Do you believe in aliens?

[rojse]

Ah, see, I was wondering whether this was an underlying problem. It would be nearly impossible to actually destroy all life. At times life has been reduced to tiny organisms like fungi and mold, but it always comes back. That's the point. Once life starts, it's hard to get rid of completely.

Who says this?

You can destroy all of the plants and animals and make the planet unlivable for anything remotely complex, but life can survive in some form or another in the craziest of conditions.

Also, the point is that there are quadrillions and quadrillions of planets out there. Sure, some of them aren't going to be inhabitable, but chances are some of them are. The chances that intelligent life comes about after life arises on those some seem pretty good. If you have 100 quadrillion planets, and only 1,000 of them can support life, then finding a planet that supports life is pretty unlikely. However, if you look at the planets that can support life (let's say we narrow it down to planets that do support life, say 100), I'd bet you'll find a good majority of them that at some point have intelligent life.

Again, you presume that life must inevitably lead to intelligent life, and not only intelligent life, but be in a form that can utilise this intellect in a manner roughly approximatable to us.

 

[Falvlun]

If that`s how you choose to phrase my argument that`s fine.
It`s less than correct but ok with me.

My apologies: it was not my intention to misrepresent your argument. You have clarified it beautifully, in that you believe the "chance" arises in the environment.

Mutations which are very often (if not most) restricted by the environment the organism happens to live within.
The environment itself is the greatest factor in the possible existence and evolution of life to begin with.

I agree with you that the environment is greatest restrictor in terms of possible life, and the possible evolutionary paths that life will end up taking. My only quibble in what you said is that the environment doesn't restrict mutation itself-- it only effects which mutations are "positive" to the organism, and thus which mutations will be passed on to future generations.

It has been noted by others in this thread the rarity of such known environments.

Ah. But this is the sticking point. It has also been noted by others in this thread that the very vastness of the universe suggests that suitable environments need not be prohibitively rare.

Again all strongly (if not mostly) determined by the environment any organism happens to live within.
The mutations that are "chosen" are indeed chosen because they give an organism the best ability to survive and reproduce "within the environment it finds itself in".

Again, I agree. But what makes you think that there are no other suitable environments in the universe for intelligence to arise? Also, what specific conditions in an environment do you think are necessary for intelligence? The conditions could actually be quite broad. Why do you assume that they are narrow?

 

[Magic Man]

It's not merely intellect, but the physical facilities to use that intellect, particularly our dextrous hands that can manipulate tools.

In other words, you're saying that primates are the only option. You're basically debating the question of whether or not human-like intelligent life exists elsewhere. That's a completely different question. Intelligent life doesn't have to be human-like.

Who says this?

The history of life on Earth. I'm no expert, but I've seen some documentaries and read some stuff that explains how tough life is to get rid of. A large asteroid hitting the earth wouldn't do it. It would get rid of complex life like animals and plants but not all life. Then after a period of time, the earth would return to a state of being able to support more complex organisms and plant and animal life would arise again.

Again, you presume that life must inevitably lead to intelligent life, and not only intelligent life, but be in a form that can utilise this intellect in a manner roughly approximatable to us.

First, where did I mention anything like it would be in a form that can use the intellect in a manner roughly like us? It's you who has been debating that question. The rest of us are just debating the existence of intelligent life.

Second, yes I do presume that given enough time, life will lead to intelligent life. It's a pretty good assumption.

 

[rojse]

In other words, you're saying that primates are the only option. You're basically debating the question of whether or not human-like intelligent life exists elsewhere. That's a completely different question. Intelligent life doesn't have to be human-like.

I'm not saying that primates are necessary at all. I am saying that the rise of intellect was only quite a recent event, and that this could only have occured in a species with the physical attributes able to utilise this intellect, otherwise there would have been no advantage to individuals whom were more intelligent, and as a consequence, no selection towards intellect.

So, to get the brain, you need some sort of manipulative digit in order to select the intellect. All my opinions, don't ask me for sources.

