Do You Believe In Extraterrestrial Life?

[MilitantAnarchist]

I was watching the X Files movie on tele last night, and i've thought about it alot before, but never posted on here... I'm sure it's been done before... and i hope everyone can agree that, yes there is life out there, somewhere, there has to be, but i dont really think it comes in the form of little green men in flying saucers....
I guess a more appropriate question for this, is do you think that aliens have visited earth and its been covered up by the powers that be? Or that they have made contact... the REAL question i guess is do you think there is intellegent life out there.... I'm not sure, i'm completetly open to theories on it. Most of the infomation is very biast, wether it be for or against it, and is cloudy at best...
What do you think?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Yes, but I'm only visiting.

[Pogue]

I agree with bill hicks, we should go explore once we've solved this world's problems. exciting stuff, shame i wont live to see it.

[Muzk]

go join scientology if you believe in this kind of crap

and, since the universe is finite, you would need another place with PERFECT conditions, and with perfect i mean VERY PERFECT, we are at the edge of technology anyways... seriously

[Ovi]

I don't think anyone visited us and if they did we couldn't know it. If there is intelligent life outside earth then odds are that they're far more advanced.

[Socialist Guy]

I imagine a planet far, far away, where fascists are used as entertainment, people from all beliefs get a long together and there is no conflict.

Of course I could only dream of such a world.

[hefty_lefty]

All jokes aside, the theory of an advanced race not from this planet visiting us at a point in our civilization when we did not have effective tools to catalogue and preserve such information is not absurd.
No more absurd than god, or quantum mechanics.
Our rise to power is shrouded in mystery, and the worldwide myths of gods descending from the heavens, the great emphasis of astrology and even recent sightings seem to uphold the possibility of extra-terrestrial life.

Our understanding of the universe is still in it's infancy, how much can we truly prove by crunching numbers.
Quantum mechanics especially seems bizarre, 4 dimensional space-time, other dimensions curling in on themselves, time plasticity, probability... things I'll never understand.

For those who believe we are one of a kind here on earth, then maybe it was us who went back in time and visited ourselves.
Science may one day lead us to a better understanding of time, and maybe even time travel.
And if we ever figure time travel out, then it has already happened.

[which doctor]

I certainly believe in the possibility, even the likelihood, of extraterrestrial life, as any rational materialist should. There is no reason whatsoever to believe that life can only exist on Earth. The known universe is a huge place and contains scores of solar systems and planets we really know nothing about. As for aliens visiting Earth, I suppose it's possible they have, but most "evidence" regarding alien visits is conspiracy theory bullshit and should be dismissed as such.



go join scientology if you believe in this kind of crap

and, since the universe is finite, you would need another place with PERFECT conditions, and with perfect i mean VERY PERFECT, we are at the edge of technology anyways... seriously
For starters, there is no scientific consensus on whether or not the universe is finite or infinite. Even if it is finite, there's no telling how massive it is, except that it'd be beyond our level of comprehension. And I'm not sure what the "edge of technology" either.

[Ovi]

And if ever we ever figure time travel out, then it has already happened.
Funny, when I was a kid I figured that if during my lifetime time travel would be invented and I could travel back in time, than if I really wanted it to do that then I should meet the mature of me (ignoring the logical problems). Never happened though...

[Jethro Tull]

the universe is vast. of course life has developed independently on other planets, on other galaxies, and in other parts of this galaxy. however, if there was an advanced space-faring industrial civilization capable of contact with earth, we would have discovered it already. industrial capitalism probably usually collapses before it reaches the point of frequent inter-stellar travel.

the things people usually see as "u.f.o.'s" are often either classifed state-aircraft, or aspects of the natural world yet to be categorized and recognized by the modern intelligentsia. ("nature spirits" if you will) "alien abductions" are likely a supernatural phenomenon commonly referred to as "old hag syndrome". folks such as erik von daniken have scammed obscene amounts of money with their fraudulent and irresponsible misinterpretations of ancient wisdom. (arguably a form of cultural imperialism

[The Accomplice]

I think there is life in our universe. To me, it seems kind of ridiculous to believe that there is no possibility of life in this massive universe that contains many other solar systems, planets and galaxies. So I'm pretty sure there is life out there. To me, the universe is just too immense to say that earthlings are the only lifeforms inhabiting it.

[spiltteeth]

Even given the size and mass of the universe, the chances of any life existing is mindboghgleingly infinitesimal, in all probability we are it.

[Ovi]

Even given the size and mass of the universe, the chances of any life existing is mindboghgleingly infinitesimal, in all probability we are it.
Others say the opposite (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation) so it's surprising that we haven't seen any aliens yet.

[spiltteeth]

By 'others' I assume you mean star trek fans.
Well, several terms in the "Drake" equation are largely or entirely based on conjecture. As T.J. Nelson states:

The Drake equation consists of a large number of probabilities multiplied together. Since each factor is guaranteed to be somewhere between 0 and 1, the result is also guaranteed to be a reasonable-looking number between 0 and 1. Unfortunately, all the probabilities are completely unknown, making the result worse than useless.

To make any kind of serious case thats it's in any way reasonably probably intelligent life exists elsewhere you would have to posit that non carbon-based complex life could possibly emerge, and I think Richard Dawkins makes a very convincing case of why this is untenable.

[Ovi]

By 'others' I assume you mean star trek fans.
Well, several terms in the "Drake" equation are largely or entirely based on conjecture. As T.J. Nelson states:

I agree, but by saying the opposite, that the chances of alien life are very small you are falling in the same trap: you can't prove it

[NecroCommie]

I agree, but by saying the opposite, that the chances of alien life are very small you are falling in the same trap: you can't prove it
Negative claim cannot be proven. You made the positive claim: "Drake's equation is valid, and states this..." Therefor you have the burdain of proof.

[mikelepore]

To make any kind of serious case thats it's in any way reasonably probably intelligent life exists elsewhere you would have to posit that non carbon-based complex life could possibly emerge, and I think Richard Dawkins makes a very convincing case of why this is untenable.

Why? Carbon is produced in every star. Elements with atomic numbers greater than 26 aren't produced in all stars, but carbon, element 6, is.

[mikelepore]

Negative claim cannot be proven. You made the positive claim: "Drake's equation is valid, and states this..." Therefor you have the burdain of proof.

The reason the Drake equation is valid is because any unknown situation can be expressed as a chain of conditional probabilities multiplied together.

The probability that I will find a lottery ticket and it will win me a million dollars = P1 times P2 times P3

where:

P1 = probability that I will find one

P2 = probability that, if I find one, it will win

P3 = probability that, if it wins, the amount of the winning will be a million dollars

[Ovi]

Negative claim cannot be proven. You made the positive claim: "Drake's equation is valid, and states this..." Therefor you have the burdain of proof.
Actually I was doing the opposite. Someone claimed that it's near impossible for alien life to exist; others say that it is possible, using an equation that cannot be proven. What I'm saying is that splitteeth made an undocumented claim, which others disagree with, and none can be proven to be correct. So I'm waiting for splitteeth to prove his statement

[NecroCommie]

Actually I was doing the opposite. Someone claimed that it's near impossible for alien life to exist; others say that it is possible, using an equation that cannot be proven. What I'm saying is that splitteeth made an undocumented claim, which others disagree with, and none can be proven to be correct. So I'm waiting for splitteeth to prove his statement
Fair enough. To be more general on the topic anyway, one who claims extraterrestrial life is possible/propable/existent has the burdain of proof. My personal belief is placed on the 'possible'-slot, but since I am intelligent enough not to make an actual claim (since I am a bit lazy now) I will not bother backing anything up.

As to the drake equation, it is as inaccurate as the moral compass of satan. It has so many steps that can only be estimated at most, and guess what. Yes, that's right different people with different beliefs make different estimates resulting in different outcomes. One finnish science magazine once demonstrated the wide difference between two extreme calculated outcomes of the drake equation. One was calculated by a sceptic, the other by "believer". The results were ridiculous, other one resulted in a possibility of intelligent extraterrestrial cultures of 0,00000006 (something) percent ---> We are a miracle ourselves, versus the 100% of the believer, meaning that there should be ETs behind every fucking rock.

