mikey74 – Member

As they evolve they will follow the path that we took …

You cannot possibly know that. There are far too many environmental and chemical factors that decide in which direction evolution goes. [/quote] I doubt they will be very much different, as they still need to go through the stages of being born, aged, illness (assuming they have this stage) and death. 😛

Apart from the basic chemical building blocks, it’s unlikely they will be have any similar proteins or nucleic acid chains to earth life, so we probably can’t eat them. However, they may be able to use us as a food source and we won’t have any immunity or defences at all. Yum.

chewkw – Member

Can you see evolution in yourself

I think some of us are clearly a bit further along than others

Northwind – Member

chewkw – Member
Can you see evolution in yourself

I think some of us are clearly a bit further along than others [/quote]How? Immune to diseases? 😛

How? Immune to diseases?

Well yes, some people are immune to certain diseases, by some random genetic mutation.

And you can see evolution in action with viruses, the common cold for example.. And why is there a new flu vaccine every year? 😉

I think most scientific and technological breakthroughs overestimated in the short term (due to the hype) and underestimated in the long term (because it takes time to fully understand the discovery).

I’d imagine finding life on another planet would follow a similar path.

Though I don’t see any reason why religion would be affected unless we discover human beings on another planet.

Whilst I agree it would be momentous, I think we would end up watching/fannying about with it so much we would affect its evolution and destroy it.

I also agree that the universe as we know it seems to be so large that statistically there would have to be self-aware beings such as us, but that time has meant that they are in a similar evolution stage as us (so cant travel to find others) or that their evolution got to a stage which they died out . . . . ( which I think we will do )

I think there will be solar systems far older than ours and therefore will have civilisations more advanced than ours.

But the theory behind the Fermi paradox suggests that civilisations can only become so advanced before they end up wiping themselves out. On that basis, the existence of civilisations far more advanced than our own is unlikely.

But the theory behind the Fermi paradox suggests that civilisations can only become so advanced before they end up wiping themselves out.

That’s not what I read…

My understanding is basically the Fermi paradox is that there’s so many galaxy’s out there that statistically there must be conditions for life like ours or more advanced.
In which case ‘where are they?’… There’s no signs, at least none we’re capable of measuring yet.

So as mentioned previously it might suggest that indeed species don’t survive long enough to advance much beyond where we are, given the very short time we’ve been around and the vast distances involved, there might well be other intelligent life, it’s just we’ll never see it, and they us.

and maybr the clever ones that are potentially contactable aren’t giving their position away to every psychopathic cylon within a thousand lightyears…by pinging them with radio eaves.

Fermi Paradox explained:

I doubt very much that it would render religion obsolete – look at the nut jobs who insist that dinosaurs are an invention of very wealthy paleontologists, or that such things are nothing more than a test of faith.

Exactly, it’s the stock answer along with it’s not meant to be read literally (well that bit isn’t but the other bits really should be)

It will do bugger all to those who truly belive as not beliving is thew worst thing in their world.

You can try and squeeze religion into science, doesn’t mean it fits or is right.

But the theory behind the Fermi paradox suggests that…On that basis, the existence of civilisations far more advanced than our own is unlikely.

It’s only one of the reasons why there seem to be less life than expected.

It would be the most significant discovery in the entire history of mankind

Lol no, far far from it.

The discovery of extra-terrestrial sentient life would be right up there but not microbial life.

It’s only one of the reasons why there seem to be less life than expected.

Indeed, but it’s a one theory that seems to be widely espoused these days.

Mikey, someone linked an explanation of the Fermi Paradox on the last page. Yours is not the only explanation it comes up with.

Lol no, far far from it.
The discovery of extra-terrestrial sentient life would be right up there but not microbial life.

As it stands, Earth is unique. The only place in the universe where life exists. Finding microbial life on another world changes that and the likelihood of intelligent life existing elsewhere. It’s a massive step closer to answering the question are we alone.

Mikey, someone linked an explanation of the Fermi Paradox on the last page. Yours is not the only explanation it comes up with.

Read up more widely on the subject. It’s a common theory these days. When Fermi first theorised, it was nothing more than a vague statement, which people have since expanded upon.

It’s a massive step closer to answering the question are we alone.

Most people are already satisfied that we’re not, I think.

As it stands, Earth is unique. The only place in the universe where life exists.

From where you stand the earth is unique, we don’t have enough of a view to say if it is or not.
The statement is we do not know if this is the only planet with life on it, we do not know if we are alone. It’s not something you can ever prove really.

