Yes and no. Not because of anything we've done directly, but merely because we exist.
Printable View
Yes and no. Not because of anything we've done directly, but merely because we exist.
But why? I don't understand the inference.
Of course it does! No proof is obviously proof.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
EDIT: Also it's hilarious that you're toting this sig "Absence of proof is not Proof of absence."
The inference is that the FACT that we exist at all means that life is possible. Yet people choose to believe that we are alone, or the most advanced. Both are symbols of our ego. The FACT that humans are young in the universe also proves that intelligent life can evolve rather quickly. Just because our government hasn't admitted it, or YOU haven't seen it doesn't mean it isn't there. Hence... Absence of proof is not Proof of absence.
I would say probably not. I do beleve there is life out there though, but it seems unlikely that that they even know about us. :content:
This isn't about ego, this is just about rational argument. Bringing ego into it is an ad hominem. To address your actual argument: yes it proves it's possible, but it says nothing about how probable it is (other than the fact that the probability isn't 0). There could be a hundred intelligent civilisations in our galaxy (though I doubt that because of the Fermi paradox). There could be two; there could only be the one. Same for the universe. Same for life in general rather than intelligent civilisations. The probabilities of these things are complete unknowns.Quote:
Originally Posted by PlanesWalker
The irony here is that you're making some kind of anthropic conflation.Quote:
The FACT that humans are young in the universe also proves that intelligent life can evolve rather quickly.
Intelligent life didn't evolve quickly. For the first three billion years or so, life on this planet was very basic. Only 500 million years ago did it start to become complex (giving rise to plants, fungi and animals). And the current estimate is that life can only survive on Earth for another billion years or so (before our Sun gets too hot). So as a matter of fact, although life emerged quickly on a geological timescale, intelligent life has only emerged in the last 20% or so of Earth's life-bearing period. In what sense is that quick?
Way, way, way, way less than 20%, depending on how you define intelligence. 20% more accurately describes the length of time flowering plants have been here.
It's essentially impossible to predict when intelligent life would emerge and begin traveling upwards on a technological ladder. However, it's safe to predict that if we did meet an intelligent extra-terrestrial, the chance they started their development even within a thousands years of us is absolutely tiny. If we did find an advanced civilization (or they found us) they've probably been advancing for millions of years longer than humans.
But there is no way to ascertain any amount of probability that the ETs we'd find would be advanced, at least right now. If we had enough different biospheres to test differences in the evolution of a biosphere, we may be able to predict how long, on average, it takes for a species in that biosphere to find the particular niche that enables them to begin growing in intelligence. If we discovered there was a general trend life followed: oxygenating, going from water to land, ferns, conifers, flowers, etc... then we could figure probability, which would probably be on the side of Planeswalker. It may not be safe to assume to most ETs are much more advanced than us, but it is safe to assume that most life-bearing planets are older than earth and have had more time.
When I said 'life-bearing period', I didn't just mean historically. That's why I brought up the end of life.Quote:
Originally Posted by Original Poster
Are you saying human beings will make up 20% of earth's life bearing period after the planet gets wiped out by an asteroid then? I don't think you can factor probability into the future either so I don't know what you could mean other than earth's history of bearing life, which humans make up less than a fraction of 1% of.
I didn't say anything about contingent asteroids.
As far as I can tell it's pretty clear what I'm saying...Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
Xei, your math is off buddy. I don't know where to start... First off, the sun is only halfway through its main phase, meaning that it still has roughly 5 billion years before it goes all red giant on us. More than enough time to develop the tech required to move our species around the cosmos and survive. Secondly, 500 million years isn't 20 percent of earth time, it's more like 10 percent. Earth is 4.5 billion years old. Life began to show it was getting complicated around 500 million years ago, not intelligent. The first mammals appeared around 250 million years ago, with the first primates evolving around 65 million years ago. Great apes showed up around 15 million years ago with our closest ancestor showing up around 6 million years ago. So, xei, what percent would you put 6 million years at? Thats the blink of an eye my friend. So yes, humans evolved rather quickly. Ask yourself how many times a human like civilization could have arisen already, given that the universe is almost 15 billion years old...
Why do you think life will only end at the point the Sun turns into a red giant?
Future of the Earth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The rest of your post is just illogical. Why is the length of time for which human ancestors have been alive relevant? When determining how quickly life arises, why do you think you can ignore the vast majority of evolution before this point?Quote:
In about 1.1 billion years, the solar luminosity will be 10% higher than at present. This will cause the atmosphere to become a "moist greenhouse", resulting in a runaway evaporation of the oceans.