[Atrus]

Admittedly my understanding of Astro-Physics is not fantastic, but as a medical Chemist I don't see it being that unlikely for some sort of life to be out there. Of course, it would most likely be so alien to us that we wouldn't be able to communicate or perhaps even recognise it. On the other hand, it may be nothing more than single cellular organisms.
As I see it, with such a large universe, the chances of there being some sort of extraterrestrial living organism is reasonably high. I don't believe for a moment that it would be able to come to earth/make contact with us, or that it would be anything we can really imagine except with a scientific reasoning.

[hefty_lefty]

For all those probabilitists out there, what was the probability of our existence?

I'll guess a very low probablitiy, and even if the probability of other life manifesting in the universe is 100 or 100,000 times less probable, it is still well within the scope of possibility.

[Ovi]

Fair enough. To be more general on the topic anyway, one who claims extraterrestrial life is possible/propable/existent has the burdain of proof. My personal belief is placed on the 'possible'-slot, but since I am intelligent enough not to make an actual claim (since I am a bit lazy now) I will not bother backing anything up.

As to the drake equation, it is as inaccurate as the moral compass of satan. It has so many steps that can only be estimated at most, and guess what. Yes, that's right different people with different beliefs make different estimates resulting in different outcomes. One finnish science magazine once demonstrated the wide difference between two extreme calculated outcomes of the drake equation. One was calculated by a sceptic, the other by "believer". The results were ridiculous, other one resulted in a possibility of intelligent extraterrestrial cultures of 0,00000006 (something) percent ---> We are a miracle ourselves, versus the 100% of the believer, meaning that there should be ETs behind every fucking rock.
True. I believe that there must be some form of life outside of Earth, otherwise it would be so dull. Until someones discovers it, it's only a personal opinion.

[spiltteeth]

For all those probabilitists out there, what was the probability of our existence?

I'll guess a very low probablitiy, and even if the probability of other life manifesting in the universe is 100 or 100,000 times less probable, it is still well within the scope of possibility.

The answer is that the chances that the universe should be life-permitting are so infinitesimal as to be incomprehensible and incalculable.

For example, Stephen Hawking has estimated that if the rate of the universe’s expansion one second after the Big Bang had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million, the universe would have re-collapsed into a hot fireball.

P. C. W. Davies has calculated that the odds against the initial conditions being suitable for later star formation (without which planets could not exist) is one followed by a thousand billion billion zeroes, at least.
He also estimates that a change in the strength of gravity or of the weak force by only one part in 10(100) would have prevented a life-permitting universe.
There are a number of such quantities and constants present in the big bang which must be fine-tuned in this way if the universe is to permit life. So improbability is multiplied by improbability until our minds are reeling in incomprehensible numbers.

There is no physical reason why these constants and quantities should possess the values they do. The former agnostic physicist Paul Davies comments, “Through my scientific work I have come to believe more and more strongly that the physical universe is put together with an ingenuity so astonishing that I cannot accept it merely as a brute fact.”
Similarly, Fred Hoyle remarks, “A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics.”

John D. Barrow and Frank J. Tippler calculate the odds against the assembly of a human genome at between 4-[180(110,000)] and 4-[360(110,000)]

[yuon]

Fuck, I just lost my great post that I had typed up...

Anyway, I don't know if life exists "out there" or not. Indeed, no one does. If they claim they do know, they are lying (or seriously mislead).

To show that life didn't evolve outside the solar system would require checking every single planet. To show that life did evolve outside the solar system would require actual scientific evidence.

Thanks all the same, but rather than making clear black and white statements, I'm going to stick with a simple, I don't know. At least I'm honest.

[yuon]

Fuck, I just lost my great post that I had typed up...

Anyway, I don't know if life exists "out there" or not. Indeed, no one does. If they claim they do know, they are lying (or seriously mislead).

To show that life didn't evolve outside the solar system would require checking every single planet. To show that life did evolve outside the solar system would require actual scientific evidence.

Thanks all the same, but rather than making clear black and white statements, I'm going to stick with a simple, I don't know. At least I'm honest.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Yuon, always type into Word first, and then when you are done, post it here -- but save it to disc, too!

Sometimes this site goes down, and we lose a whole day's posts.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

I think extraterrestrial life exists. Space is so vast I feel there must surely be other life forms somewhere. I find comfort in thinking there are other lifeforms somewhere running things democratically and equally, like the Dispossesed.

[hefty_lefty]

So SplitTeeth, you think science will eventually authenticate a creator?

Science proves god exists!
What a headline!

[spiltteeth]

So SplitTeeth, you think science will eventually authenticate a creator?

Science proves god exists!
What a headline!

Well, not authenticate exactly. I think right now God is the most probable reason for the universes existence. It's not proof, but I think the evidence is the theist's favor, such as the above statistics. For a discussion on the evidence you can check out what I've been writing at the religion forum.

Oh, and it's Spiltteeth, not Splitteeth

[Axle]

I think extraterrestrial life probably exists somewhere. The universe is so vast it sounds too unlikely that Earth is the only planet where it emerged.

But do I think any alien life ever visted this planet? God no. I'm not even sure with the hugeness of space that we even stand to great a chance of even ever running into alien life.

[Die Rote Fahne]

I do believe there is intelligent life out there.

Possibly even intelligent life that almost mimics our society and species. (Not all intelligent life, but possibly on one plantet somewhere

[Outinleftfield]

Yes. Its a big universe.

Odds are also that there are aliens far more advanced than us given the amount of time and the number of extinction events on Earth that had they not happened could've lead to intelligent life a lot earlier.

I think if aliens are visiting us then the government is covering it up because the aliens are communists living in a classless, stateless society of abundance and the capitalists don't want us interacting with them because people'd realize they don't need capitalism.

[mikelepore]

I think if aliens are visiting us then the government is covering it up because the aliens are communists living in a classless, stateless society of abundance and the capitalists don't want us interacting with them because people'd realize they don't need capitalism.

That's a great idea for a novel or a movie script.

[JazzRemington]

It depends on what you mean by "life". Even then, it probably would be better to think of whether life exists in comparative terms. Regardless of the possibilities of "life" on other planets, it would be more likely that it would be some simple single-cell organisms or something that isn't as complex as, say, a plant, then life having some degree of intelligence (whether it is something human-like or animal-like). Even if the life discovered is intelligent, it would probably be something comparable to animals or plants on Earth. The odds of sentient life forms akin to humans are probably the worst of all the odds of life existing on other planets, in general.

Even if human-like life exists on other planets, it would likely be something that is completely alien to any of our understanding, given the conditions of the planet being radically different than on Earth.

But, you never know. Aliens could have been visiting us every Tuesday for the past thousand years, for all we know about the universe.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

There is no physical reason why these constants and quantities should possess the values they do. The former agnostic physicist Paul Davies comments, “Through my scientific work I have come to believe more and more strongly that the physical universe is put together with an ingenuity so astonishing that I cannot accept it merely as a brute fact.”
Similarly, Fred Hoyle remarks, “A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics.”

It's a bit of a leap to assume the presence of some kind of universal superintelligence (let alone "God") just because the constants don't appear to be "fixed" according to our current understanding of physics, don't you think? After all, that same universe tells us that intelligence only arises out of simpler precursors through evolution.


John D. Barrow and Frank J. Tippler calculate the odds against the assembly of a human genome at between 4-[180(110,000)] and 4-[360(110,000)]

It's a good thing the human genome is a (not inevitable) consequence of evolution through natural selection rather than chance, isn't it?

[spiltteeth]

NoXion;1575486]It's a bit of a leap to assume the presence of some kind of universal superintelligence (let alone "God") just because the constants don't appear to be "fixed" according to our current understanding of physics, don't you think? After all, that same universe tells us that intelligence only arises out of simpler precursors through evolution.

The 'assumption' is based on various data, only one of which concerns constants. It is based on probability, And it is wildly improbable (not impossible) that intelligent life evolved due to chance, that everything came together in just the right way to make life possible etc


It's a good thing the human genome is a (not inevitable) consequence of evolution through natural selection rather than chance, isn't it?