Most people are already satisfied that we’re not, I think

Discovering planets in the Goldilocks zone is one thing, life however, is another.

Discovering is only us finding out something else is out there….
As I said it’s all about your perspective

These “planets” are they flat, like earth?

Never mind all that. Main thing is to get Liam Fox up there right away. Negotiating with simple unicellular extraterrestrial life but not as we know it, he might have a chance of striking some kind of deal. Or we could just send him anyway…

Discovering planets in the Goldilocks zone is one thing, life however, is another.

I wasn’t talking about the planet discoveries. I meant purely on stastical terms.

The Earth is 4.5bn years old, the oceans formed 4.4bn years ago and there’s evidence to suggest that life formed in those oceans as early as 4bn years ago.

Even if we consider that we’re only one (as yet) control sample, it’s safe to say that life started here very early in the planet’s history and took three billions years to evolve into the earliest known multicellular life forms. Estimates suggest that in all that time, there have been over five billion distinct species.

The subterranean oceans of the satellites of Jupiter or Saturn will be colder, with less readily available energy (unless of course we discover geothermal activity on these moons, which in itself creates problems with highly localised evolution) creates some problems for evolution. My cynicism the other day notwithstanding, it’s a hugely exciting area of research.

Lol no, far far from it.

The discovery of extra-terrestrial sentient life would be right up there but not microbial life.

I’m genuinely surprised that so many people profess that they would regard the confirmation of microbial life somewhere other than earth to be a fairly lowly discovery. Of course I agree that finding evidence of intelligent life would be far more monumental but a second genesis, particularly in the solar system, would change our beliefs far beyond almost anything else we’ve discovered so far. Note I use the word ‘belief’ here rather than understanding. They are quite different I think.

It’s also terribly ironic (given the number of refutations against religious faith) that the basis for such a blasé attitude towards the discovery of life elsewhere appears to be itself based on a notion of ‘faith’, i.e. a complete trust in something (or someone) without any supporting evidence. This is not like how people claim that the belief in dark matter or dark energy is based on faith, since we have data that supports this hypothesis.

So far we have not one iota of evidence for any kind of life anywhere other than on earth. So accepting that we cannot possible be the only genesis, that life must exist somewhere else, is based on faith. Perhaps it is a faith derived from logic, i.e. it’s not logical to conclude that we are the only life in the universe as the chance appear to be remote, but it is still faith since no data or mathematical modelling exists to support the hypothesis. If we could demonstrate how life began, if we could replicate it, then mathematically we could begin to posit that statistically speaking, life is inevitable given the right conditions.

If we found microbial life on Europa or Enceladus, that would turn the hypothesis into fact and our modelling for life elsewhere would cease to be based purely on faith; it would become fact and for that reason alone it would be monumental.

One other point about the degree to which intelligent life can continue; from the reading I’ve done, the most interesting (and perhaps troubling) theory is indeed the notion that in this universe at least, the opportunity for intelligent life to prosper is limited. The idea suggests there might be a delta between the speed with which intelligence evolves and the rate at which the host planet’s resources are consumed. The result is that at some point before a species’ technology has evolved sufficiently to free it from the constraints of the host planet, that host planets resources expire and the species dies out (or else in the competition for resources, the species self-destructs).

This evolution represents the transition from a Type 1 to a Type 2 civilisation and is one of the possible explanations for the Fermi Paradox.

Most people are already satisfied that we’re not, I think.

But without proof, this isn’t any different to any other unproven belief. A bit like religion really.

A little while ago there was no proof that planets existed around other stars. Now we take it for granted. That discovery didn’t make much a difference to most people but I think, over the long term, discovery of extra terrestrial life will make a huge difference to our outlook as a race.

unless of course we discover geothermal activity on these moons, which in itself creates problems with highly localised evolution

Are those not just the ‘spark’ needed to get life started though? Organisms evolve into more complex life and become self contained, like mammals for eg, we need water to survive but were not aquatic

Very well written post GeeTee1972, enjoyed reading that.

I’m genuinely surprised that so many people profess that they would regard the confirmation of microbial life somewhere other than earth to be a fairly lowly discovery.

I think really massive scientific discoveries require a leap in imagination or a big change in our world view not just an extension of existing knowledge.

We already know that microbial life can survive in pretty extreme conditions on Earth so it’s not really a leap in imagination to think of it existing on other planets.

