Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
UM-Bot

Intelligent life extremely rare, study claims

145 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

papageorge1

I think alien intelligent life is already in front of our noses and always has been.

I think the study is based on at least two false assumption:

1) That there is not a super-physical nature intelligence that fosters life.

2) That life starts from scratch on each planet

 

Based on the assumptions that the study is working with their conclusions may be well reasoned.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
astrobeing
8 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

I think the study is based on at least two false assumption:

1) That there is not a super-physical nature intelligence that fosters life.

There is no evidence that anything is fostering life.

8 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

2) That life starts from scratch on each planet

All evidence on Earth says this is how life emerged on the planet.

So no false assumptions if you rely on two hundred years of collected evidence.

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
papageorge1
1 minute ago, astrobeing said:

There is no evidence that anything is fostering life.

All evidence on Earth says this is how life emerged on the planet.

So no false assumptions if you rely on two hundred years of collected evidence.

Those are still two assumptions they are making that haven't been proven right or wrong. Hence they are assumptions. Now one can argue the reasonableness of the assumptions but 'THEY ARE' assumptions still. I happen to think they are probably wrong assumptions. 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
astrobeing
1 minute ago, papageorge1 said:

Those are still two assumptions they are making that haven't been proven right or wrong. Hence they are assumptions. Now one can argue the reasonableness of the assumptions but 'THEY ARE' assumptions still. I happen to think they are probably wrong assumptions.

They are not assumptions. They are conclusions based on two hundred years of analysis of evidence collected on Earth. Nothing in this evidence remotely suggests that the emergence and evolution of life on our planet was influenced by any intelligence therefore that theory has certainly been proven wrong.

Science works with evidence, not unfounded speculation.

  • Like 6
  • Thanks 2
  • Confused 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
papageorge1
2 minutes ago, astrobeing said:

They are not assumptions. They are conclusions based on two hundred years of analysis of evidence collected on Earth. Nothing in this evidence remotely suggests that the emergence and evolution of life on our planet was influenced by any intelligence therefore that theory has certainly been proven wrong.

Science works with evidence, not unfounded speculation.

Certainly nothing can be called proven at this time. Hence they are making their best assumptions which may or may not ultimately be true.

I think even Richard Dawkins acknowledges life on earth may have been seeded from outside.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Essan
1 hour ago, jethrofloyd said:

Intelligent life is extremely rare on the Earth, let alone in the Universe.:lol:

I disagree, Intelligent life is quite common.   Dolphins, elephants, dogs, parrots, crows.

There is no evidence intelligent life in Earth is capable of space travel, making TV programmes worth watching, or even of electing presidents :P 

  • Like 5
  • Haha 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Seti42

The Drake equation gave us false hope for decades, I think. The chances of intelligent, technologically advanced life like us evolving is very rare, IMO. Doesn't mean there isn't any out there, and it doesn't mean we won't (maybe, eventually) have contact with it...But it's a silly thing to get our hopes up over. 'Aliens', for all practical purposes, are a myth. And while I love reading about and thinking about myths, folklore, religions, etc., they are still just that: Stories.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
astrobeing
1 minute ago, papageorge1 said:

Certainly nothing can be called proven at this time. Hence they are making their best assumptions which may or may not ultimately be true.

It most certainly can. The preponderance of evidence is conclusive and the lack of evidence for other theories is conclusive, and that's why science works. You sound like a Flat Earther to me.

1 minute ago, papageorge1 said:

I think even Richard Dawkins acknowledges life on earth may have been seeded from outside.

How many times do I have to repeat that science works with evidence, not speculation? Show me the evidence.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
papageorge1
19 minutes ago, astrobeing said:

It most certainly can. The preponderance of evidence is conclusive and the lack of evidence for other theories is conclusive, and that's why science works. You sound like a Flat Earther to me.

How many times do I have to repeat that science works with evidence, not speculation? Show me the evidence.

Guess you do not understand the difference between an assumption and a proven fact. Oh, well.

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
astrobeing
3 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

Guess you do not understand the difference between an assumption and a proven fact. Oh, well.

I most certainly do as do the scientists at Oxford who wrote the paper. I'm sure they have more professional experience with the Scientific Method than you do.

Please show your evidence that contradicts their conclusion.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tatetopa

Rare is a descriptive  term rather than a enumerative one.

A single  tiny flake of gold on an ocean beach might be buried among a billion grains of sand.  That would fit most of our definitions of rare.  Yet how many grains of sand on a beach and how many flakes of gold?

