LOL what? Do they instigate a lot or something?
If astronomers discovered a planet with all the same basic ingredients of Earth, why do some think such a planet couldn’t spawn life as Earth did?
Brazil says we don’t have the “information” to presume extra-terrestrial life exists. Exactly what information we need, other than the fact that there are billions of galaxies and trillions of planets and it is a certainty that planets similar to Earth are among those trillions, remains beyond me.
Again, the argument flows from the premise that we are so unique and special that only humans on planet Earth are capable of arising. Science has shown again and again that such human-centric thinking is flawed.
And this is of course assuming that only earth-like life could exist. Other forms may exist we can’t yet imagine.
The trouble is that, while life arising on such a planet seems overwhelmingly likely to us, we seriously do not know. The human-centric thinking may be flawed, but it hasn’t been proven to be wrong. It might be that the origin of life on earth was a “perfect storm” of events that might never be duplicated again.
It’s wrong to be dogmatic either way here. All we know for certain is that there’s life on earth.
If we find fossils or other hints of life on Mars, then we can start generalizing with a little more justification.
The Drake Equation is completely valid – we just don’t know the values for some of the terms! a priori reasoning is limited here. Only actual observation can answer the questions without a lingering and nagging element of doubt.
Right. And with higher intelligence and communication we flourish BETTER than they do. I can’t see how you could think differently.
I think the only valid point regarding intelligence as an evolutionary advantage, is it is definitely better in the short term. It has allowed us to become highly successful in the last oh say, 20 thousand years, but in the long term, it may mean little to nothing. We may be the most successful creature to ever walk the earth, but what good is that if we go extinct? We are still vulnerable to mass extinction, so in a 100,000 years we may be gone.
That being said, intelligence doesn’t guarantee success on an evolutionary scale. We may end up just a blip on the radar in the long run. Hopefully not though, that’s a depressing thought.
That’s not the point though. Sure, higher intelligence and communication doesn’t mean humanity will outlive the stars but there is no doubt it gives an evolutionary advantage. For You’s contention that it does not is ludicrous.
The way intelligence manifests itself and what sort of priorities/survival instincts underlie it could certainly alter how beneficial it is “long term”.
Though I guess you are saying that since sharks and turtles have existed longer than humans, you would describe them as more successful so far as evolution/adaption is concerned. I have to think personally that turning everything around and controlling our own environment makes us a good example of success. How bad we botch it up is something to consider of course but we control our own destiny more than any creature that’s come along yet.
CarnalK: agreement. The fact that a critter evolved for small-scale hunting and gathering has leaped to become the world’s apex predator, even to the degree of engineering the extinction (or local eradication) of many competitors, is surely a sign of success in just about the highest degree.
That we’re so successful, we’re fouling our own nest is not an indication of our not being successful, only of our being too successful, too fast.
In evolutionary biology, it’s sometimes said that a chicken is just an egg’s way of making more eggs, or an individual is only a gene’s way of making more genes.
But that we’ve opened the system up so far as to have actually observed genes – and protons, and quasars, and the billionth digit of pi – is absolutely radical. It is a breakthrough in the concept of “concepts.” We’ve torn aside the curtain and looked in at the machinery that makes the world go round.
There could be all kinds of life out there, kinds we can’t even imagine. The universe is so unimaginably vast, and we have existed as a reasoning species for such a tiny fraction of its total existence, I think it is extremely likely that other intelligent species - perhaps quite unlike us - have arisen somewhere.
I totally agree with you. Our level of current success as a species is unprecedented. I just kinda wanted to add on to what you guys were saying.
As for what For You said,
I don’t think that’s necessarily true. Without complex language skills, we would still survive and flourish much better than other animals do. Non-verbal signals account for 93% of communication between people.
I’m not sure why they defined intelligence and our success as a species as being majorly dependent upon language… Intelligence is essentially just the application of knowledge. We could still think conceptually without language, and find other intelligent ways to communicate that to each other; thus giving us a significant advantage over other species.
And there isn’t really a valid point in saying we are suppressing evolution by defeating natural selection. Evolution takes far too long compared to how fast our knowledge grows for that to be a serious factor. We will likely do a better “selection” than nature itself will, if we can figure out how to successfully manipulate our genetic code.
Stephen Hawking talked about an interesting concept: how our external evolution (knowledge) progresses at a rate far greater than our internal evolution (DNA). He said that if we don’t find a way to genetically alter our DNA so that our internal evolution can keep up with our external, then we will max out our capabilities at some point.
Think about it, we are already to the point where one person can realistically only strive to be an expert in one very specific area of all human knowledge.
I blame the monolith.
Youngkusher, I think you underestimate language’s power. It’s as much a tool as any lever, pulley or wheel invented. Not just the ability to conceptualize but to be able to hear other people’s concepts and experiences in a way grunting and pantomime could never convey.
To the point of your OP I personally am moved by the variety of conditions life has adapted to on Earth. While we may never know the odds of life developing elsewhere I think the number of planets out there gives it a good chance.
I understand it’s integral to our way of living and I do appreciate it’s power, but that’s besides the point. If you take language away from us, it still won’t reduce us to the levels of other animals. You would have to take our intelligence itself away to do that.
The 93% of non-verbal communication refers specifically to everyday communications. So, you are right in the sense language can convey more than what I was getting at.
Now that you’ve got me thinking about it though, I do think that if you were to take language away from us, a new, equally intelligible form of communication would arise. It might not have as many applications as the spoken word, but I don’t think it would stop us from forming civilizations either.
