Intelligent life extremely rare, study claims

[Tom1200]

Could we get back to the OP?  I'm struggling through the paper (https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/10.1089/ast.2019.2149).  I'll reproduce their conclusions here:

It took approximately 4.5 billion years for a series of evolutionary transitions resulting in intelligent life to unfold on Earth. In another billion years, the increasing luminosity of the Sun will make Earth uninhabitable for complex life. Intelligence therefore emerged late in Earth's lifetime. Together with the dispersed timing of key evolutionary transitions and plausible priors, one can conclude that the expected transition times likely exceed the lifetime of Earth, perhaps by many orders of magnitude. In turn, this suggests that intelligent life is likely to be exceptionally rare. Arriving at an alternative conclusion would require either exceptionally conservative priors, finding additional instances of evolutionary transitions, or adopting an alternative model that can explain why evolutionary transitions took so long on Earth without appealing to rare stochastic occurrences. The model provides a number of other testable predictions, including that M dwarf stars are uninhabitable, that many biological paradoxes will remain unsolved without allowing for extremely unlikely events, and that, counterintuitively, we might be slightly more likely to find simple life on Mars.

Basically - key evolutionary transitions are SO unlikely that they should take hundreds of billions of years.  Therefore intelligence has not evolved.  Therefore we don't exist.

I'm certainly no expert, but I need to question some of their findings.  Well - their entire approach, actually.  In fact, building on the previous Abramelin-astrobeing debate about the scientific method, I would argue that there is virtually no science in this paper whatsoever.

What leads me to make so bold a statement?  EVIDENCE!  This paper is arguing that their mathematical modelling predicts that intelligence is vanishingly improbable.  And yet - we exist, suggesting they've got it wrong.

That's one of the problems with mathematical modelling (and mathematicians, generally).  They are SO wrapped up in their cleverness that they can easily lose sight of reality.  Simply put - they've made certain assumptions and extrapolated trends and predictions from there.  But their assumptions are WRONG because their model is WRONG.  We exist (I think).

Can anybody think of another example where mathematical modelling has produced wildly varied (and inaccurate) predictions based on limited data and false assumptions?  Maybe recently, in the news, fresh in our minds?  Anybody?

 

 

 

[lilthor]

Seems like these stories are getting more numerous:

Former Israeli space security chief says aliens exist, humanity not ready

This "Galactic Federation" has supposedly been in contact with Israel and the US for years, but are keeping themselves a secret to prevent hysteria until humanity is ready.

By AARON REICH   DECEMBER 8, 2020 00:21

Quote

Has the State of Israel made contact with aliens?
According to retired Israeli general and current professor Haim Eshed, the answer is yes, but this has been kept a secret because "humanity isn't ready."

Speaking in an interview to Yediot Aharonot, Eshed – who served as the head of Israel's space security program for nearly 30 years and is a three-time recipient of the Israel Security Award – explained that Israel and the US have both been dealing with aliens for years.
And this by no means refers to immigrants, with Eshed clarifying the existence of a "Galactic Federation."
The 87-year-old former space security chief gave further descriptions about exactly what sort of agreements have been made between the aliens and the US, which ostensibly have been made because they wish to research and understand "the fabric of the universe." This cooperation includes a secret underground base on Mars, where there are American and alien representatives.

https://www.jpost.com/omg/former-israeli-space-security-chief-says-aliens-exist-humanity-not-ready-651405

[Abramelin]

"The Jerusalem Post was unable to reach out to this supposed Galactic Federation for comment. "

[Essan]

Guess what?  You can read more in his new book....

His new book,

The Universe Beyond the Horizon – conversations with Professor Haim Eshed, as recorded by Hagar Yanai (published by Yedioth Aharonoth), is available in print at just NIS 68.6, with a kindle version for a laughable NIS 48. An ideal gift for Chanukah.

https://www.jewishpress.com/news/media/former-head-of-israels-space-program-the-aliens-asked-not-to-be-revealed-humanity-not-yet-ready/2020/12/05/

[Mr Walker]

On 12/6/2020 at 5:55 AM, 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.