Evolution is guided by laws, I don't see how that contradicts how all the unfathomable circumstances happened in just the right way for evolution to proceed in just the right way to produce intelligent life. In fact, the chances of this happening are outrageously unlikely.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

The 'assumption' is based on various data, only one of which concerns constants. It is based on probability,

How is that probability measured, aside from the constants?


And it is wildly improbable (not impossible) that intelligent life evolved due to chance, that everything came together in just the right way to make life possible etc

Abiogenesis only had to happen once so far as we know. Numerous chemicals essential to life are created within the galactic environment (link 1 (http://www.redorbit.com/news/space/270822/nasa_organic_chemicals_common_in_space/index.html), link 2 (http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/091021-planet-organics.html)).

Of course, once life, or at least replication, gets started, then evolution by natural selection takes over.


Evolution is guided by laws, I don't see how that contradicts how all the unfathomable circumstances happened in just the right way for evolution to proceed in just the right way to produce intelligent life. In fact, the chances of this happening are outrageously unlikely.

What laws are those? Can you name them? In any case, evolution is also contingent - intelligence will not arise if there is no selection pressure in that direction.

[spiltteeth]

How is that probability measured, aside from the constants?



Abiogenesis only had to happen once so far as we know. Numerous chemicals essential to life are created within the galactic environment (link 1 (http://www.redorbit.com/news/space/270822/nasa_organic_chemicals_common_in_space/index.html), link 2 (http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/091021-planet-organics.html)).

Of course, once life, or at least replication, gets started, then evolution by natural selection takes over.



What laws are those? Can you name them? In any case, evolution is also contingent - intelligence will not arise if there is no selection pressure in that direction.

O boy. I was probably on my night meds when I wrote the above, but I'll expand.

In their Anthropic Cosmological Principle, Barrow and Tipler list ten steps in the evolution of homo sapiens, including such steps as the development of the DNA-based genetic code, the origin of mitochondria, the origin of photosynthesis, the development of aerobic respiration, and so forth, each of which is so improbable that before it would have occurred, the sun would have ceased to be a main sequence star and incinerated the earth. They report that
“there has developed a general consensus among evolutionists that the evolution of intelligent life, comparable in information processing ability to that of homo sapiens is so improbable that it is unlikely to have occurred on any other planet in the entire visible universe.”
But if this is the case, why should we think that it evolved by unaided chance on this planet?
Second, random mutation and natural selection have trouble accounting for the origin of irreducibly complex systems. In his recent book Darwin’s Black Box, microbiologist Michael Behe explains that certain cellular systems like the cilia or protein transport system are like incredibly complicated, microscopic machines which cannot function at all unless all the parts are present and functioning.
There is no understanding within the neo-Darwinian synthesis of how such irreducibly complex systems can evolve by random mutation and natural selection. With respect to them current evolutionary theory has zero explanatory power. According to Behe, however, there is one familiar explanation adequate to account for irreducible complexity, one which in other contexts we employ unhesitatingly: intelligent design . “Life on Earth at its most fundamental level, in its most fundamental components,” he concludes, “is the product of intelligent activity.”
The gradual evolution of biological complexity is better explained if there exists an intelligent cause behind the process rather than just the blind mechanisms alone. Thus, the theist has explanatory resources available which the naturalist lacks.


The discoveries of contemporary science in this regard are particularly impressive for two reasons: (1)The delicate balance of conditions upon which life depends is characterized by the interweaving of conditions, such that life depends for its existence, not merely upon each individual condition's possessing a value within very narrow limits, but also upon ratios or interactions between values and forces which must likewise lie within narrow parameters. The situation is thus not comparable to a roulette wheel in Monte Carlo's yielding a certain winning number; nor even yet to all the roulette wheels (each representing a physical quantity or constant) in Monte Carlo's turning up simultaneously certain numbers within narrowly circumscribed limits (say, wheel 1 must show 72 or 73 while wheel 2 must show 27-29, etc.); rather it is like all the roulette wheels in Monte Carlo's yielding simultaneously numbers within narrowly prescribed limits and those numbers bearing certain precise relations among themselves (say, the number of wheel 3 must be one-half the square of the number of wheel 17 and twice the number of wheel 6). It seems clear that worlds not permitting intelligent life are vastly more to be expected than life-permitting worlds.
(2) The constants and quantities which go to make up this complex nexus of conditions are apparently independent of one another. There seems to be no nomological necessity requiring the quantities and constants of nature to be related as they are.
But even if it were possible to reduce all the physical and cosmological quantities to a single equation governing the whole of nature, such a complex equation could itself be seen as the supreme instance of teleology and design.
Hence, some of those whose hopes seem to lie in the discovery of such an equation are forced to assert that such an equation must be necessarily true; that is to say, there is really only one logically possible set of physical constants and forces. But such a hypothesis seems clearly outlandish. As Nagel observes, none of the statements of natural laws in the various sciences are logically necessary, since their denials are not formally contradictory; moreover, the appropriate procedure in science should then cease to be experimentation, but be deductive proofs in the manner of mathematics. Hence, the notion that the nomological necessity of such an equation should reduce to logical necessity seems obviously false.

[ZeroNowhere]

That's a great idea for a novel or a movie script.
Eh, I'm not that sure, it sounds like it would almost inevitably fall into the London-Rand syndrome of writing a dull political polemic and dressing it up as a novel to make it sound interesting.

[hefty_lefty]

SpiltTeeth, keep taking those meds...that was profound.

[Coggeh]

The 'assumption' is based on various data, only one of which concerns constants. It is based on probability, And it is wildly improbable (not impossible) that intelligent life evolved due to chance, that everything came together in just the right way to make life possible etc

Firstly it didn't happen by 'chance' . we didn't evolve to walk on two legs by 'chance' . Your argument similar to that of irreducible complexity which is used by creationists has been thrown out and only exists because of ignorance of biology and natural selection .For example they claim the eye couldn't possibly have evolved because of its sheer complexity but it is ridiculous , even to say that the eye is more complex than say walking on two or four legs , a nose , voice , teeth , a spine. etc . They say it had to be designed because if you take one part out of the eye it wouldn't work ,fortunatly for us the eye evolved in both the most perfect and most probable way , from an eye which could just detect like which evolved to deepen and could sense the direction of light to produce a circular eye filled with fluid that could produce blurry imagies etc i won't continue

Watch this : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yj_lNQerUJ4 (evolution of the eye)

What do you mean intelligent life ? what makes a monkey more 'intelligent' than an earthworm ? the monkey may be more developed but both developed to survive and are built in ways to sure their vastly different enviorment (I'd like to see a monkey etc ) survive underground without the ability to use oxygen like the earthworm can .



Evolution is guided by laws, I don't see how that contradicts how all the unfathomable circumstances happened in just the right way for evolution to proceed in just the right way to produce intelligent life. In fact, the chances of this happening are outrageously unlikely.Evolution is guided by random happenings that because of natural selection can change an organism over time to better survive in their enviornment . It isn't guided by laws that say anything about how any species should evolve , in the immediate circumstance we may be able to predict human or any other living organisms next evolutionary step . If it was governed by laws though theoretically we would be able to predict at the start of life (3.8 billion years ago) that humans would come to existence from the Australopithecus afarensis and that from Ardipithecus and that from the common ancestor we share with chimpanzies(I know theirs gaps in the actual human evolution but you know what im saying)

So evolution on another planet can produce a completly different form or evolution and most likely would and the conditions of earth do not have to be replicated the oxegen levels may vary (and on this planet they have which has proven to produce gigantism among organisms millions of years ago before the mass extinction ).So considering the massive amounts of planets in the known universe one with varying levels of gases etc which may be assume indispenisible to life C02 oxygen etc could the same way we have produced life .I don't believe in UFO's or any of the x-files stuff but it is simply naive to say life is an impossibility on another planet .

