have they found anything?

[amb]

You've said this before, and I don't understand what you mean really.

The physical processes and events that led to complex life on Earth--do you think they can't happen elsewhere?

If not, why not?


And this sounds like you believe in something like destiny. Like there is a certain path that the universe is fated to follow (which again sounds very much like a supernatural belief).

To permit life to evolve in at least one place in the universe, three very basic requirements must be satisfied:
1.The laws of physics should permit stable complex structures to form.
2.The universe should posses the sort of substances, such as carbon, that biology uses.
3.An appropriate setting must exist in which the vital components come together in the appropriate way.
Even these three requirements impose very stringent restrictions on physics and cosmology, so stringent that they strike some scientists as nothing short of a fix-'a put up job' according to Fred Hoyle.
To me if the universe has abundent intelligent life forms based on carbon, as that is the most likely and only element that can produce complex animal life, that may well start the theists saying: 'I told you so.'
The chances of all the elements that made up the first life somehow coming together are in the vicinity of one in a trillion. That it happened on at least one planet would seem to some as a miracle, let alone the whole cosmos.
All these elements that are required for life are in abundance in the universe, but the question remains, how did they all come together in one place or many and start life on it's evolutionary path?
I don't believe in any god, that's why I think life was a fluke that maybe only happened once, or perhaps a dozen or so times in the whole universe at most.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

To permit life to evolve in at least one place in the universe, three very basic requirements must be satisfied:
1.The laws of physics should permit stable complex structures to form.
2.The universe should posses the sort of substances, such as carbon, that biology uses.
3.An appropriate setting must exist in which the vital components come together in the appropriate way.

And we know beyond any doubt that all three of these requirements have been satisfied in the universe.

Even these three requirements impose very stringent restrictions on physics and cosmology, so stringent that they strike some scientists as nothing short of a fix-'a put up job' according to Fred Hoyle.

You're sure you're not making a Fine-Tuner argument?

The chances of all the elements that made up the first life somehow coming together are in the vicinity of one in a trillion.

How did you calculate this number? I think you pulled it out of thin air, and it is no more meaningful than an assertion of your opinion that we are probably unique in the galaxy.

Below you say that how abiogenesis happened is still a mystery, so you have no basis whatsoever to say what the chances of it happening are.

Believe me, I'm OK with saying we don't know--just as in the Sagan passage I quoted earlier.

That it happened on at least one planet would seem to some as a miracle, let alone the whole cosmos.
All these elements that are required for life are in abundance in the universe, but the question remains, how did they all come together in one place or many and start life on it's evolutionary path?

Again---"miracle" and "mystery" sure sound like the language of theism.

I don't believe in any god, that's why I think life was a fluke that maybe only happened once, or perhaps a dozen or so times in the whole universe at most.

Care to share where these numbers came from?

At any rate, we know a lot more about abiogenesis than you acknowledge. If you want to talk about the chances of a self-replicating molecule starting, you'd need some really really big numbers (like all the appropriate elements and precursor molecules in the primeval oceans). And that's just to calculate it's chances of happening on Earth--let alone the galaxy or the universe.

Once you get a self-replicating molecule and maybe a bubble of membrane (not a difficult thing either), natural selection starts to operate.

 

[amb]

Charles Darwin was born on February 12, 1809--the same day as Abraham Lincoln--and published his magnum opus, On the Origin of Species, fifty years later. Every half century, then, a Darwin Year comes around: an occasion to honor his theory of evolution by natural selection, which is surely the most important concept in biology, and perhaps the most revolutionary scientific idea in history. 2009 is such a year, and we biologists are preparing to fan out across the land, giving talks and attending a multitude of DarwinFests. The melancholy part is that we will be speaking more to other scientists than to the American public. For in this country, Darwin is a man of low repute. The ideas that made Darwin's theory so revolutionary are precisely the ones that repel much of religious America, for they imply that, far from having a divinely scripted role in the drama of life, our species is the accidental and contingent result of a purely natural process.

I thought a reminder of Darwins forthcoming birthday is in oder here.

 

[amb]

Again---"miracle" and "mystery" sure sound like the language of theism.

Theism died the day Copernicus uncentered the Earth.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Theism died the day Copernicus uncentered the Earth.

I wish it were so, but unfortunately it isn't.

Theism (the belief in a god or gods) still thrives. We atheists still comprise a small minority of the world's population.

At any rate, abiogenesis on Earth is not a miracle (suspension of natural laws) or a mystery. We've got some pretty robust ideas of how it could happen.

The physical events (laws of physics and chemistry) should be the same all over the universe, so there's no reason to think it couldn't happen elsewhere. There are a LOT of elsewheres, so there's no naturalistic reason to think we're unique.

 

[arthwollipot]

And this sounds like you believe in something like destiny. Like there is a certain path that the universe is fated to follow (which again sounds very much like a supernatural belief).

