Intelligent life is common in the Universe: Free Public Debate

[Robh (Rob)]

Originally Posted by mac

But it's fun to talk about these things. I sometimes like to think that life is not restricted to the definition of earth-bound scientists. That perhaps it could exist in other forms, in other types of energies. Maybe there's life in neutrinos? Passing through all different kinds of matter, like some kind of 'force'... ooooh! Or maybe quasars are the egg sacks for ancient alien races?

Reminds me of Fred Hoyle's sci-fi novel, The Black Cloud. A cloud moving through space which is an intelligent being.

Regards, Rob.

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by Robh

Reminds me of Fred Hoyle's sci-fi novel, The Black Cloud. A cloud moving through space which is an intelligent being.

Regards, Rob.

So, if you see a Barnard object smile when you take its piccie, you know there's life out there

[dpastern (Dave Pastern)]

Just was reading an old Astronomy mag - re: spitzer detecting Hydrogen cyanide. They looked at 61 stars with dust clouds. Most of them were sun like, but 17 were smaller, cooler M and Brown dwarfs. None of the cooler stars had this chemical present. 30% of the larger, warmer sun like stars did. So that's 30% of 44, or around 13. About 20% of the original total count.

Why is this chemical so important? Because it's part of what makes Adenine, which is a required part of the basic building blocks of DNA.

I do believe that if life starts, it will eventually evolve into multiple organisms, some of which will have increased intelligence. I do not believe that humans are unique or special, nature is too varied, too inventive for this to be the case imho. What constitutes intelligence is a big question. Are we really intelligent, I'd personally say no. An intelligent species wouldn't allow a good portion of our global population to live in poverty or abuse. It wouldn't allow the unequal spread of wealth that we see. It wouldn't allow the mass abuse of our planet's biosphere either. An intelligent species would be aware of this and stop it from happening. We just don't seem to learn. It's not enough that a small percent understand this, it has to be across the board.

Dave

[Darth Wader (Wade)]

Dave, you hit the nail right on the head.

[dpastern (Dave Pastern)]

Wade. Unfortunately most people think I'm weird for saying this sort of thing. We are taught at an early age that it's OK to rape the planet's resources. Young children are generally not encouraged to mix with nature, or to respect it. The only way we're going to fix this problem is for parents to start doing this. Since the global economics are forcing both parents to work, at least more commonly, it means less and less parental responsibility for the upbringing of the children. We're now seeing the tip of the iceberg with the current generation being mostly greedy, unsocial, unhelpful, rude and self centered. Yes, I'm tarring them all with the same brush, and I know not all of the current generation are like this, but I'm trying to generalise here, since we can only look at our species as a generalised point of view.

Dave

[Lumen Miner (Mitchell)]

Originally Posted by Robh

Mother Earth has itself evolved an inanimate intelligence. She automatically varies her systems to changing internal and external inputs. The life she supports must re-adapt or perish.
Man is attacking her life-systems with increasing effect. Mother Earth is reacting to these inputs and producing an environment hostile to man. Once man is gone, she will have plenty of time to restore the balance and allow a more friendly species to evolve again.

Regards, Rob

I agree with were you are going, but do you think she is capable of fully restoring, after such a parasitic species has stripped mined minerals, which will take hundreds of thousands of years to regenerate?

[Darth Wader (Wade)]

Originally Posted by dpastern

Wade. Unfortunately most people think I'm weird for saying this sort of thing. We are taught at an early age that it's OK to rape the planet's resources. Young children are generally not encouraged to mix with nature, or to respect it.

Luckily I don't think you're weird! To me it's just common sense... Animals have respect for the environment they live in - you're be hard pressed to find a non-human animal polluting their own drinking water or laying waste to the land they live on - but for some reason humans have evolved "beyond" this. How can we say that we are the pinnacle of evolution when we commit atrocities against not only each other, but our home planet too.

I am teaching and will continue to teach my young son about nature and will do the same for my daughter as soon as possible (she's 7 weeks old which makes it a bit tough!). I want my kids to respect nature and marvel in its beauty with the same wonderment I had as a child (and thankfully still have). I can see that modern apathetic attitudes pose a threat to this however - one only has to look at the gaggle of mindless youth kicking about at local malls to become somewhat disheartened...

