Sorry i have read your view - maybe the confusion is over the the mixed threads in this conversation over the type of life possibly out there - Drake was obviously concerned with intelligent life which I doubt (but would be happy to be wrong) we will detect. His simplistic equation is really a pointer to to the unlikely hood of detecting another civilization and you are right, you could never put a number on that. At a more lower level life in the form of simple organisms I think would be more widespread - not saying a common occurrence but taking pyramid model of simple life at the bottom and intelligent life at the top.
Do extra terrestrials exist? If so...
- Thread starter airrunner
- Start date
Sorry i have read your view - maybe the confusion is over the the mixed threads in this conversation over the type of life possibly out there - Drake was obviously concerned with intelligent life which I doubt (but would be happy to be wrong) we will detect. His simplistic equation is really a pointer to to the unlikely hood of detecting another civilization and you are right, you could never put a number on that. At a more lower level life in the form of simple organisms I think would be more widespread - not saying a common occurrence but taking pyramid model of simple life at the bottom and intelligent life at the top.
You cant put a number on any life. We simply have no idea what the chances are.
All the other stuff, I think we will find life, so I don't get why you keep saying stuff along those lines.
All I'm saying and have been saying is despite what you say the equation is meaningless as Drake said and that we don't have a clue about the chance of life arising and as such have no idea what the probability is.
All the other stuff, I think we will find life, so I don't get why you keep saying stuff along those lines.
All I'm saying and have been saying is despite what you say the equation is meaningless as Drake said and that we don't have a clue about the chance of life arising and as such have no idea what the probability is.
It doesn't matter what you or I believe, its you trying to use drake equation or possibilities.
Like I said, we are not on the same page then. Please don't see it as a criticism. It is just surprising thats all. The chaos theory question is just me trying to get a handle on your mindset.
Ok I tend to agree with you on your point about probability - I just take the view that life arising out of a "soup" of chemicals does not equal zero - dont know the number and very very small. On the other hand the number of planets in the Universe - again not measurable but very very big. Add the element of time which is a big number and potentially the numbers could be thrown together and not equal zero.
My thoughts are that this supports my view because this value does not equal zero which I think is the difference between us - I respect you view and can agree to differ on that
My thoughts are that this supports my view because this value does not equal zero which I think is the difference between us - I respect you view and can agree to differ on that
how can we not be on the same page, the chaos theory is just a random question with no meaning.
Its quite simple
A)I think there is life out there
B) you cant use probability as "proof" or even likely hood of life out there. We simply have no information. Again tell me what the chances/probability of life arising is on any given planet? you cant, you cant even take a stab in the dark, no can any scientist. Any probability/equation for such things, ATM any such probability/equation is simply a way of creating debate it holds no scientific weight.
Not at all, it cant equal zero as life exists on earth. But just because the universe is big it is unlikely to be infinite like we once thought. Also not i think life exists. this has ZERO to do with what I think. If the universe is not infinite then it is easily possible for the chance of life to exceeding the number of possible places it could start. Therefore extremely unlikely to happen anywhere else. On the other hand, it could exist almost any where. We have no way to narrow this down, we haven't even looked at possible life in our own solar system, once we've done that(missions are planned) at least then we can have a very bad stab in the dark. But ATM we don't have any data at all to make any predictions.
Last edited:
I don't think Thai Ladyboys really qualify as this kind of Alien...
Thats fine as I said we differ on that point - and have no issue with that - we could probably discuss all day but I need to go back to my tin hat making business
Lets put it this way. Can you accept that there are conditions that exist that offer a flat 0% chance of life forming in any way, shape, or form at any point on the timeline?
Your not making any sense and this keeps going round in circles. Why can't you accept we don't have a clue what the chances of life spraining up as and things like the drake equation are discussion starters not science.
Why do you keep trying to ask different stuff, thinking itll suddenly assign a meaningfull value to tge probability. What do you mean conditions? Like the middle of the sun.
Why do you keep trying to ask different stuff, thinking itll suddenly assign a meaningfull value to tge probability. What do you mean conditions? Like the middle of the sun.
Slow down. I can see you foaming at the mouth from here
Your so mad that your typing is suffering. Chill please and have a pint.I don't want to provoke you, but just as you think I'm spouting drivel, it feels like your doing the same to me. I'm asking you questions to try and get a grip on your mindset, to hopefully find some common ground. Like you, I couldn't agree more that life is most likely out there. The difference is how different people in this thread are coming to that conclusion. One person just believes it because a prominent scientist says so. Another just has faith that it must be. Another feels that numbers and probability offer answers. Another thinks him nuts for thinking that.
Perhaps it's just me but the nature of my work for the last 12 years has been rooted in problem solving and often having more variables than hard information to go on. By following the logic of probability I find I can reach outcomes quickly and efficiently. I fully admit I am highly biased towards probability as a means to work out almost any problem where the variables are largely unknown.
I'm not foaming and typing is always ****.
There is no mindset.
The only mindset is we don't have a Clue about the probability, that's it, really is that simple.