[spiltteeth]

Firstly it didn't happen by 'chance' . we didn't evolve to walk on two legs by 'chance' . Your argument similar to that of irreducible complexity which is used by creationists has been thrown out and only exists because of ignorance of biology and natural selection .For example they claim the eye couldn't possibly have evolved because of its sheer complexity but it is ridiculous , even to say that the eye is more complex than say walking on two or four legs , a nose , voice , teeth , a spine. etc . They say it had to be designed because if you take one part out of the eye it wouldn't work ,fortunatly for us the eye evolved in both the most perfect and most probable way , from an eye which could just detect like which evolved to deepen and could sense the direction of light to produce a circular eye filled with fluid that could produce blurry imagies etc i won't continue

Watch this : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yj_lNQerUJ4 (evolution of the eye)

What do you mean intelligent life ? what makes a monkey more 'intelligent' than an earthworm ? the monkey may be more developed but both developed to survive and are built in ways to sure their vastly different enviorment (I'd like to see a monkey etc ) survive underground without the ability to use oxygen like the earthworm can .

Evolution is guided by random happenings that because of natural selection can change an organism over time to better survive in their enviornment . It isn't guided by laws that say anything about how any species should evolve , in the immediate circumstance we may be able to predict human or any other living organisms next evolutionary step . If it was governed by laws though theoretically we would be able to predict at the start of life (3.8 billion years ago) that humans would come to existence from the Australopithecus afarensis and that from Ardipithecus and that from the common ancestor we share with chimpanzies(I know theirs gaps in the actual human evolution but you know what im saying)

So evolution on another planet can produce a completly different form or evolution and most likely would and the conditions of earth do not have to be replicated the oxegen levels may vary (and on this planet they have which has proven to produce gigantism among organisms millions of years ago before the mass extinction ).So considering the massive amounts of planets in the known universe one with varying levels of gases etc which may be assume indispenisible to life C02 oxygen etc could the same way we have produced life .I don't believe in UFO's or any of the x-files stuff but it is simply naive to say life is an impossibility on another planet .

Yea, I was a bit spaced out when I posted that, but I believe I clarified it all in post # 39

First I didn't say it was impossible, I said, based on what we know, for a carbon based intelligent life to exist, it is improbable. And my post was mostly about how wildly improbable it is that we evolved.

But I'll repeat and expand a bit.

F. B. Salisbury, Nature 224, 342 (1969), argued that the enormous improbability of a given gene, which we computed in the text, means that a gene is too unique to come into being by natural selection acting on chance mutations.

Barrow and Tipler list ten steps in the evolution of homo sapiens, including such steps as the development of the DNA-based genetic code, the origin of mitochondria, the origin of photosynthesis, the development of aerobic respiration, and so forth, each of which is so improbable that before it would have occurred, the sun would have ceased to be a main sequence star and incinerated the earth. They report that “there has developed a general consensus among evolutionists that the evolution of intelligent life, comparable in information processing ability to that of homo sapiens is so improbable that it is unlikely to have occurred on any other planet in the entire visible universe.”

and


We should emphasize once again that the enormous improbability of the evolution of intelligent life in general and Homo sapiens in particular

they calculate the odds against the assembly of a human genome at between 4-[180(110,000)] and 4-[360(110,000)]

Second, random mutation and natural selection have trouble accounting for the origin of irreducibly complex systems. In his recent book Darwin’s Black Box, microbiologist Michael Behe explains that certain cellular systems like the cilia or protein transport system are like incredibly complicated, microscopic machines which cannot function at all unless all the parts are present and functioning. There is no understanding within the neo-Darwinian synthesis of how such irreducibly complex systems can evolve by random mutation and natural selection. With respect to them current evolutionary theory has zero explanatory power.
According to Behe, however, there is one familiar explanation adequate to account for irreducible complexity, one which in other contexts we employ unhesitatingly: intelligent design . “Life on Earth at its most fundamental level, in its most fundamental components,” he concludes, “is the product of intelligent activity.”
The gradual evolution of biological complexity is better explained if there exists an intelligent cause behind the process rather than just the blind mechanisms alone. Thus, the theist has explanatory resources available which the naturalist lacks.

Laypeople might think that if the constants and quantities had assumed different values, then other forms of life might well have evolved. But this is not the case. By "life" scientists mean that property of organisms to take in food, extract energy from it, grow, adapt to their environment, and reproduce. The point is that in order for the universe to permit life so-defined, whatever form organisms might take, the constants and quantities have to be incomprehensibly fine-tuned. In the absence of fine-tuning, not even matter or chemistry would exist, not to speak of planets where life might evolve.



Stephen Hawking has estimated that if the rate of the universe’s expansion one second after the Big Bang had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million, the universe would have re-collapsed into a hot fireball. P. C. W. Davies has calculated that the odds against the initial conditions being suitable for later star formation (without which planets could not exist) is one followed by a thousand billion billion zeroes, at least.
He also estimates that a change in the strength of gravity or of the weak force by only one part in 10100 would have prevented a life-permitting universe.8 There are a number of such quantities and constants present in the big bang which must be fine-tuned in this way if the universe is to permit life. So improbability is multiplied by improbability until our minds are reeling in incomprehensible numbers.

There is no physical reason why these constants and quantities should possess the values they do. The former agnostic physicist Paul Davies comments,
“Through my scientific work I have come to believe more and more strongly that the physical universe is put together with an ingenuity so astonishing that I cannot accept it merely as a brute fact.” Similarly, Fred Hoyle remarks,
“A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics.”

The discoveries of contemporary science in this regard are particularly impressive for two reasons: (1) The delicate balance of conditions upon which life depends is characterized by the interweaving of conditions, such that life depends for its existence, not merely upon each individual condition's possessing a value within very narrow limits, but also upon ratios or interactions between values and forces which must likewise lie within narrow parameters. The situation is thus not comparable to a roulette wheel in Monte Carlo's yielding a certain winning number; nor even yet to all the roulette wheels (each representing a physical quantity or constant) in Monte Carlo's turning up simultaneously certain numbers within narrowly circumscribed limits (say, wheel 1 must show 72 or 73 while wheel 2 must show 27-29, etc.); rather it is like all the roulette wheels in Monte Carlo's yielding simultaneously numbers within narrowly prescribed limits and those numbers bearing certain precise relations among themselves (say, the number of wheel 3 must be one-half the square of the number of wheel 17 and twice the number of wheel 6). It seems clear that worlds not permitting intelligent life are vastly more to be expected than life-permitting worlds. (2) The constants and quantities which go to make up this complex nexus of conditions are apparently independent of one another.
But even if it were possible to reduce all the physical and cosmological quantities to a single equation governing the whole of nature, such a complex equation could itself be seen as the supreme instance of teleology and design. Hence, some of those whose hopes seem to lie in the discovery of such an equation are forced to assert that such an equation must be necessarily true; that is to say, there is really only one logically possible set of physical constants and forces. But such a hypothesis seems clearly outlandish. As Nagel observes, none of the statements of natural laws in the various sciences are logically necessary, since their denials are not formally contradictory; moreover, the appropriate procedure in science should then cease to be experimentation, but be deductive proofs in the manner of mathematics. Hence, the notion that the nomological necessity of such an equation should reduce to logical necessity seems obviously false.


Dembski outlines a tenstep Generic Chance Elimination Argument:

1 One learns that some event has occurred.

2 Examining the circumstances under which the event occurred, one finds that the event could only have been produced by a certain chance process (or processes).

3 One identifies a pattern which characterizes the event.

4 One calculates the probability of the event given the chance hypothesis.

5 One determines what probabilistic resources were available for producing the event via the chance hypothesis.

6 On the basis of the probabilistic resources, one calculates the probability of the event's occurring by chance once out of all the available opportunities to occur.

7 One finds that the above probability is sufficiently small.

8 One identifies a body of information which is independent of the event's occurrence.

9 One determines that one can formulate the pattern referred to in step (3) on the basis of this body of independent information.

10 One is warranted in inferring that the event did not occur by chance.

This is a simplification of Dembski's analysis, which he develops and defends with painstaking rigor and detail.