[Redshift (Phil)]

The big band was one monumental fluke, right? All of a sudden, in an instant, something came into being where before there was nothing. Molecules of hydrogen gas and a little helium. The fledgling universe was born. What were the possibilities of that event ever taking place?

Eventually there were stars - the foundaries in which all the other elements of the universe were forged, including the elements that combine to make life possible. Eons pass. What do you know, a planet has formed that has all the conditions needed to support life. Who would have thunk it? What were the chances of that?

Now somehow life itself appears on this planet, just as mysteriously as the big bang itself. Now let's face it, its one thing to talk about how this chemical and that go together to make amino acids or whatever that can make living cells, but its quite another thing to know how or why 'life' itself happened. What do we suppose are the chances of 'life' actually beginning?

Then there's the whole thing about evolution. How one fluke after another caused that single cell that first 'lived' billions of years ago to multiply and become every living thing that has ever existed on this planet. It is truly a wonder.

It seems to me, the big question is - could the same thing happen more than once in this universe?

Someone once made the analogy of the alphabet soup factory exploding. All the alphabet soup letters fall to the ground and land on top of each other to form the complete Concise Oxford dictionary. Such are the chances.

I tend to agree with those of you who have said that we are alone in this universe - but what do I know.

[Robh (Rob)]

Originally Posted by Lumen Miner

I agree with were you are going, but do you think she is capable of fully restoring, after such a parasitic species has stripped mined minerals, which will take hundreds of thousands of years to regenerate?

Not that it will make any difference, but I'm happy with that time frame.

Regards, Rob

[Karls48 (Karl)]

Many people expressed gloomy prediction for the survival of human species on this planet. Most had expressed opinion that what we are doing to our planet is not “natural”. That our greed, egoism, intolerance, disregard for other living things and our aggressiveness in pursing what ever benefit us will lead to our ultimate demise. I don’t agree with such a conclusions. First of all saying that what we are doing is not natural is implying that we are an aliens and not part of this planet. It is same as saying that actions of the fox getting in the chuck house and killing dozen of chucks, although he can eat only one, are unnatural.
For long time now humans did try their best to eradicate some insect and animal species we consider to be pests, without success. The rabbits, mice, rats’ sparrows, starlings, foxes, mosquitos and cockroaches and so on, and still they thrive despite of biological, chemical and mechanical warfare against them. Some species exploited and took advantage of niche environments and thrived as long such environment existed. When environment changed they become extinct with or without human intervention. It is said that crocodiles exist basically unchanged for 200 million years.
And as long there is a demand for their skins and meat their species survival is assures regardless of destruction of their habitat. Other species (rabbits, mice and so on) rapidly adapted to the changing environments and they survive. We are like rabbits or other pests. Because of our intelligence, our ability to adapt and what some describe as our bad attributes we will adapt to whatever conditions our environments trow at us. The current civilisation will eventually disintegrate or change; our population may increase to tens of billions or drop dowun to few millions. But our spices will survive (barring external catastrophe- such as big asteroid impact) to explore and to understand the Universe we are living in
If there is intelligent life somewhere in the Universe and if laws of physics indeed are same everywhere, any intelligent life regardless if carbon based or based of something else must follow very similar path to our evolution. The laws of conservations of energy and entropy will dictate this. For any intelligent self-preserving organism to act on anything it have to gain more energy then it expend on such an action. If not it will e4ventualy become extinct. It does not mean that intelligent life could not develop in symbiotic relationship with its environment, but then it is highly unlikely that such an organism will ever attempt to leave it planet. It may think about the Universe and come to understanding of it but unless you believe in metaphysics it is unlikely we can make contact with it.
Finally, it is interesting that same predictions of doom and inevitable demise exist in all cultures and religions. May it be a evolutionary mechanism that make us to accept political or religious leaderships and bind us to the groups that are better equipped for survival then an individual alone would be?

[Karls48 (Karl)]

Originally Posted by Darth Wader

Animals have respect for the environment they live in - you're be hard pressed to find a non-human animal polluting their own drinking water or laying waste to the land they live on...

I’ sorry but this is not true. Have you ever been out in the bush and seen waterhole full of animal droppings and urine. No? Then go and spend some time out in the sticks.

[Robh (Rob)]

Originally Posted by Redshift

Then there's the whole thing about evolution. How one fluke after another caused that single cell that first 'lived' billions of years ago to multiply and become every living thing that has ever existed on this planet. It is truly a wonder.