All evidence ON earth will always suggest life originated here   

That's why the collection of material from  other planets and asteroids is important 

There we might find older life forms than on earth, different life forms to on earth, or, most  intriguingly, life forms with a common evolutionary history to those on earth.  Panspermia has not been discounted. Indeed perhaps the opposite.

 https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamiecartereurope/2020/08/26/what-is-panspermia-new-evidence-for-the-wild-theory-that-says-we-could-all-be-space-aliens/?sh=57bdf6e26543

 

[ufoguy]

OMG this post is so laughable...intelligent alien life is already here...

[Hazzard]

5 hours ago, ufoguy said:

OMG this post is so laughable...intelligent alien life is already here...

 

[astrobeing]

11 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

All evidence ON earth will always suggest life originated here  

Not necessarily. If we were unable to find evidence of simple ancient life forms then that would strongly suggest that life was transported here. But we have, so that strongly suggests that life was not transported here.

 

11 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

There we might find older life forms than on earth, different life forms to on earth, or, most  intriguingly, life forms with a common evolutionary history to those on earth.  Panspermia has not been discounted. Indeed perhaps the opposite.

 https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamiecartereurope/2020/08/26/what-is-panspermia-new-evidence-for-the-wild-theory-that-says-we-could-all-be-space-aliens/?sh=57bdf6e26543

The panspermia theory keeps coming back every decade or so but we never find any evidence that it happened.

[Abramelin]

35 minutes ago, astrobeing said:

Not necessarily. If we were unable to find evidence of simple ancient life forms then that would strongly suggest that life was transported here. But we have, so that strongly suggests that life was not transported here.

Why could simple ancient life forms not have been transported here?

I don't understand your reasoning.

 

 

Edited December 9, 2020 by Abramelin

[astrobeing]

3 hours ago, Abramelin said:

Why could simple ancient life forms not have been transported here?

I don't understand your reasoning.

Two words: no evidence. If you can't understand that then please don't waste my time.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

 

[Mr Walker]

8 hours ago, astrobeing said:

Not necessarily. If we were unable to find evidence of simple ancient life forms then that would strongly suggest that life was transported here. But we have, so that strongly suggests that life was not transported here.

 

The panspermia theory keeps coming back every decade or so but we never find any evidence that it happened.

Lack of evidence is not evidence  However it depends how far you go back.

It is possible that the very building blocks of life originated on earth but also possible that they only progressed due to an ingredient introduced from elsewhere  (Naturally introduced I mean ) 

Yes that  is what i was saying.  We will only find evidence of possible panspermia when we discover  "life"  off -earth. 

 

[Mr Walker]

4 hours ago, astrobeing said:

Two words: no evidence. If you can't understand that then please don't waste my time.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

 

The defining word here is "could" not "were" The  latest  science shows that bacteria can survive long enough in space to transverse the distances between planets  Thus it could happen  There is nothing extraordinary about that claim Thus, theoretically,  if life arose on earth, it could have seeded life on mars when mars more easily supported life.

Alternatively, if life originated on mars, it could have seeded life on earth (allowing for synchronous chronologies ie that  both planets were hospitable to life at the same time  )

It will be exceedingly interesting when colonists on mars investigate the "genetic structure" of any life forms found there, to see if the y are totally different  to those on earth, or have  some similarities. 

This is a very interesting read.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/life-on-mars-78138144/

 

Edited December 10, 2020 by Mr Walker

[Grim Reaper 6]

3 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

Lack of evidence is not evidence  However it depends how far you go back.

It is possible that the very building blocks of life originated on earth but also possible that they only progressed due to an ingredient introduced from elsewhere  (Naturally introduced I mean ) 

Yes that  is what i was saying.  We will only find evidence of possible panspermia when we discover  "life"  off -earth. 

 

Well said my friend, but I am one those people who believe that life on this planet originated from space. Now I dont believe that Alien's seeded the Earth, but I do believe that at some point after the earths surface was able to sustain life, Comet and Asteroid Collisions that brought water to Earth also brought the building blocks of life to Earth with them. I do not believe that carbon based life could exist before there were sufficient quantities of water present to sustain it, so I think that water was the main ingredient that has allowed life to occur and to dominate this planet like it has over time. This is also why I believe that at some point in its history life was most likely present on Mars. However, do to the traumatic event that destroyed Mars atmosphere which caused most of Mars water to evaporate into space this also destroyed any life that existed before it could evolve like it has on earth.