Organisms evolve into more complex life and become self contained

I may be wrong, but evolution doesn’t just happen does it? Isn’t it a result of outside factors meaning that certain mutations are more likely to survive and pass on those mutations. If those ecosystems are perfectly balanced and never change, those microbes in the moons of Saturn won’t evolve into anything else. They’ll remain happy little microbes for all eternity.

If it were the same or similar to life on Earth, this would be fascinating and joyous, but it would not overturn anything. We already know that this is possible and possibly likely.

If it were a compeltely different concept of self replicating organism, this would be intellectually incredible, but again not do much for the fundamentals of society.

Contact with an alien civilization, the proverbial spaceship on the White House lawn, THAT is the bombshell I’m looking forward to 🙂 We might be disappointed though. The known laws of physics seem to suggest that long distance interstellar travel in a sensible time frame is not really possible or practical – it’s only science fiction that makes us think these problems can be overcome. And it only does that as a plot device.

I suspect the lack of aliens on Earth is because of that.

If those ecosystems are perfectly balanced and never change, those microbes in the moons of Saturn won’t evolve into anything else. They’ll remain happy little microbes for all eternity.

No, cos there’s always competition with other individuals. A positive mutation will allow you to out-compete your neighbours and prosper even if the environment stays the same.

I think it would be incredible.

As geetee has posted above, there is a great deal of difference between a statistical model of how likely we expect life to be in the universe and actual concrete evidence of life occurring elsewhere. It would be an extraordinary discovery.

the known laws of physics seem to suggest that long distance interstellar travel in a sensible time frame is not really possible or practical – it’s only science fiction that makes us think these problems can be overcome. And it only does that as a plot device.

I suspect the lack of aliens on Earth is because of that.

Yes, but it still doesn’t explain the lack of Von Neumann probes or the fact that we’ve never detected a Type II civilization (which should be fairly easy to spot with telescopes)

If we found life elsewhere in the solar system it might go some way to answering questions about whether the “Great Filter” is ahead or behind us.

back to the original statement, “if…”

imho we wont

Are those not just the ‘spark’ needed to get life started though? Organisms evolve into more complex life and become self contained, like mammals for eg, we need water to survive but were not aquatic

Ordinarily, yes but you need to consider that geothermal vents would be highly localised pockets of energy, in an otherwise very cold sea with very little background heat energy to support life. Moreover, the locations of any geothermal vents wouldn’t be fixed, as they do on Earth, these vents would periodically ‘move’ over time or shut down completely depending on the underlying vulcanism. On Earth, continental drift means that geothermal vents are never in a fixed position for long.

We already know that microbial life can survive in pretty extreme conditions on Earth so it’s not really a leap in imagination to think of it existing on other planets.

This is true, but it still resides purely in our imagination; there’s not data to suggest it’s true.

That said I think you make an excellent point about the delta between orthodoxy and radical discovery; perhaps discovering life that is based on entirely new biochemistry that hadn’t previously been anticipated would do that (though keep in mind that there are already several models for alternatives to carbon based biochemistry).

Of course, perhaps the most radical discovery would indeed be technology based life, i.e. encoded or simulated life rather than bio-mechanical life, but then we are back into the discovery of intelligent life versus non-intelligent life, which would indeed be a whole order of magnitude more incredible.

or the fact that we’ve never detected a Type II civilization (which should be fairly easy to spot with telescopes)

Well not one that we have recognised as such; have you been following he developments with ‘Tabby’s Star’/’Boyajian Star’? No one is saying it’s aliens of course but it’s fascinating nevertheless and illustrates the difficulty of being able to recognise what might be right in front of you.

Very well written post GeeTee1972, enjoyed reading that.

That was unexpected but thank you all the same!

Spin – Member

I’m genuinely surprised that so many people profess that they would regard the confirmation of microbial life somewhere other than earth to be a fairly lowly discovery.

I think really massive scientific discoveries require a leap in imagination or a big change in our world view not just an extension of existing knowledge.You’d be talking about a different lifeform, though – life on earth is essentially built out of four primary metabolites – protein, nucelic acids, carbohydrates, and fat. If the extraterrestial microbe was also made from identical building blocks, that in itself would be hugely significant, but not offer great scope for directly learning anything new.
If it were different, though, even subtly so, then we would have new metabolism / replication / structures for life – it would be earth-stopping for science.

Philosophically speaking it might not be the best news in the world, as others have said. Only a microbe, though, so we’d still be in with a chance of having escaped The Great Filter.