Consider the application of the above Generic Chance Elimination Argument to the finetuning of the universe:

1 One learns that the physical constants and quantities given in the Big Bang possess certain values.

2 Examining the circumstances under which the Big Bang occurred, one finds that there is no Theory of Everything which would render physically necessary the values of all the constants and quantities, so they must be attributed to sheer accident.

3 One discovers that the values of the constants and quantities are incomprehensibly finetuned for the existence of intelligent, carbonbased life.

4 The probability of each value and of all the values together occurring by chance is vanishingly small.

5 There is only one universe; it is illicit in the absence of evidence to multiply one's probabilistic resources (i.e., postulate a World Ensemble of universes) simply to avert the design inference.

6 Given that the universe has occurred only once, the probability of the constants and quantities' all having the values they do remains vanishingly small.

7 This probability is well within the bounds needed to eliminate chance.

8 One has physical information concerning the necessary conditions for intelligent, carbonbased life (e.g., certain temperature range, existence of certain elements, certain gravitational and electromagnetic forces, etc.).

9 This information about the finelytuned conditions requisite for a life permitting universe is independent of the pattern discerned in step (3).

10 One is warranted in inferring that the physical constants and quantities given in the Big Bang are not the result of chance.

One is thus justified in inferring that the initial conditions of the universe are due to design.

[Pavlov's House Party]

Yes I believe in extraterrestrial life, but if we encountered it, we might overlook it as "life". It's futile to try and imagine what other life would look like because the material conditions on another planet would be extraordinarily different than ours. The Hollywood version of bipedal aliens with 2 arms, forward facing eyes and a similar skeletal and biological structure to humans is impossible, something like that could only have evolved on a planet with conditions almost identical to Earth.

Chances are, we encounter alien bacteria before anything else.

[Coggeh]

Yea, I was a bit spaced out when I posted that, but I believe I clarified it all in post # 39

Sorry I just saw that, no worries loads of users do it. Hope you didn't think I was trying to give a cheap shot or anything by avoiding the other ,longer post but I don't see the point in replying to that one so I'll just do this other to keep the debate afresh as it were lol ...my apologies anyway.






First I didn't say it was impossible, I said, based on what we know, for a carbon based intelligent life to exist, it is improbable. And my post was mostly about how wildly improbable it is that we evolved.



But I'll repeat and expand a bit.



F. B. Salisbury, Nature 224, 342 (1969), argued that the enormous improbability of a given gene, which we computed in the text, means that a gene is too unique to come into being by natural selection acting on chance mutations. Genetic mutations have been proven to work along the lines of natural selection . An experiment done by Richard Lenski on E.coli proved this without the presence of a designer . In his experiment after 31,500 generations of E.coli a sudden change happened , in an environment which put a limit on the growth of each generation , in every one they reached a limit until more nutrients where put in and this kept happening until sudden in one of the 12 test tubes the bacteria E.coli mutated to be able to metabolize citrate which was in plentiful supply , and because this was so vital for their survival this gene was the surviving gene and was passed on within just a few generations . But wait , there's more , this not only happened in one test tube , but after a length of time , in all of them . Not only that but E.coli is known for its inability to use citrate . This is proof of how natural selection works even against huge odds of probability.

This wasn't the only change in the experiment also but before that the in all 12 evolved larger cells, for example, as well as faster growth rates on the glucose they were fed, and lower peak population densities.All of these changes which go without saying were adaptions by the bacteria to their enviorment which benefited their survival odds.Now calculate the probability of all those things happening without a creator .Well , it just did.

.






Barrow and Tipler list ten steps in the evolution of homo sapiens, including such steps as the development of the DNA-based genetic code, the origin of mitochondria, the origin of photosynthesis, the development of aerobic respiration, and so forth, each of which is so improbable that before it would have occurred, the sun would have ceased to be a main sequence star and incinerated the earth. They report that “there has developed a general consensus among evolutionists that the evolution of intelligent life, comparable in information processing ability to that of homo sapiens is so improbable that it is unlikely to have occurred on any other planet in the entire visible universe.”



and







they calculate the odds against the assembly of a human genome at between 4-[180(110,000)] and 4-[360(110,000)] I would like to know how these probability rates are calculated if you can explain , don't worry if you can't I'm not being pedantic just interested to see like how do they factor in natural selection into mathematics.




Second, random mutation and natural selection have trouble accounting for the origin of irreducibly complex systems. In his recent book Darwin’s Black Box, microbiologist Michael Behe explains that certain cellular systems like the cilia or protein transport system are like incredibly complicated, microscopic machines which cannot function at all unless all the parts are present and functioning.I have dealt with this argument with concerns to the eye already . We have simple and plain proof of the eye and how it evolved.I have chosen the eye because it is the most common example put forward by creationists/intelligent design advocates (don't know the correct term that suits you best) but the same applies to even the most minuscule and complex systems in the human body .But you can also use the biggest ones like say an arm , if you took half the arm away it wouldn't work obviously , but did the arm evolve by simply growing itself from something completely useless into something we use 24/7 of course not .

I won't pretend to be familiar with the evolutionary stages of cilia or protein transport systems but my argument covers just about any complex system you see in living organisms .Like i stated vital systems to life don't go from useless to perfect , they evolve , from barely/relatively useful and if environmental factors dictate to becoming extremely useful and vital which would then with mutations that improved this vital system have a result of this mutation through natural selection becoming more and more common and keep improving as long as it improved the survival of a species .






There is no understanding within the neo-Darwinian synthesis of how such irreducibly complex systems can evolve by random mutation and natural selection. With respect to them current evolutionary theory has zero explanatory power.This i think I have dealt with.



According to Behe, however, there is one familiar explanation adequate to account for irreducible complexity, one which in other contexts we employ unhesitatingly: intelligent design . “Life on Earth at its most fundamental level, in its most fundamental components,” he concludes, “is the product of intelligent activity.”

The gradual evolution of biological complexity is better explained if there exists an intelligent cause behind the process rather than just the blind mechanisms alone. Thus, the theist has explanatory resources available which the naturalist lacks.Why would a creator/designer need/use evolution.Their is no evidence for any design active in evolution bar the environment which favors such and such a mutation. If you want your designer as it were look out your window.




Laypeople might think that if the constants and quantities had assumed different values, then other forms of life might well have evolved. But this is not the case. By "life" scientists mean that property of organisms to take in food, extract energy from it, grow, adapt to their environment, and reproduce. The point is that in order for the universe to permit life so-defined, whatever form organisms might take, the constants and quantities have to be incomprehensibly fine-tuned. In the absence of fine-tuning, not even matter or chemistry would exist, not to speak of planets where life might evolve.The quantities of life permitting gases etc have changed vastly over time . And life has still continued to exist and to change and adapt to them changes . I'm not saying that if their was no oxygen and say 100% helium in the biosphere that life would come about anyway and it would use helium to in place of oxygen, that as far as I can say is just silly.








Stephen Hawking has estimated that if the rate of the universe’s expansion one second after the Big Bang had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million, the universe would have re-collapsed into a hot fireball. P. C. W. Davies has calculated that the odds against the initial conditions being suitable for later star formation (without which planets could not exist) is one followed by a thousand billion billion zeroes, at least.

He also estimates that a change in the strength of gravity or of the weak force by only one part in 10100 would have prevented a life-permitting universe.8 There are a number of such quantities and constants present in the big bang which must be fine-tuned in this way if the universe is to permit life. So improbability is multiplied by improbability until our minds are reeling in incomprehensible numbers.That is odd.Because Hawking and other scientists have been working on a theory for the past 15 years which puts the odds of our universe being uncaused,without reason and undesigned very high. Hawking's theory is called wave function and is based on assigning numbers to all possible universes. All of the numbers cancel out except for a universe with features that our universe possesses, such as containing intelligent organisms. This remaining universe has a very high probability - near 100% - of coming into existence uncaused.

Hawking's theory is confirmed by observational evidence. The theory predicts that our universe has evenly distributed matter on a large scale - that is, on the level of super-clusters of galaxies. It predicts that the expansion rate of our universe - our universe has been expanding ever since the Big Bang - would be almost exactly between the rate of the universe expanding forever and the rate where it expands and then collapses. It also predicts the very early area of rapid expansion near the beginning of the universe called "inflation." Hawking's theory exactly predicted what the COBE satellite discovered about the irregularities of the background radiation in the universe.