Take Care my friend, hope you are well! 

[Mr Walker]

1 minute ago, Manwon Lender said:

Well said my friend, but I am one those people who believe that life on this planet originated from space. Now I dont believe that Alien's seeded the Earth, but I do believe that at some point after the earths surface was able to sustain life, Comet and Asteroid Collisions that brought water to Earth also brought the building blocks of life to Earth with them. I do not believe that carbon based life could exist before there were sufficient quantities of water present to sustain it, so I think that water was the main ingredient that has allowed life to occur and to dominate this planet like it has over time. This is also why I believe that at some point in its history life was most likely present on Mars. However, do to the traumatic event that destroyed Mars atmosphere which caused most of Mars water to evaporate into space this also destroyed any life that existed before it could evolve like it has on earth.

Take Care my friend, hope you are well! 

The source i gave has some fascinating scientific discoveries in it For example we don't know just how the first stage of evolution progressed and it may have been very different to latter stages.

  eg.

quote 

At stake in these debates is not just the timing of life’s early evolution, but the path it took. This past September, for example, Michael Tice and Donald Lowe of StanfordUniversity reported on 3.416 billion-year-old mats of microbes preserved in rocks from South Africa. The microbes, they say, carried out photosynthesis but didn’t produce oxygen in the process. A small number of bacterial species today do the same—anoxygenic photosynthesis it’s called—and Tice and Lowe suggest that such microbes, rather than the conventionally photosynthetic ones studied by Schopf and others, flourished during the early evolution of life. Figuring out life’s early chapters will tell scientists not only a great deal about the history of our planet. It will also guide their search for signs of life elsewhere in the universe—starting with Mars.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/life-on-mars-78138144/

and this is now 15 years old I am trying to find more up to date discoveries about the earliest known life forms   from  mars (if any)  and earth  

[Jon the frog]

On 12/5/2020 at 12:33 PM, UM-Bot said:

A new Oxford University paper has cast doubt on the idea that the universe is teeming with intelligent alien life.

https://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/news/341578/intelligent-life-extremely-rare-study-claims

Yep nothing found even on earth !

[astrobeing]

30 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

The defining word here is "could" not "were" The  latest  science shows that bacteria can survive long enough in space to transverse the distances between planets  Thus it could happen  There is nothing extraordinary about that claim

Yes, it is extraordinary because we have absolutely no evidence that this has ever happened.

6 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/life-on-mars-78138144/

and this is now 15 years old I am trying to find more up to date discoveries about the earliest known life forms   from  mars (if any)  and earth  

Yes, there has been a lot of conflicting opinions on that rock and there are a lot of indications that there was never fossilized life in it. It's not much different from the people who look at Martian photos and see blueberries and fossilized skeletons.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2017/05/03/life-may-not-have-been-found-in-martian-meteorites-but-potential-fossil-evidence-of-past-life-was/?sh=3f5a8e053b48

Even if that was life in that rock, you cannot transport life through fossils.

[Grim Reaper 6]

10 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

The source i gave has some fascinating scientific discoveries in it For example we don't know just how the first stage of evolution progressed and it may have been very different to latter stages.

  eg.

quote 

At stake in these debates is not just the timing of life’s early evolution, but the path it took. This past September, for example, Michael Tice and Donald Lowe of StanfordUniversity reported on 3.416 billion-year-old mats of microbes preserved in rocks from South Africa. The microbes, they say, carried out photosynthesis but didn’t produce oxygen in the process. A small number of bacterial species today do the same—anoxygenic photosynthesis it’s called—and Tice and Lowe suggest that such microbes, rather than the conventionally photosynthetic ones studied by Schopf and others, flourished during the early evolution of life. Figuring out life’s early chapters will tell scientists not only a great deal about the history of our planet. It will also guide their search for signs of life elsewhere in the universe—starting with Mars.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/life-on-mars-78138144/

and this is now 15 years old I am trying to find more up to date discoveries about the earliest known life forms   from  mars (if any)  and earth  

Here are some Academic Peer reviewed articles that may help you find what you are looking for, I can find more if you need them.

