity and islam plus judaism all claim a special creation in the garden of eden. That man was the ultimate creation of a deity. That the stars and the heavens were created for the sole purpose of mankind, to seperate night from day. ID is a evolution of this fact whose sole purpose is to make the babble relevant for the 21st century.

 

[amb]

Would intelligent aliens be saved by Jesus Christ?

If the cosmos is teeming with life as some scientist claim, then Jeebus is at this very moment hanging from a cross saving another civilasation somewhere in the constellation of Pegasus.
The next stop is on the other side of the universe.