There is no physical reason why these constants and quantities should possess the values they do. The former agnostic physicist Paul Davies comments, Similarly, Fred Hoyle remarks,


The discoveries of contemporary science in this regard are particularly impressive for two reasons: (1) The delicate balance of conditions upon which life depends is characterized by the interweaving of conditions, such that life depends for its existence, not merely upon each individual condition's possessing a value within very narrow limits, but also upon ratios or interactions between values and forces which must likewise lie within narrow parameters. The situation is thus not comparable to a roulette wheel in Monte Carlo's yielding a certain winning number; nor even yet to all the roulette wheels (each representing a physical quantity or constant) in Monte Carlo's turning up simultaneously certain numbers within narrowly circumscribed limits (say, wheel 1 must show 72 or 73 while wheel 2 must show 27-29, etc.); rather it is like all the roulette wheels in Monte Carlo's yielding simultaneously numbers within narrowly prescribed limits and those numbers bearing certain precise relations among themselves (say, the number of wheel 3 must be one-half the square of the number of wheel 17 and twice the number of wheel 6). It seems clear that worlds not permitting intelligent life are vastly more to be expected than life-permitting worlds. (2) The constants and quantities which go to make up this complex nexus of conditions are apparently independent of one another.

But even if it were possible to reduce all the physical and cosmological quantities to a single equation governing the whole of nature, such a complex equation could itself be seen as the supreme instance of teleology and design. Hence, some of those whose hopes seem to lie in the discovery of such an equation are forced to assert that such an equation must be necessarily true; that is to say, there is really only one logically possible set of physical constants and forces. But such a hypothesis seems clearly outlandish. As Nagel observes, none of the statements of natural laws in the various sciences are logically necessary, since their denials are not formally contradictory; moreover, the appropriate procedure in science should then cease to be experimentation, but be deductive proofs in the manner of mathematics. Hence, the notion that the nomological necessity of such an equation should reduce to logical necessity seems obviously false.I can't understand this text , probably a good idea to just post it in your own words with a link to the original text.

[spiltteeth]

Sorry I just saw that, no worries loads of users do it. Hope you didn't think I was trying to give a cheap shot or anything by avoiding the other ,longer post but I don't see the point in replying to that one so I'll just do this other to keep the debate afresh as it were lol ...my apologies anyway.



Genetic mutations have been proven to work along the lines of natural selection . An experiment done by Richard Lenski on E.coli proved this without the presence of a designer . In his experiment after 31,500 generations of E.coli a sudden change happened , in an environment which put a limit on the growth of each generation , in every one they reached a limit until more nutrients where put in and this kept happening until sudden in one of the 12 test tubes the bacteria E.coli mutated to be able to metabolize citrate which was in plentiful supply , and because this was so vital for their survival this gene was the surviving gene and was passed on within just a few generations . But wait , there's more , this not only happened in one test tube , but after a length of time , in all of them . Not only that but E.coli is known for its inability to use citrate . This is proof of how natural selection works even against huge odds of probability.

This wasn't the only change in the experiment also but before that the in all 12 evolved larger cells, for example, as well as faster growth rates on the glucose they were fed, and lower peak population densities.All of these changes which go without saying were adaptions by the bacteria to their enviorment which benefited their survival odds.Now calculate the probability of all those things happening without a creator .Well , it just did.

.




I would like to know how these probability rates are calculated if you can explain , don't worry if you can't I'm not being pedantic just interested to see like how do they factor in natural selection into mathematics.

I have dealt with this argument with concerns to the eye already . We have simple and plain proof of the eye and how it evolved.I have chosen the eye because it is the most common example put forward by creationists/intelligent design advocates (don't know the correct term that suits you best) but the same applies to even the most minuscule and complex systems in the human body .But you can also use the biggest ones like say an arm , if you took half the arm away it wouldn't work obviously , but did the arm evolve by simply growing itself from something completely useless into something we use 24/7 of course not .

I won't pretend to be familiar with the evolutionary stages of cilia or protein transport systems but my argument covers just about any complex system you see in living organisms .Like i stated vital systems to life don't go from useless to perfect , they evolve , from barely/relatively useful and if environmental factors dictate to becoming extremely useful and vital which would then with mutations that improved this vital system have a result of this mutation through natural selection becoming more and more common and keep improving as long as it improved the survival of a species .




This i think I have dealt with.

Why would a creator/designer need/use evolution.Their is no evidence for any design active in evolution bar the environment which favors such and such a mutation. If you want your designer as it were look out your window.


The quantities of life permitting gases etc have changed vastly over time . And life has still continued to exist and to change and adapt to them changes . I'm not saying that if their was no oxygen and say 100% helium in the biosphere that life would come about anyway and it would use helium to in place of oxygen, that as far as I can say is just silly.






That is odd.Because Hawking and other scientists have been working on a theory for the past 15 years which puts the odds of our universe being uncaused,without reason and undesigned very high. Hawking's theory is called wave function and is based on assigning numbers to all possible universes. All of the numbers cancel out except for a universe with features that our universe possesses, such as containing intelligent organisms. This remaining universe has a very high probability - near 100% - of coming into existence uncaused.

Hawking's theory is confirmed by observational evidence. The theory predicts that our universe has evenly distributed matter on a large scale - that is, on the level of super-clusters of galaxies. It predicts that the expansion rate of our universe - our universe has been expanding ever since the Big Bang - would be almost exactly between the rate of the universe expanding forever and the rate where it expands and then collapses. It also predicts the very early area of rapid expansion near the beginning of the universe called "inflation." Hawking's theory exactly predicted what the COBE satellite discovered about the irregularities of the background radiation in the universe.


I can't understand this text , probably a good idea to just post it in your own words with a link to the original text.


Well, I do believe in evolution, the argument is that it is wildly improbable that everything is set up perfectly for the process of evolution to produce intelligent life ie
-
Stephen Hawking has estimated that if the rate of the universe’s expansion one second after the Big Bang had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million, the universe would have re-collapsed into a hot fireball.
P. C. W. Davies has calculated that the odds against the initial conditions being suitable for later star formation (without which planets could not exist) is one followed by a thousand billion billion zeroes, at least.
He also estimates that a change in the strength of gravity or of the weak force by only one part in 10(100) would have prevented a life-permitting universe.

As to Hawkings theory saying the universe being nearly 100% coming into existence uncaused, I'll deal with it below, but his other statistic was about the universe coming into existence in just the inconceivably precise way to allow life to exist, not to mention chemicals at all!
As I say, the chances of this happening are mind boggling.

But yea, your referring to the Hartle-Hawking model. I haven't the knowledge to refute it, and indeed, as I understand it, insofar as I can understand it, it seems to have some problems, and I understand it has steadily grown out of favor with many physicists, BUT that is all greatly over my head, so, for arguments sake, lets assume his theory is 100% solid.

So, I won't criticize the science, however, I do criticize the metaphysical ramifications of Mr.Hawking's theory.

Hawkings = genius scientist, but as a metaphysician...not so hot.

On 2 counts.

First, I'm really not interested in theories, but actual truth, which can actually describe the universe, and Hawking reverts to using imaginary numbers.

"imaginary time" is physically unintelligible. An imaginary interval of time makes no more sense than, say, the imaginary volume of a glass, or the imaginary number of people in a room. Hawking insists that imaginary time is "a well-defined mathematical concept." But does that mathematical concept correspond to any physical reality? As Sir Herbert Dingle (great name) says,


In the language of mathematics we can tell lies as well as truths, and within the scope of mathematics itself there is no possible way of telling one from the other. We can distinguish them only by experience or by reasoning outside the mathematics, applied to the possible relation between the mathematical solution and its supposed physical correlate.

From both experience and philosophy it is, I think, obvious that the use of imaginary numbers for the time variable is a mere mathematical artifice. Imaginary numbers are useful when computing certain equations, but one always converts back to real numbers to yield a physically meaningful result.