When Did Life Likely Emerge on Earth in an RNA‐First Process. https://chemistry-europe.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/syst.201900035

Why did life develop on the surface of the Earth in the Cambria. 

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1674987116300019

The public goods hypothesis for the evolution of life on Earth.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/1745-6150-6-41 

The naked planet Earth: Most essential pre-requisite for the origin and evolution of lifehttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1674987112001272

Finding a Second Sample of Life on Earth

https://d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net/41456077/Finding_a_Second_Sample_of_Life_on_Earth20160122-16115-yhots0.pdf?1453524001=&response-content-disposition=inline%3B+filename%3DFinding_a_Second_Sample_of_Life_on_Earth.pdf&Expires=1607574194&Signature=IzvqsQeiSrn7beQvrmKa0onpGELytetiDN8ktOxQTqM9grdrrdeGYAXLv-V4~82i4FHd~pUihhuZlIHDh33aK-egNBz5fv~6dpHe1qhHNp-8-Tk4QAAvS~ZEmqbBiaYJ~2mpCv1TI2djdA-F76VgYs399sPEjsDVIiayIHYs7uyo5z8pmob5zipFqEieDtPffOtCDqNyWnQQuoZkomPlQImPZ-mGHPk2aWtDsl1j-CbaM87flcOKW6rjmX7TFMgIX2EDXaiLmms57yEidVbECgKqlbe4d90Dc-bFY480ORHcF-y22aD2qq5lFqmRI9RHTwteNEAazbAhwiJDAca~1Q__&Key-Pair-Id=APKAJLOHF5GGSLRBV4ZA

Does the Rapid Appearance of Life on Earth Suggest that Life is Common in the Universe?

https://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0205014.pdf

Approaches to the Origin of Life on Earth

https://www.mdpi.com/2075-1729/1/1/34/htm

 

 

[Mr Walker]

2 hours ago, astrobeing said:

Yes, it is extraordinary because we have absolutely no evidence that this has ever happened.

Yes, there has been a lot of conflicting opinions on that rock and there are a lot of indications that there was never fossilized life in it. It's not much different from the people who look at Martian photos and see blueberries and fossilized skeletons.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2017/05/03/life-may-not-have-been-found-in-martian-meteorites-but-potential-fossil-evidence-of-past-life-was/?sh=3f5a8e053b48

Even if that was life in that rock, you cannot transport life through fossils.

No, an extraordinary claim would be that this did happen 

It is a very ordinary claim that it could 

We now know it is more than possible but it hasn't been proven (or disproven)  yet 

https://www.space.com/17135-life-on-mars.html

Although old, the source i gave explained that it was now unlikely that this rock was evidence of life on mars  I gave the source, as it was interesting, and outlined several sides to the scientific debate  not just on life on mars but on ealry evolution of life on earth  

It wasn't about transporting life through fossils. If you  read the source the debate was about whether the fossils were evidence of bacterial life at the time the fossils formed, or of some other process producing a similar result .

[astrobeing]

18 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

No, an extraordinary claim would be that this did happen 

It is a very ordinary claim that it could

An infinite number of things could have happened.

That's why scientists focus on the ones that have left evidence since that makes those much more likely than those for which no evidence has been found.

But if you're looking for ideas for science fiction plots, this one is a good one!

Edited December 10, 2020 by astrobeing

[Mr Walker]

2 hours ago, Manwon Lender said:

Here are some Academic Peer reviewed articles that may help you find what you are looking for, I can find more if you need them.

When Did Life Likely Emerge on Earth in an RNA‐First Process. https://chemistry-europe.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/syst.201900035

Why did life develop on the surface of the Earth in the Cambria. 