How can a probabilty have awrnsers when we have no clue what number to assign.
There is no mindset.
The only mindset is we don't have a Clue about the probability, that's it, really is that simple.
How can a probabilty have awrnsers when we have no clue what number to assign.
Last edited:
We should also consider evolution, it is largely thought that all life on Earth is from a common source....
What if all life in the Universe is also from a common source, and that source happens to be Earth, so given that in evolution (if it follows a universal set of rules such as physics does) then the probabilty that all life has a common universal ancestor (ie Earth) is vastly more probable than multiple ancestors (ie Extra-Terrestrials)
Could the Earth be the Universal Common Ancestor for life in the Universe?....are we the seed for germinating and spreading life throughout the Universe?
Or are we simply another stage in the evolution of the Universe and Life on Earth was seeded from another common universal ancestor.......maybe the long dead Mars?
What if all life in the Universe is also from a common source, and that source happens to be Earth, so given that in evolution (if it follows a universal set of rules such as physics does) then the probabilty that all life has a common universal ancestor (ie Earth) is vastly more probable than multiple ancestors (ie Extra-Terrestrials)
Could the Earth be the Universal Common Ancestor for life in the Universe?....are we the seed for germinating and spreading life throughout the Universe?
Or are we simply another stage in the evolution of the Universe and Life on Earth was seeded from another common universal ancestor.......maybe the long dead Mars?
There is the thought that life may have arrived in the early sea's via meteorite so I could see part of you suggestion - this would restrict life if there were a common source to a single galaxy though and not widespread as the source would need to somehow colonise nearby planets
Indeed, to debate another facet of the issue, I tend to look at the common source debate in a couple of ways.
1: It could well be that there is one (or very limited number of sources)
where all life comes from. The conditions on earth were right, but the
organic "spark" came from elsewhere.
2: Given that the bulk of organic molecules and compounds are heavily
based on chemicals at the beginning of the periodic table, that life can
form anywhere quite easily given the right conditions. Carbon, Oxygen
and Hydrogen for example being much more abundant anywhere in the
universe than say, Gold, Titanium, or Iridium.
I used to favor option 1, but in these later years I find myself less confident that a "spark" is needed, and it rather just occurs. There is a transitory phase between "lifeless" organic compounds like amino acids to protolife like a protien. To me it a spark isn't needed, but life just happens naturally whenever this process occurs.
Last edited:
True and so I suggest we concentrate on something else: Kepler. Stars and planets form from natural processes. Up until 10 years ago we had only a very small sample with which to derive the frequency of planet formation and the spread between rocky and gas planets – a sample size of 1 in fact. Our own planetary system.
We had no idea how common (or not) planets are and in fact it was quite commonplace to assert that planetary systems were rare. So much so that back in the 1970′s when a number of scientists put forward the idea that planetary formation was an almost inevitable byproduct of stellar formation – and that therefore planets ought to be as common as muck – they were widely derided. However that view is now mainstream.
And up until as recently as 2000 or so it was possible to argue that rocky planets in the habitable zone were very rare and therefore complex life extremely rare. People assumed from this that the Earth was the only inhabited planet in the universe. This was a semi-respectable view at the time.
But during the 2000′s we’ve found more and more exoplanets, so we now know that planets are pretty common.
So the question then became: “How common are rocky planets? Is the solar systems gas/rock planet ratio of 50% unusual or average?”
This latest evidence suggests that it is average – ie. planets are not only common, but about half of them are rocky.
The solar system is therefore an average system around an average star in a pretty average looking galaxy. The Copernican principle is alive and well.
So planets are very common, rocky planets form a large fraction of them and a fair few of those rocky planets are in the habitable zone.
Now to the possibilities of life and you get to absorb two new ideas that have firmed very fast over the last 10 years (although nobody talks about them very loudly):
1. Water is everywhere. Everywhere we look now we see water.
2. The chemists and biologists are firming up on a suspicion they’ve held for quite a while now:- that wherever there is water, the chemistry leading to life will be readily established. ie. in the presence of water, life is almost inevitable.
Notice the key point in that chain of logic? The number of rocky planets in the habitable zone. That’s what Kepler has – for the first time – put a reasonable estimate on.
And it’s a large number.
Arguing about the mathematical form or validity of the Drake equation is a bit pointless now. The evidence – tentative and slight, but evidence nonetheless – is starting to come in.
There is no evidence. Planets, even in habitual zone with water. On there own tells us nothing about probability of life.
Again your missing the point I'm not arguing about planets or what we have found, or what either of us think.
At it's most basic.
Number if planets x chance of life = number of planets that should have life on it.
The first part we can have a guess, the chance of life bit we have no idea, we can't assign it a value and that is the most important figure.
Again your missing the point I'm not arguing about planets or what we have found, or what either of us think.
At it's most basic.
Number if planets x chance of life = number of planets that should have life on it.
The first part we can have a guess, the chance of life bit we have no idea, we can't assign it a value and that is the most important figure.