During the depression, Oregonians panned the surf line at Gold Beach  sifting billions (or trillions?) of grains of sand to come up with a few flakes of gold to buy  the next day's meals.  They found some at least.

Nothing scientific there, just musing on rare.

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
astrobeing
11 minutes ago, Tatetopa said:

A single  tiny flake of gold on an ocean beach might be buried among a billion grains of sand.  That would fit most of our definitions of rare.  Yet how many grains of sand on a beach and how many flakes of gold?

Now imagine that it takes years if not decades to check each grain of sand to see if it's gold.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stiff
21 minutes ago, astrobeing said:

Now imagine that it takes years if not decades to check each grain of sand to see if it's gold.

Good analogy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zep73

An aspect most people forget, when discussing intelligent life in the universe, is timing. And it might be the most important one.
There could have been an intelligent civilisation somewhere 10 million years ago, but they perished. Another could emerge 10 million years from now, when we have perished.
The point: They will never meet, or communicate, or know about each other.

And before you say "radio waves traveling for 10 million years", forget it. They will be too faint to be detected. Like dropping a stone in the water in Japan, and detecting the wave in L.A. Not gonna happen.

Edited by zep73
  • Like 7
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
astrobeing
14 minutes ago, zep73 said:

An aspect most people forget, when discussing intelligent life in the universe, is timing. And it might be the most important one.
There could have been an intelligent civilisation somewhere 10 million years ago, but they perished. Another could emerge 10 million years from now, when we have perished.

Why do you believe that intelligent life must always perish?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NCC1701

Any kind of life is intelligent otherwise it would not exist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zep73
8 minutes ago, astrobeing said:

Why do you believe that intelligent life must always perish?

Because of extinction events. We've had 5 on Earth. None of them while humans have been here. The 6th will probably wipe us out, if we don't do it ourselves.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
astrobeing
3 minutes ago, zep73 said:

Because of extinction events. We've had 5 on Earth. None of them while humans have been here. The 6th will probably wipe us out, if we don't do it ourselves.

But these events didn't wipe out all life. In fact the more intelligent and adaptable species tended to survive them and no species is more intelligent and adaptable than humans.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zep73
13 minutes ago, astrobeing said:

But these events didn't wipe out all life. In fact the more intelligent and adaptable species tended to survive them and no species is more intelligent and adaptable than humans.

You're not wrong, but it's a 50% chance at best.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tatetopa
1 hour ago, astrobeing said:

Now imagine that it takes years if not decades to check each grain of sand to see if it's gold.

Indeed. Now imagine harnessing specific gravity and the wonders  of a sluice box.  We have decades to spend.  We are not going anyplace, and it can be done in the background.  Meanwhile,  we might come up with more efficacious methods.

There are probably not enough gold flakes on Gold Beach to pay my wages for a year.  I am not even going to look, its not practical.  Yet as an engineer, its fun to think about how I would design a cost-effective, automated sluice box  that would reduce those decades to a year or two. We all like to solve problems; part of our human success may be that curiosity.  

If there are 5 or 50 or 500 intelligent species in our galaxy at any one time, I would consider that rare.  The chances of ever stumbling across evidence of one is astronomical if you can forgive the pun.  And yet, statistics and probability being what they are, we might have spawned within a couple hundred light years of another of the 50 intelligent civilizations in our galaxy.  Highly improbable, but not impossible.

 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
astrobeing
1 minute ago, zep73 said:

You're not wrong, but it's a 50% chance at best.

No, more like a 99% chance humans will survive at worst.

Extinction events are most hazardous in the early stages of life. It wouldn't surprise me if life in the universe is almost always wiped out in the first million years or so. Earth has been an incredibly safe place for life to evolve. The first extinction event didn't happen until life had been established for hundreds of millions of years. The universe is a dangerous place for life, especially in the early stages of a solar system and Earth suggests that a planet only gets one chance at life at that's it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tatetopa
26 minutes ago, astrobeing said:

But these events didn't wipe out all life. In fact the more intelligent and adaptable species tended to survive them

I would say adaptable species tended to survive them.  Intelligence is only one method of being adaptable.   

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Myles
1 hour ago, zep73 said:

An aspect most people forget, when discussing intelligent life in the universe, is timing. And it might be the most important one.
There could have been an intelligent civilisation somewhere 10 million years ago, but they perished. Another could emerge 10 million years from now, when we have perished.
The point: They will never meet, or communicate, or know about each other.

And before you say "radio waves traveling for 10 million years", forget it. They will be too faint to be detected. Like dropping a stone in the water in Japan, and detecting the wave in L.A. Not gonna happen.

I agree.  Some may have existed but no longer do.   

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.