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1674987116300019

The public goods hypothesis for the evolution of life on Earth.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/1745-6150-6-41 

The naked planet Earth: Most essential pre-requisite for the origin and evolution of lifehttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1674987112001272

Finding a Second Sample of Life on Earth

https://d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net/41456077/Finding_a_Second_Sample_of_Life_on_Earth20160122-16115-yhots0.pdf?1453524001=&response-content-disposition=inline%3B+filename%3DFinding_a_Second_Sample_of_Life_on_Earth.pdf&Expires=1607574194&Signature=IzvqsQeiSrn7beQvrmKa0onpGELytetiDN8ktOxQTqM9grdrrdeGYAXLv-V4~82i4FHd~pUihhuZlIHDh33aK-egNBz5fv~6dpHe1qhHNp-8-Tk4QAAvS~ZEmqbBiaYJ~2mpCv1TI2djdA-F76VgYs399sPEjsDVIiayIHYs7uyo5z8pmob5zipFqEieDtPffOtCDqNyWnQQuoZkomPlQImPZ-mGHPk2aWtDsl1j-CbaM87flcOKW6rjmX7TFMgIX2EDXaiLmms57yEidVbECgKqlbe4d90Dc-bFY480ORHcF-y22aD2qq5lFqmRI9RHTwteNEAazbAhwiJDAca~1Q__&Key-Pair-Id=APKAJLOHF5GGSLRBV4ZA

Does the Rapid Appearance of Life on Earth Suggest that Life is Common in the Universe?

https://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0205014.pdf

Approaches to the Origin of Life on Earth

https://www.mdpi.com/2075-1729/1/1/34/htm

 

 

Only read the first one so far.  It is really the presentation of one hypothesis about early evolution.

It seems to be a commonly held hypothesis but there seem to be other ones suggesting ealry evolution may have been quite different to later evolution.

Apparently  it seems to  have begun suddenly and progressed far more rapidly than modelling using present  processes would suggest it should have.

  But thanks it did add depth to my understanding.  

The second one is a suggestion as to  why, after slowing down for a long period, the evolution of life forms suddenly sped up in the Cambrian period 

I am not expert enough to comment except that it makes a good argument 

The next one seems to be a logical updating of the tree of life model of evolution to the public goods model. Again it seems reasonable and logical given recent   increases  in  our understanding of many related sciences. It fits my understanding of the most likely  probable spread of life across the planet, and is similar in some ways to how i see human knowledge and understanding growing.

Not in one defined  (and generally linear)  tree, but in spontaneous, disconnected, events( sometimes similar, sometimes different increases in knowledge and understanding all over the globe )

I will try to look at the others, later 

just skipped to the last one 

it is absolutely fascinating reading.

Basically a statistical modelling of how likely life is on other planets, using the earth template.

 However it also recognises several different scenarios, including tree of life vs public goods model, and  a couple of alternative variables.

it also examines the constraints and problems in establishing the truth,  including lack of essential data /knowledge, and issues with  observation. 

Basically, i concur with their conclusion (statistically)

quote 

 • If terrestrial planets are common and they have approximately the same probability of biogenesis as the Earth, our inference of high q (or high qN ) indicates that a substantial fraction of terrestrial planets have life and thus life is common in the Universe. However, there are assumptions and selection effects that complicate this result: • Although we correct the analysis for the fact that biogenesis is a prerequisite for our existence, our result depends on the plausible assumption that rapid biogenesis is not such a prerequisite. • Although we have evidence that the fraction of planets which are ‘terrestrial’ in a broad astronomical sense (rocky planet in the continuously habitable zone) is large, this may be different from the fraction of planets which are ‘terrestrial’ in a more detailed chemical sense. Although we can make reasonable estimates of what the crusts and atmospheres are made of, without detailed knowledge of the steps of chemical evolution, we can not be sure that astronomically terrestrial planets have the same q as Earth. That is, the fraction of planets belonging to the Earth’s q-group is uncertain. Thus, although we have been able to quantify the fl term of the Drake Equation using rapid biogenesis, our knowledge of the fe term is still only qualitative and inhibits our ability to draw stronger conclusions about how common life is in the Universe

Edited December 10, 2020 by Mr Walker

[Mr Walker]

6 minutes ago, astrobeing said:

An infinite number of things could have happened.

That's why scientists focus on the ones that have left evidence since that make those much more likely than those for which no evidence has been found.

But if you're looking for ideas for science fiction plots, this one is a good one!