Yet Hawking declines to reconvert to real numbers because then the singularity suddenly reappears. Hawking states,


Only if we could picture the universe in terms of imaginary time would there be no singularities.... When one goes back to the real time in which we live, however, there will still appear to be singularities.

Thus, Hawking does not really eliminate the singularity. He conceals it behind the physically unintelligible artifice of imaginary time.

Secondly, using imaginary numbers for the time variable makes time a spatial dimension, which is just bad metaphysics.
Space and time are essentially different.


Space is ordered by a relation of betweeness: for three successive points x, y, and z on a spatial line, y is between x and z. But time is ordered in addition by a unique relation of earlier/later than: for two successive moments t1 and t2 in time, t1 is earlier than t2, and t2 is later than t1.

George Schlesinger points out:


"The relations 'before' and 'after' have generally been acknowledged as being the most fundamental temporal relations, which means that time deprived of these relations would cease to be time."

Thus, time cannot be a dimension of space. Moreover, time is also ordered by the relations past/future with respect to the present.
For example, my eating breakfast this morning was once present; now it is past. There is nothing even remotely similar to this relation among things in space.

Postulating a "timeless" era before time began, however, is to climb inside a contradiction. Before and after are temporal relations. Saying that this timeless segment existed before time presupposes a time before time, which is self-contradictory.
Hawking seems to realize the impossibility of having two successive stages of the universe, one timeless and the other temporal, and so he adopts the bizarre position that real time is just an illusion. He asserts,


This might suggest that the so-called imaginary time is really the real time, and that what we call real time is just a figment of our imaginations. In real time, the universe has a beginning and an end at singularities that form a boundary to spacetime and at which the laws of science break down. But in imaginary time, there are no singularities or boundaries. So maybe what we call imaginary time is really more basic, and what we call real is just an idea that we invent to help us describe what we think the universe is like.

As the philosopher Quentin Smith points out, this intepretation is
"preposterous...at least observationally, since it is perfectly obvious that the universe in which we exist lapses in real rather than imaginary time."

So, if Hawking were right, we could not say (for example) that Lincoln died after his birth, since this describes a temporal relation between these two events !

By the way, this isn't a personal complaint, many physicist have complained that Hawking doesn't seem concerned with actual reality, and the following quotes from Hawking are often thrown at him like ammunition :


"I'm a positivist . . . I don't demand that a theory correspond to reality because I don't know what it is."

"I take the positivist viewpoint that a physical theory is just a mathematical model and that it is meaningless to ask whether it corresponds to reality."

In assessing the worth of a theory, "All I'm concerned with is that the theory should predict the results of measurements."

Which is all fine, but I'm generally interested in reality.

[spiltteeth]

Oh, and the statistic for the human Genome comes out ofT he Anthropic Cosmological Principle, by John Barrow and Frank Tipler.

In their Anthropic Cosmological Principle, Barrow and Tipler list ten steps in the evolution of homo sapiens, including such steps as the development of the DNA-based genetic code, the origin of mitochondria, the origin of photosynthesis, the development of aerobic respiration, and so forth, each of which is so improbable that before it would have occurred, the sun would have ceased to be a main sequence star and incinerated the earth.
They report that
“there has developed a general consensus among evolutionists that the evolution of intelligent life, comparable in information processing ability to that of homo sapiens is so improbable that it is unlikely to have occurred on any other planet in the entire visible universe.”

Incidentally, they are very hostile to theism and intelligent design.
In fact to explain such the extreme improbability they have a theory called the Weak Anthropic Principle (WAP):


WAP: The observed values of all physical and cosmological quantities are not equally probable, but they take on values restricted by the requirement that there exist sites where carbon-based life can evolve and by the requirement that the Universe be old enough for it to have already done so.

I have very little respect for this "theory" and will just give you one exaple from their book :


We should emphasize once again that the enormous improbability of the evolution of intelligent life in general and Homo sapiens in particular does not mean we should be amazed we exist at all. This would make as much sense as Elizabeth II being amazed she is Queen of England. Even though the probability of a given Briton being monarch is about 10-8, someone must be. Only if there is a monarch is it possible for the monarch to calculate the improbability of her particular existence. Similarly, only if an intelligent species does evolve is it possible for its members to ask how probable it is for an intelligent species to evolve. Both are examples of WAP self-selection in action.

[piet11111]

yes it seems highly probable to me to have extra terrestrial life out there and so far we are not yet able to go out and look far enough to make any claims that there is nothing out there.

doing that would be like a blind man claiming nothing but he and his chair exists just because he can not touch anything beyond his reach.

[BrokenDown]

It seems that the universe is too large to discard any idea that there may be other life forms out there!

[The Author]

I'm one of those believers in the idea that there must be extraterrestrial life. The universe is so large, and we find out new things about it every day, I sincerely, really doubt that our planet is the only inhabited one in the entire universe. It just doesn't sound right. We find new stars all the time, we're now starting to find planets near other stars and solar systems which behave in ways completely different to our own. So I believe there has to be life. I don't think it will just be microscopic, either. Why does life have to be carbon-based? Why does it need sunlight or photosynthesis or a certain temperature or certain conditions. We found living things on the bottom of the oceans here near volcanic vents which were thought to be completely lifeless. The lifeforms survived on the hydrogen sulfide and used chemosynthesis and there was a completely different food chain present- contrary to the life of many other environments on Earth. So how can we expect not to find life on other harsh worlds? There could be life on a gas giant, or in the center of a star, or even in the vacuum of outer space. Science is always finding new surprises which disprove old theories, and I don't believe that extraterrestrial life must be always exactly adapted or evolved to the same conditions as life here on Earth.

[Tatarin]

Some time ago, I would have said yes, but today I'm "happy" with "I don't know". And the reason is simply that we don't know. Before we can assert if there is intelligent life at all, we need to find life first on other worlds than our own. I mean, do we have all the information on how humans came to be? For example, it is often pointed out that bacteria can exist in any environment, but does the fact that the environment have changed from time to time have any effect on the bacteria itself?

Could one, or more, extraterrestrial civilizations have visited us in the past? Why not? They could very well watch us now by the use of nanomachines for all we know. Their minds could be formed in such way that communication would be completely meaningless, they would be too different.

The saddest part of the story would of course be if our neighbours lived so far away that we would never meet each other, and that they already have a completely developed communist society.

[Weezer]

I believe that until there's concrete evidence, aliens do not exist. Whether the universe is infinite or finite, there could be other life, there could be not. To claim there's no possibility of other life is ignorant.

We just don't know.

[Technocrat]

Maybe the odd microbe, plant, or simple critter, but nothing we could talk to.

"Rimmer, there's nothing out there, you know. There's nobody out there. No alien monsters, no Zargon warships, no beautiful blondes with beehive hairdos who say, 'Show me some more of this Earth thing called kissing (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/WhatIsThisThingYouCallLove).'" — Lister, Red Dwarf (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RedDwarf)

[Tatarin]

On the other hand, we can also not exclude the "unity" of the universe, so to say. For example, there are galaxies that follow the same rules as ours do. There are stars - of many sizes - but that follow distinct patterns, as well as the planets that surround them do. To shorten it down, there is as far as we can tell, a set of rules that is applied to this universe.

My meaning with this is to turn the question around and ask it this way: are different kinds of intelligent aliens (if they exist) really that different from us?

It is often said that "we are so stupid as to think the aliens would communicate with the same means we do", but turn this around and ask what kind of intelligence do they have if they can not communicate on our level?

[xtremerebel]

Well, there could be. After all, we exist. Just because something is not in line with our current scientific knowledge does not mean it will not be in X (maybe 20, 30?) years time. We can't exactly be sure for a fact that other life does not exist out there in the cosmos, so if someone says that extraterrestrial DOES exist or DOES NOT exist, either way, they are taking the route of ignorance on the matter.

[Luisrah]

Though it is possible that there is no other life, or even intelligent life somewhere else, the Universe is SO big that I'd say there's 99% probabilities that life, and possibly intelligent life exists.

But life doesn't last forever. For example, if we don't find a way out of this planet in a billion years or what, the Sun will take us out.