I really think that’s not true. Our intelligence has made us supreme animal because of what we invented with it and were able to pass on. Imho language was the invention that made us able to utilize our intelligence better than any other animal.
Hmm. Would you not consider mathematics and music notation equally intelligible communication systems? They still can’t do what words do. I can’t imagine what could usefully substitute for words.
Without language, our technology would collapse to the level of things that can be demonstrated visually. Chipping stones, making bows and arrows, boiling meat for stew, even curing hides and sewing clothes, yes. The production of copper tools? I don’t think so.
Oh yeah. You reminded me of chemical notation as another example of communication systems we’ve also invented. Goes nowhere and probably wouldn’t exist without words first.
Even today, skills like cooking and woodcrafting are often taught more by mute imitation than speech. I think Trinopus is about right to put the need-based division near (late?) Neolithic technologies like copper, wagons, dairy. But earlier I think pottery, advanced art, intricate hunting gear, and especially agriculture itself were developed by languaged H. sapiens. It is not known when language developed, but H. neanderthalis’ vocal tract is thought incapable of modern speech.
Returning to OP’s question, restricting attention to Earth-like life, and remaining agnostic as to whether non-intelligent life would satisfy OP, there seem to be three general phases to life’s development:
(1) Hot oceanic chemical bath --> self-replicating PNA in membrane
(2) PNA --> RNA --> Protein --> DNA --> Bacteria --> Transformation (Sex) --> Organelle Capture --> Sexed Eukaryotes
(3) Sexed Eukaryotes --> Humans, Wood Ants, et cetera
Do these developments require “Goldilocks” conditions to operate? Perhaps. OTOH, OP’s example of extremophiles suggest that multiple distinct optimalities may be available.
Is it possible to guess the chances of the coincidences? That a hot bath might stumble upon a self-replicating molecule doesn’t seem unlikely; by definition the molecule would begin replicating! PNA has only C, N, O and H atoms, though P (Phosphorus) is needed for RNA and other critical organic compounds.
So (1) seems likely, and so does (3), given the demonstrated power of Darwinian evolution. (The chance that a rich panoply of life would develop a civilization like that of literate humanss seems unclear.)
Are we left with just (2)? A complex series of steps, perhaps, but it took place over billions of years, with many trillions of generations for genetic selection to do its “magic.”
Hmmm. OP’s hunch seems increasingly plausible. We’re probably not alone here in the Milky Way!.
Intelligent life may be unlikely, based on one example. The Earth seemed well-suited, yet little trace has been found in thorough canvassings of that planet. :rolleyes:
In discussions of this topic it’s interesting to note how often “belief” and “faith” get mentioned.
But it’s not surprising. When facts sufficient to decide a question are lacking, humans tend to resort to belief and faith - it has been ever thus. Yet it’s worth noting that this means the discussion is really providing information principally about the nature and biases of the people conducting it, not about the subject question itself.
There might be life that’s not even based in chemistry. Perhaps Jupiter’s Red Spot is an intelligent storm. Goodness knows what might go on inside a star. Of course, I’m being facetious here: I think the likelihood of those two is too small to move the most sensitive needle. My point is simply that there’s a lot more in the universe than chemistry, though it does seem to be the biggie from where we sit. Also keep in mind that our scales of time and dimension are anthropocentric. If life could be created from subatomic virtual processes, ecologies could rise, flourish, and perish in the blink of an eye. At the other end of the spectrum, our universe’s bubble that pops up and eventually – what, vanishes? or fades away? whatever – it might be the equivalent of a subatomic virtual process on a much grander scale. (Again, wading into pure sci-fi here, but only to point out that wherever we look, there are more places (and times and scales) that we can hardly imagine looking.
Something I’d find fascinating is a list of the criteria on physical substrates for evolutionary processes (“life”). No doubt it’s been attempted.
Nobody has doubted the possibility.
The answer is simple. We don’t know the probability of life forming on any given Earth-like planet.
We’re trying to evaluate 1 billion billion divided by x, and we don’t know x. That’s Brazil’s point. Still, it doesn’t surprise me that people are awed by the billion billion (or whatever) and assume that x can’t possibly be much bigger. As humans we often have to make judgments based on insufficient information. In this case, though, we don’t have to make a decision, which is why I fall into the 33% who say “I’m not sure.”
Anyone who is sure isn’t likely to be thinking rationally. But the poll (linked to above) isn’t asking if we’re sure, just what we think, so we’re allowed to just go with our gut feelings. BTW, Brazil never did say what his gut feelings are, so we don’t even know how he’d answer that poll. My guess is that he’d say “not sure” though, since that’s the rational answer.
No, that’s a strawman argument. The argument is simply that we DO NOT KNOW the numbers, so we CANNOT CALCULATE the odds. Period.
Bingo. Some of us prefer not to rely on faith or belief, and say “I’m not sure.”
If you asked me what my gut feeling was, I’d say that I bet there is life out there. If for some odd reason I had to make a wager that was significant, and I couldn’t answer “I don’t know,” I’d go with “Yes, there’s life out there.”
Regarding the odds, the most we can say is that the odds are good if and only if we assume that the early onset of life on Earth is significant. But again, with only one data point, we can’t really say much about that significance, so we’re really back to square one (mathematically).
Let’s just say that if you keep arguing with him, you will eventually see a post that looks like this:
[QUOTE=Notionally posted by Brazil84]
I do not engage with this poster because of <some reason>
[/quote]