Alien life more likely on 'Dune' planets

"pleasant Earth-like conditions probably persisted for two billion years after the planet's birth - plenty of time for life to have developed." Thats plenty of time for intelligent life to evolve and move off their planet before it died. http://www.bigsiteofamazingfacts.com/how-long-has-there-been-life-on-earth No, I do not think it is. Lets look at the link you provided. The earth is about 4.5 billion years old, but life did not exist on this planet until about 2 billion years ago, when certain kinds of bacteria and algae began to appear.Land plants did not appear until about 430 million year... [More]

The movie had some odd looking aliens, like that giant one that rested on some kind of platform or tank in the throne room scene (I read somewhere it was actually a mutated human). I still wonder of Baron Harkonnen was fully human, he looked really odd. Spice, pure spice that is, accelerated evolution producing the Navigators (and to a lesser extent the Bene Gesserit and the Fremen). As for the Baron - in the books he's just an incredibly fat man, no diseases or the like. In fact, he's described as being rather attractive without the layers of fat (the Harkonnen line features strong jaws, full... [More]

No, I do not think it is. Lets look at the link you provided. So it took 2 billion years according to this for life to develop. Remember, the total time frame was have here is 4.65 billion years. Ans Venus is expected to have been habitable for 2 billion years. So as life developed it was lost. After that, we only have alge and bacteria, that then has to evolve into plants and then animals. Then we had to have an animal evolve and become intelligent. As pretty much everything is expected to have formed around the same time, that leaves too short a time zone for life to develop on Venus and evo... [More]

And anyway, I really dont think it is that interesting whether intelligent life developed on Venus specifically or not. What I find much more interesting is the fact that it seems like Venus was indeed habitable, had the conditions for life and intelligent life to develop, and how that just shows how probable it is taht the universe is rich with life elsewhere.

So life has evolved to where we are today on earth from algae etc., in about 2.5 bn years (that’s how long earth has been “habitable”, out of the 4.5 bn years). That doesn’t rule out that other civilizations could have evolved faster, in for example 1.5 bn years, and had another .5bn years to become hyper advanced before their planet became inhabitable. That was just to produce life, not plasma tellies. From bacteria to Human on a spaceship is a long haul. If we use out pool of one, life had not even made it to plants before it would be destroyed. Heck, grass only mand an appearance in... [More]

And anyway, I really dont think it is that interesting whether intelligent life developed on Venus specifically or not. What I find much more interesting is the fact that it seems like Venus was indeed habitable, had the conditions for life and intelligent life to develop, and how that just shows how probable it is taht the universe is rich with life elsewhere. Mars seems a good bet too. But also, not for intelligent life, just life. Maybe.

You know the habitable zone of our solar system? The Goldilocks zone? Where it is "just right" for liquid water to form? Some theories out there suggest the such is the same within Galaxies, and the Universe itself, Galaxy cores may emit too much radiation for life to form near the centre, considering all this, for all we know, life may be much rarer than we perceive. Got your point. Still think there are too many stars and galaxies for there not to be rich with life in the universe. That is the trick though isn't it Getting the numbers. The Drake equation from what I perceive is more of a tho... [More]

"In 1964 Stephen H. Dole estimated the number of habitable planets in our Galaxy to be about 600 million.[4]" I presume he is talking about present habitable planets, and thats only in our own galaxy (from several hundred billion of galaxies). How's that for a wild estimate, at a time when we didn't even know that there were any outside our own system. Not that I necessarily disagree with him, just I've no idea how he could possibly have estimated that except for completely making up a figure off the top of hsi Head.

Got your point. Still think there are too many stars and galaxies for there not to be rich with life in the universe. I have to agree with you. As Carl Sagan said, It sure would be an awful waste if we were it! I do believe there must be other life to find, but I do not think it is close to us. Well, it is a mathematical formula, where if we knew the numbers, we would come up with an accurate answer. We of course don’t know the numbers for the variables for sure, but we have rather qualified estimates. I found this site very useful for examining the equation, because one can change the varia... [More]

How's that for a wild estimate, at a time when we didn't even know that there were any outside our own system. Not that I necessarily disagree with him, just I've no idea how he could possibly have estimated that except for completely making up a figure off the top of hsi Head. On that link, it says The real value of the Drake Equation is not in the answer itself, but the questions that are prompted when attempting to come up with an answer.