No - not supernatural. This is the Strong Anthropic Principle, that the laws of the universe exist in such a form that the development of intelligent life is inevitable. It's teleological, but it's not (necessarily) supernatural. Nor, incidentally, is it a position that is based on evidence.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

No - not supernatural. This is the Strong Anthropic Principle, that the laws of the universe exist in such a form that the development of intelligent life is inevitable. It's teleological, but it's not (necessarily) supernatural. Nor, incidentally, is it a position that is based on evidence.

On another thread it was Westprog who said he thought the claim that we are unique implies belief in God (or something like that). You're right---I wouldn't go that far myself. My suspicions were aroused by calling life on Earth "miraculous" or "a miracle".

Curiously, Makaya used the same word.

I think in both cases, they're just arguing that it's extremely unlikely or a very very rare combination of circumstances is required. But the word "miracle" just jumps out at me. I guess they're both using it NOT in the meaning of a suspension of the normal laws of nature.

 

[arthwollipot]

I think in both cases, they're just arguing that it's extremely unlikely or a very very rare combination of circumstances is required. But the word "miracle" just jumps out at me. I guess they're both using it NOT in the meaning of a suspension of the normal laws of nature.

Agreed. Problem is, we can't know just how unlikely or rare an occurence it is. For it to have occurred only once in the entire universe, it would have to be rare indeed. Inconceivably rare.

 

[amb]

I think the whole universe is teeming with life. But microbial life. Animal cellular life, or even rarer, intelligent animal life is an extremely rare occurrence. It may be that we are the first or one of the first to evolve in the cosmos.
Fermi's Paradox still holds true.

 

[arthwollipot]

I think that once life starts, intelligence is pretty much inevitable - it's such a valuable survival trait.

 

[Smackety]

Are there more than 3 persons in the Trinity? (That is, did God make the same mistake with other planets and need to incarnate himself as a savior there too?)

For that matter, did God intervene to deliver the same 10 Commandments elsewhere?

Is eating snagglegefleezers kosher? Even if you gather them during the double full moons?

The big one--that I've already mentioned (whether other beings have souls or however you care to term that question) has lots of ramifications. Are they covered in the "Thou shalt not kill?" commandment? (Apparently most life forms on Earth aren't--so why should intelligent aliens?)

Will a good Terran believer have to share the afterlife with those hideous BEMs?

Is sex with an alien an abomination unto the lord (since it won't result in offspring)?

Some deeply religious coworkers have told me that aliens are evil because they do not know Jesus. He came here. That makes us special and not them.

 

[Lonewulf]

I think the whole universe is teeming with life. But microbial life. Animal cellular life, or even rarer, intelligent animal life is an extremely rare occurrence. It may be that we are the first or one of the first to evolve in the cosmos.
Fermi's Paradox still holds true.

Fermi's Paradox is a question, not an answer. Even Fermi himself wouldn't use it as an answer.

And the question has been dealt with sufficiently with several hypothetical answers since its conception. The answers just go ignored... possibly because they don't push the idea that we're "special".

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I think the whole universe is teeming with life. But microbial life. Animal cellular life, or even rarer, intelligent animal life is an extremely rare occurrence. It may be that we are the first or one of the first to evolve in the cosmos.
Fermi's Paradox still holds true.

I've already explained what's wrong with using Fermi's Paradox (or the absence of probes from advanced ET civilizations) as evidence for the absence of ET intelligence. I'll review it:

1.) The galaxy could be full of civilizations exactly like ours, and we are undetectable to even our own technology not so far from here. At best you're only proving that much more advanced civilizations haven't existed for a long enough time to fill the galaxy with probes.
2.) The argument assumes a technology that is impossible by today's science. I'm not saying I know for sure FTL or near lightspeed transportation will never be achieved, but it's a weak argument that assumes that such a thing is certain.
3.) Even if this tech is possible, the argument assumes that all intelligent civilizations will necessarily achieve everything that is possible. It could be that civilizations don't last long enough to, or it could be that it's economically unfeasible even if they do.
4.) Why do you use the absence of probes as evidence that no other intelligence in the galaxy exists and not that no other intelligence in the entire universe exists? If we're assuming magic technology, then why not assume quick and easy intergalactic transportation?
5.) The probes would have to be absolutely ubiquitous for it to be impossible to have missed one. What if one passed through, checked out the Earth, and went on its way a mere 1 million years ago?

In this case, the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

If you raise Fermi's Paradox again, please answer all of these points. Any one of them is sufficient to debunk it as an argument that we are unique in the galaxy.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I think that once life starts, intelligence is pretty much inevitable - it's such a valuable survival trait.

I don't think there's evidence for that claim either. On Earth, plenty of life has existed many many times longer than intelligent life (defined as technology-using intelligence). The oldest known life forms (archaebacteria) are still the most abundant and ubiquitous form of life on Earth. Even among more complex life forms, the dinosaurs, for example, existed a great deal longer than humans have so far.

Most of the lineages of life on Earth thrived without anything like the kind of intelligence we're talking about.