So, that reduces the possibilities of it existing right now, since forms of life could have appeared when their planet was already near the end of it's geological activity, or if the star close to it was about to die.

But that makes much higher the probability of the existence of life in a time not contemporary to ours.
The Universe is (I don't know how many billions) old, and life, and probably intelligent life, is extremely probable to have already existed.

There are 200 billion stars in our galaxy. Multiply that by an estimate of 125 billion galaxies in the Universe.
When I REALLY think of those numbers, I start thinking that just by chance (yes chance) we aren't close to another civilization.

But I don't think it will take much longer. Just like life evolution, human technology evolves faster now that it is more evolved than when it started.

[xtremerebel]

Though it is possible that there is no other life, or even intelligent life somewhere else, the Universe is SO big that I'd say there's 99% probabilities that life, and possibly intelligent life exists.

But life doesn't last forever. For example, if we don't find a way out of this planet in a billion years or what, the Sun will take us out.

So, that reduces the possibilities of it existing right now, since forms of life could have appeared when their planet was already near the end of it's geological activity, or if the star close to it was about to die.

But that makes much higher the probability of the existence of life in a time not contemporary to ours.
The Universe is (I don't know how many billions) old, and life, and probably intelligent life, is extremely probable to have already existed.

There are 200 billion stars in our galaxy. Multiply that by an estimate of 125 billion galaxies in the Universe.
When I REALLY think of those numbers, I start thinking that just by chance (yes chance) we aren't close to another civilization.

But I don't think it will take much longer. Just like life evolution, human technology evolves faster now that it is more evolved than when it started.

Chance and numbers and all that will one drive you crazy thinking about it.

I agree with your closing point, as technology and our knowledge advance, one day we might possibly discover extraterrestrial life on other planets, in colonies or even large space stations. You never know with this sort of thing and with the limited knowledge (or none) we currently possess on the matter.

[mikelepore]

We found living things on the bottom of the oceans here near volcanic vents which were thought to be completely lifeless.

That really has nothing to with the subject. The issue isn't the ability of preexisting life to evolve into forms that occupy the more extreme environments on the same planet. The issue is the conditions needed for the first living thing on any planet to appear out of nonliving chemical compounds.

The latter, no one knows, because we can't make an estimate from our data that consists of a sample size of 1. The total number of times that we know about, that a living thing has ever developed out of nonliving matter, in the whole history of the earth, is 1.

[Luisrah]

That really has nothing to with the subject. The issue isn't the ability of preexisting life to evolve into forms that occupy the more extreme environments on the same planet. The issue is the conditions needed for the first living thing on any planet to appear out of nonliving chemical compounds.

The latter, no one knows, because we can't make an estimate from our data that consists of a sample size of 1. The total number of times that we know about, that a living thing has ever developed out of nonliving matter, in the whole history of the earth, is 1.

Actually it has a lot to do with the subject.
Because it widens the chances of there being life in other planets, since it proves that life can exist in hard conditions.

And going through your estimate, then we can assume that wherever are conditions suitable life, it will develop with 100% certainty, since the Earth is the only planet that can support life that we know, and it has developped life.

And life can appear on a planet from other ways. It doesn't have to start existing there, it can come from other planets. Scientists have found meteorites (sp?) with bacteria in it.
As far as I and those scientists know, we could have come from another planet.

[Tatarin]

Because it widens the chances of there being life in other planets, since it proves that life can exist in hard conditions.

Yes, but how can we be sure of the whole timeline of that life? I mean, yes, bacteria can live in hard conditions, but the environment have always changed. What once was a warm desert is now an ice cold mountain - does that change play onto the bacteria's ability to exist in an extreme environment?


And going through your estimate, then we can assume that wherever are conditions suitable life, it will develop with 100% certainty, since the Earth is the only planet that can support life that we know, and it has developped life.

But then the argument comes back to what kind of conditions that are needed. Yes, as far as we know, life will develop in any situation resembling ours. But as long as we don't find proof of that, we can only guess. Maybe there are some factors that we haven't found yet, or taken into account when it comes to life on planets?


And life can appear on a planet from other ways. It doesn't have to start existing there, it can come from other planets.

But it has to start somewhere.


Scientists have found meteorites (sp?) with bacteria in it.

I'm guessing you're meaning the Allan Hills 84001 meteorite sample?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ALH84001

The debate is still going on whether the "thing on the meteorite" ever was alive and if it even is from space.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

On the other hand, we can also not exclude the "unity" of the universe, so to say. For example, there are galaxies that follow the same rules as ours do. There are stars - of many sizes - but that follow distinct patterns, as well as the planets that surround them do. To shorten it down, there is as far as we can tell, a set of rules that is applied to this universe.

My meaning with this is to turn the question around and ask it this way: are different kinds of intelligent aliens (if they exist) really that different from us?

They would be immensely different from us - just look our own planet for example - all the organisms we know of share the same planet, the same genetic code, and the same carbon-based chemistry, yet there is a staggeringly vast array of species with different forms and lifestyles and ancestries.

Now consider an alien world, and the possibilities multiply exponentionally - that alien world will have a different geological history and development, but even if it turns out to be a smallish rocky planet orbiting a yellow dwarf star like our own, the evolutionary history will be much different - we can't say there won't be predators, prey and autotrophs, in fact it's highly likely. But would the alien predators look and behave anything like an Earthly cheetah? I'm highly doubtful. Nature has proven to be astoundingly inventive.

Now considering the above, my conjecture is that not only will intelligent aliens (assuming their existence in the first place, of course) be physically different from us in manifold and surprising ways, but they will also be different from us mentally, psychologically and culturally, and even that is making a big leap that such uniquely human concepts will apply to such beings!

Sad to say, popular science fiction has stunted far too many people's imaginations with regards to the possibilities of intelligent beings elsewhere in the universe. But I suspect that is merely a reflection of anthropocentrism that comes all too easily to people.


It is often said that "we are so stupid as to think the aliens would communicate with the same means we do", but turn this around and ask what kind of intelligence do they have if they can not communicate on our level?

It depends on what you mean by "communicate on our level". If you mean that the putative aliens can easily handle concepts that we puny humans simply cannot wrap our puny meat-minds around, then it is simply a case of boot-strapping ourselves up the required level of cognitive sophistication, or otherwise reshaping our minds so that their concepts can slot in more easily.

If you're talking about means of communication, rather than content, then it would be all too easy for us to not even notice them. For instance, a hypothetical alien species could communicate through gravitational waves or neutrinos, which we weren't aware even existed merely a hundred years ago.

[Technocrat]

Along the lines of what Noxion is talking about, I once read a sci fi story about a species who lived for thousands of years, and their thought process was so slow that it took years for them to complete a thought. No communication was possible because our entire existence is like a single second to them. Wish I could remember the name of that story, now...

[Luisrah]

Yes, but how can we be sure of the whole timeline of that life? I mean, yes, bacteria can live in hard conditions, but the environment have always changed. What once was a warm desert is now an ice cold mountain - does that change play onto the bacteria's ability to exist in an extreme environment?

Depends. Life adapts, or else it wouldn't exist. Actually, as Darwin explained, it is a change that makes species evolve.
A change in the enviroment makes bacteria evolve.



But then the argument comes back to what kind of conditions that are needed. Yes, as far as we know, life will develop in any situation resembling ours. But as long as we don't find proof of that, we can only guess. Maybe there are some factors that we haven't found yet, or taken into account when it comes to life on planets?

Most probably yes. After all, we're just guessing.



But it has to start somewhere.

And it has. Wether there is life original of Earth (meaning it appeared here and didn't come from another place) or from another planet, the fact is that it exists.
So either planets with enough conditions create life, or it comes from somewhere else, because sincerely, in a Universe with 125 billion galaxies (isn't that it?) there's certainly life somewhere else.


I'm guessing you're meaning the Allan Hills 84001 meteorite sample?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ALH84001

The debate is still going on whether the "thing on the meteorite" ever was alive and if it even is from space.

Didn't know about that. I just saw on a doccumentary that they found some bacteria in a meteorite, and used it as an argument :p