True but its not extraordinary to claim that panspermia could have occurred. especially now that we know bacterial life can survive the conditions  encountered in space for long enough to make the journey 

 It falls within the possible, and even probable, means by which life here may have begun and evolved.

We will find out over time, especially once we look more closely at early life on mars (not proven yet, but a big majority of relevant experts now believe there was once life on mars)   

[Grim Reaper 6]

1 hour ago, Mr Walker said:

Only read the first one so far.  It is really the presentation of one hypothesis about early evolution.

It seems to be a commonly held hypothesis but there seem to be other ones suggesting ealry evolution may have been quite different to later evolution.

Apparently  it seems to  have begun suddenly and progressed far more rapidly than modelling using present  processes would suggest it should have.

  But thanks it did add depth to my understanding.  

The second one is a suggestion as to  why, after slowing down for a long period, the evolution of life forms suddenly sped up in the Cambrian period 

I am not expert enough to comment except that it makes a good argument 

The next one seems to be a logical updating of the tree of life model of evolution to the public goods model. Again it seems reasonable and logical given recent   increases  in  our understanding of many related sciences. It fits my understanding of the most likely  probable spread of life across the planet, and is similar in some ways to how i see human knowledge and understanding growing.

Not in one defined  (and generally linear)  tree, but in spontaneous, disconnected, events( sometimes similar, sometimes different increases in knowledge and understanding all over the globe )

I will try to look at the others, later 

just skipped to the last one 

it is absolutely fascinating reading.

Basically a statistical modelling of how likely life is on other planets, using the earth template.

 However it also recognises several different scenarios, including tree of life vs public goods model, and  a couple of alternative variables.

it also examines the constraints and problems in establishing the truth,  including lack of essential data /knowledge, and issues with  observation. 

Basically, i concur with their conclusion (statistically)

quote 

 • If terrestrial planets are common and they have approximately the same probability of biogenesis as the Earth, our inference of high q (or high qN ) indicates that a substantial fraction of terrestrial planets have life and thus life is common in the Universe. However, there are assumptions and selection effects that complicate this result: • Although we correct the analysis for the fact that biogenesis is a prerequisite for our existence, our result depends on the plausible assumption that rapid biogenesis is not such a prerequisite. • Although we have evidence that the fraction of planets which are ‘terrestrial’ in a broad astronomical sense (rocky planet in the continuously habitable zone) is large, this may be different from the fraction of planets which are ‘terrestrial’ in a more detailed chemical sense. Although we can make reasonable estimates of what the crusts and atmospheres are made of, without detailed knowledge of the steps of chemical evolution, we can not be sure that astronomically terrestrial planets have the same q as Earth. That is, the fraction of planets belonging to the Earth’s q-group is uncertain. Thus, although we have been able to quantify the fl term of the Drake Equation using rapid biogenesis, our knowledge of the fe term is still only qualitative and inhibits our ability to draw stronger conclusions about how common life is in the Universe

Well my friend if you get board I can supply more, I truly hope these articles help you define your speaking points on this subject.

Take Care my friend 

[ufoguy]

19 hours ago, Hazzard said:

 

I do understand therefore Aliens

 

[Abramelin]

21 hours ago, astrobeing said:

Not necessarily. If we were unable to find evidence of simple ancient life forms then that would strongly suggest that life was transported here. But we have, so that strongly suggests that life was not transported here.

Let me put it differently:

 we did indeed find evidence of simple ancient life forms. What, 3.5 billions of years old or even older?

How can you be so damned sure whether that simple ancient life form originated on earth?  What logic do you use to determine whether this life form originated on earth, or that it came here with a comet or meteor?

[Trelane]

I think the immense size and vastness of the universe provides challenges for definitive answers for us here on earth. There are theories and educated guesses, but nothing that can be held as written in stone truths for the possibility and frequency of intelligent life in the universe. The variables that came into play here may not necessarily be required for intelligent life to develop. Now hear me out. Yes, certain variables did eventually (and fortunately) lead to us. However, couldn't other species or life forms develop a level of intelligence comparably to humans under different conditions? I'm not saying some wacky outer limits type stuff. I just think there is still so much for us to learn before we make these conclusions.