 

[amb]

I think that once life starts, intelligence is pretty much inevitable - it's such a valuable survival trait.

Out of the millions of lifeforms that have evolved on the Earth, only homo sapiens has developed intelligence enough to ponder these questions.
All other lifeforms seem to be doing just fine with their limited intelligence.

 

[amb]

I've already explained what's wrong with using Fermi's Paradox (or the absence of probes from advanced ET civilizations) as evidence for the absence of ET intelligence. I'll review it:

1.) The galaxy could be full of civilizations exactly like ours, and we are undetectable to even our own technology not so far from here. At best you're only proving that much more advanced civilizations haven't existed for a long enough time to fill the galaxy with probes.
2.) The argument assumes a technology that is impossible by today's science. I'm not saying I know for sure FTL or near lightspeed transportation will never be achieved, but it's a weak argument that assumes that such a thing is certain.
3.) Even if this tech is possible, the argument assumes that all intelligent civilizations will necessarily achieve everything that is possible. It could be that civilizations don't last long enough to, or it could be that it's economically unfeasible even if they do.
4.) Why do you use the absence of probes as evidence that no other intelligence in the galaxy exists and not that no other intelligence in the entire universe exists? If we're assuming magic technology, then why not assume quick and easy intergalactic transportation?
5.) The probes would have to be absolutely ubiquitous for it to be impossible to have missed one. What if one passed through, checked out the Earth, and went on its way a mere 1 million years ago?

In this case, the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

If you raise Fermi's Paradox again, please answer all of these points. Any one of them is sufficient to debunk it as an argument that we are unique in the galaxy.

The reason I believe we may be one of the first intelligence in the cosmos is because the first generation of stars had not yet produced the carbon and other elements necessary for life and planets to form.
Carbon and all other elements is spewed into space by a star going supernova. The carbon is produced in the core of a star. Super massive stars have very short lifespans that still take around 1-5 billion years to exhaust their hydrogen supply. Our universe is around 13.7 billion years old. In other words, second and third generation stars were only able to form after the first generation stars became extinct. There has been only enough time for one or a dozen other civilazations in the cosmos at most seeing that life took around 4.5 billion years to reach the stage we are at.

 

[Lonewulf]

Out of the millions of lifeforms that have evolved on the Earth, only homo sapiens has developed intelligence enough to ponder these questions.
All other lifeforms seem to be doing just fine with their limited intelligence.

Tell that to the Dodo.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

The reason I believe we may be one of the first intelligence in the cosmos is because the first generation of stars had not yet produced the carbon and other elements necessary for life and planets to form.
Carbon and all other elements is spewed into space by a star going supernova. The carbon is produced in the core of a star. Super massive stars have very short lifespans that still take around 1-5 billion years to exhaust their hydrogen supply. Our universe is around 13.7 billion years old. In other words, second and third generation stars were only able to form after the first generation stars became extinct. There has been only enough time for one or a dozen other civilazations in the cosmos at most seeing that life took around 4.5 billion years to reach the stage we are at.

I agree that after the first 20 minutes following the Big Bang, the heaviest element was Beryllium. And I agree that carbon (and all the other heavier elements) are formed by nucleosynthesis inside stars and takes some time.

But it's a huge leap from that observation to the claim that there are only from 2 (including us) to 12 intelligent (technological) civilizations in the entire universe.

There has been plenty of carbon in the universe for at least the last 10 billion years. There are countless stars in hundreds of billions of galaxies in the observable universe alone (and we do know that it's bigger than what we can see--as I've recently learned).

There could be a great many other civilizations just like ours (give or take a million or a hundred million or even a few billion years on the timeline). Nothing you've said rules this possibility out.

 

[amb]

Our solar system is nothing special, yet life appeared only around 4 billion years ago.
We have to give the universe at least 5-10 billion years before an Earth like planet was able to be produced. Another 4 billion years for life to actually start from all the particles and elements that somehow came together at the right place and right time, and we come to what I consider to be one of the first intelligent life forms to have evolved in the cosmos. There just has not been enough time for billions of intelligent species to have evolved throughout the whole universe.
Microbial life, sure, but animal life takes on the average at least 4.5 billion years to evolve from nothing, on a Earth like planet that is at the right distance from it's sun like star at the right distance from the center of it's galaxy,ect, ect.

 

[Smackety]

Our solar system is nothing special, yet life appeared only around 4 billion years ago.
We have to give the universe at least 5-10 billion years before an Earth like planet was able to be produced. Another 4 billion years for life to actually start from all the particles and elements that somehow came together at the right place and right time, and we come to what I consider to be one of the first intelligent life forms to have evolved in the cosmos. There just has not been enough time for billions of intelligent species to have evolved throughout the whole universe.
Microbial life, sure, but animal life takes on the average at least 4.5 billion years to evolve from nothing, on a Earth like planet that is at the right distance from it's sun like star at the right distance from the center of it's galaxy,ect, ect.

I think you misjudge the size of the universe. It is pretty whopping big.