We're trying to work out how common intelligent life is in the universe by seeing how quickly it arises from simple life, obviously over the lifetime of the planet. If intelligent life had evolved in the first 1% of Earth's life-bearing period, that would've suggested that it's a fairly common event. As it actually evolved towards the tail end of this period (roughly 1bn years out of 5bn is 20%), we can't conclude that it's likely. We can't really conclude anything useful. The only way to answer these questions will be with advances in space exploration, astrochemistry and computer simulation.
You go ahead and follow this link and tell me which is the first animal you would consider intelligent and tell me why. Then when you figure out that life was not intelligent 1 billion years ago, you can let go of the 20%.
Timeline of human evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The point of human ancestor history is because the dominant species on this planet evolved from them.
So then it would seem a billion years a good reference point. That's plenty of time. Especially given how young we are, and how much we have accomplished. We will either master our technology for the benefit of everything on this planet, or we will destroy it all for the benefit of us.
Your right, evolution isn't something one can accurately predict, but I choose to believe that an intelligent species has the potential to evolve at anytime. What happens if in a few million years we see rise to a mice bipedal race?
I have a feeling if there is a civilized life form on earth at the time its life-bearing period expires, they won't be human. We'll most likely make up a blink of an eye in earth's greater time-scale.
I have literally no idea what you're talking about.Quote:
Originally Posted by PlanesWalker
We were talking about life which is as intelligent as humans, so in geological terms we're talking about the present day (take a few thousand years depending on how you're defining intelligent humans), which means it arose in the last 20% or so of Earth's life-bearing period, which lasted from roughly 4bn years ago to 1bn in the future.
What don't you agree with?
I see where we got mistaken. Your figure is still only correct if the sun follows what they predict. Then yes, only 20 percent of the time earth has been inhabited did intelligent species arise. I still believe that an intelligent species can arise at any time. It only took us a few million years to separate from our ancestors and become what we are today.
You must really like aliens xei. You've been coming to this same thread for over a year now. Tell me, why don't you believe that we have been visited?
Also remember that humans were extremely close to being wiped out (our total population size got down to about 1000) and all our close, intelligent cousins were wiped out. Heidelbergensis and Neanderthals were just about as intelligent as us. Heidelbergensis a little less so but much stronger and taller.Quote:
Originally Posted by PlanesWalker
What if Australopithecus was wiped out, due to heightened intelligence and weakened body.
In the other planets that have life on them, this could have happened.
Life is still pretty rare, relative to the Universal scale, so we could have just been the lucky ones that scraped through.
There's also the problem that we are maybe at most a couple of hundred years away from regular space travel.
If intelligent species evolved before us they would be doing this already. If it was common, we'd see them flying around.
They would see all our lights on on our planet at night and come take a look.
You're just assuming they're avoiding us for whatever reason and saying this is proof they exist. Which is only true if there is definitely a high likelihood of very intelligent life evolving. Which we don't know.
I don't believe we've been visited because I don't see any evidence that would support that notion. If you can provide some then great. Absence of evidence for X is not proof that X is not true, but it does mean that there's no reason to believe X.Quote:
Originally Posted by PlanesWalker
As for the idea that intelligent life exists... well, in our galaxy, owing to the Fermi paradox as tommo explained, it seems unlikely. If there were any, it would have to be a species with no curiosity or desire to proliferate; yet it's hard to see how a species with no curiosity could make much scientific progress, and a species with no desire to proliferate seems rather contrary to evolution by natural selection.
As for the whole universe... I have no idea. I'm naturally inclined to come down on the side of there being intelligent life out there, that's what I'd like. But I also recognise that it's possible that the odds could just happen to be stacked against it... yes there are many planets out there, but people often forget that it only takes a small number of unlikely prerequisites to compound and produce a very unlikely prerequisite.
As for life in general... that'd be very interesting to know, and it's exciting because there are bodies within our own solar system which we can explore to try to find an answer. If there were life in our solar system, and if it weren't related to us (it should be relatively easy to establish this, because the genetic code was arbitrarily chosen at the start of Earth's life), that would suggest simple life is very common throughout our galaxy... which would mean that it is the transition to complexity which is the very rare event.
That depends on your definition of proof. You obviously haven't gotten yours. I've seen enough evidence for my proof. You spend enough hours researching the subject and you should see it. It's obvious that something is going on. There was an incident here in my hometown that I witnessed. I was a believer before that, but this sparked my interest like never before. El paso Texas October 2010 ups. It's on YouTube.
All I see is a video of an object burning up in the atmosphere. Explain the line of implication from 'disintegrating object in the sky' to 'we are being watched by an intelligent race of aliens'.
You see many objects that hover after entering our atmosphere?
And my god man, do you only focus on one thing that I say? I also said that if you spent enough time researching the subject that you would see, yet you decided to criticize a single video instead. Look around man
You said look for evidence and then you gave me what you said was a piece of evidence. Looking at the piece of evidence you gave and then enquiring about it was unacceptable? Okay, you're losing me bro...