It seems to me, the big question is - could the same thing happen more than once in this universe?

Someone once made the analogy of the alphabet soup factory exploding. All the alphabet soup letters fall to the ground and land on top of each other to form the complete Concise Oxford dictionary. Such are the chances.

I tend to agree with those of you who have said that we are alone in this universe - but what do I know.

Interesting analogy with the alphabet soup letters.
Fred Hoyle once calculated that the likelihood of the simplest cell forming by chance was about the same as that of a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard, which has all the bits and pieces of a Boeing 747, completely assembling the 747. A 747 has some 6 million parts.
The probability that life originated by chance alone is, to all intents and purposes, zero.

Regards, Rob

[Darth Wader (Wade)]

Originally Posted by Karls48

I’ sorry but this is not true. Have you ever been out in the bush and seen waterhole full of animal droppings and urine. No? Then go and spend some time out in the sticks.

Animal droppings in a waterhole is hardly the same as industrial waste, heavy metals or pesticides seeping into our water.

[avandonk]

The old furphy of random events being unlikely to produce any organism has been debunked long ago. If you set up a system with simple rules it will by trial and error lead to complexity by tiny increments. Not spontaneous appearance such as the ridiculous analogies some people propose.

Fred Hoyle should have got the Nobel Prize in my opinion for his seminal work on nuclear synthesis in stars. He failed to do this by pushing his more wacky ideas which only puts the very conservative Nobel comittee offside.

Evolution by random events can be shown repeatedly in any competent biological laboratory.

Bert

[FredSnerd (Claude)]

From what I’m able to observe most people who believe that there’s life on other planets usually believe it because, they say, there are so many planets in the universe probability has it that there must be life somewhere.

But it seems to me that the number of planets in the universe is only half of the probability equation. The other half is what are the chances that life will occur in any one place. That is, the fact that life occurred on earth might be such a freak of nature that even a billion more universes over thousands of billions of years could not replicate it again. So what I’m saying is that we need to first know how life is made before we can determine this question using probability.

[Robh (Rob)]

Originally Posted by avandonk

The old furphy of random events being unlikely to produce any organism has been debunked long ago. If you set up a system with simple rules it will by trial and error lead to complexity by tiny increments. Not spontaneous appearance such as the ridiculous analogies some people propose.

Evolution by random events can be shown repeatedly in any competent biological laboratory.

Bert

Bert. Let's take a step back here! I've yet to see an artificially created living cell formed from a pool of random chemicals even if they are organic. Any primitive organism needs to be able to metabolise and at the same time be able to reproduce itself. There is certainly an element of spontaneity in this, which can be reflected in a very low order of probability.

Regards, Rob

[avandonk]

In the lab I worked in we could do things that are incomprehensible to laymen such as yourself.

What I rail against is very ignorant people thinking that their view on science is rational.

Sorry


Bert

[avandonk]

Originally Posted by Robh

Bert. Let's take a step back here! I've yet to see an artificially created living cell formed from a pool of random chemicals even if they are organic. Any primitive organism needs to be able to metabolise and at the same time be able to reproduce itself. There is certainly an element of spontaneity in this, which can be reflected in a very low order of probability.

Originally Posted by Robh

Regards, Rob

The Earth only had single celled organisms for about three billion years. It is estimated that the early precursors to life on this planet are many times the biomass what is on the surface. Where do they live? In solid granite. These organisms only reproduce once every hundred years.

I will not mention the bacteria that live in hot springs or the bacteria that are at the bottom of the ocean and only live on a poisonous gas H2S for their energy and subsistence.

I only see what is there and try to understand.

I am most probably wasting my time as I know where you are coming from. End of story.

Bert

[Robh (Rob)]

Originally Posted by avandonk

In the lab I worked in we could do things that are incomprehensible to laymen such as yourself.


Bert

Bert. I have no doubt in your expertise and many things about the Universe are indeed incomprehensible to me.
I am however open to rational discussion.
I have no problem with evolution once the ball gets rolling. But I still think the odds of creating a living organism from a random primordial pool of chemicals is quite slim. It must have both metabolic and reproductive function simultaneously?

Regards, Rob

[avandonk]

Rob it all depends on self assemby governed by the rules of chemistry. You are burning sugar and oxygen at 37C. Is this miraculous or just good management?

Bert