The history of life on Earth. I'm no expert, but I've seen some documentaries and read some stuff that explains how tough life is to get rid of. A large asteroid hitting the earth wouldn't do it. It would get rid of complex life like animals and plants but not all life. Then after a period of time, the earth would return to a state of being able to support more complex organisms and plant and animal life would arise again.

Fair enough.

First, where did I mention anything like it would be in a form that can use the intellect in a manner roughly like us? It's you who has been debating that question. The rest of us are just debating the existence of intelligent life.

Answered above.

Second, yes I do presume that given enough time, life will lead to intelligent life. It's a pretty good assumption.

But what is this assumption based on?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

But what is this assumption based on?

It is typically based on the assumption, conscious or otherwise, that higher intelligence is an advance - a good thing - resulting in a species that is "more fit". But our history suggests that the costs of higher intelligence far outweigh the potential advantages except in the most extreme and unique circumstanced which, in our case, involved a massive destruction of habitat along the exceptionally successful species adapted to it.

 

[Falvlun]

It is typically based on the assumption, conscious or otherwise, that higher intelligence is an advance - a good thing - resulting in a species that is "more fit". But our history suggests that the costs of higher intelligence far outweigh the potential advantages except in the most extreme and unique circumstanced which, in our case, involved a massive destruction of habitat along the exceptionally successful species adapted to it.

What makes our environment more extreme and unique than the environment of the Triassic Period?

 

[rojse]

What makes our environment more extreme and unique than the environment of the Triassic Period?

It's not to do with time, rather, it is to do with the species itself. Intelligence in fruit flies, for example, led them to perform more poorly in some laboratory conditions that corresponded with conditions in the wild. Nature would not select for intellect in fruit flies, as this would lessen their chances of maturing and reproducing.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

It is typically based on the assumption, conscious or otherwise, that higher intelligence is an advance - a good thing - resulting in a species that is "more fit". But our history suggests that the costs of higher intelligence far outweigh the potential advantages except in the most extreme and unique circumstanced which, in our case, involved a massive destruction of habitat along the exceptionally successful species adapted to it.

What makes our environment more extreme and unique than the environment of the Triassic Period?

I don't believe I suggested anything of the kind. What I said was that we are the fortuitous result of a web of factors, a key one involving "a massive destruction of habitat along the exceptionally successful species adapted to it." We did not simply (or primarily) gain the full bipedalism that enabled neoteny, we lost a superb adaptation to our semi-aboreal existence. We're lemonade made from lemons and luck.

 

[Magic Man]

I'm not saying that primates are necessary at all. I am saying that the rise of intellect was only quite a recent event, and that this could only have occured in a species with the physical attributes able to utilise this intellect, otherwise there would have been no advantage to individuals whom were more intelligent, and as a consequence, no selection towards intellect.

So, to get the brain, you need some sort of manipulative digit in order to select the intellect. All my opinions, don't ask me for sources.

First, I would like to make an observation, and I hope you'll forgive me. I don't mean to sound like an ***, but it should be "to individuals who were more...". I see that mistake in your posts a lot, which is why I say something. "Who" is used when it's a subject. It is used instead of I, you, he, she, we and they. "Whom" is used in place of the objects, me, you, him, her, and them. So, in this instance, the senteces by itself would be "they were more intelligent", and so the "they" would be replaced by "who". Again, sorry, it's just one of my pet peeves. I apologize for being that guy, I just can't help it.

Now, this has no bearing on intelligence or sapience, though. Even if we assume they need to have appendages capable of doing the same things we do, those appendages could come in a huge variety of forms. Velociraptors, for instance, are known for being extremely smart. Given enough time, they could easily have developped appendages useful for more than just ripping and tearing, to go along with their intelligence. As it was, they were already very good at using them for more than that.

But what is this assumption based on?

The fact that life is so hard to get rid of, and that there's no reason to believe life wouldn't take a similar path to what it did on Earth.

It is typically based on the assumption, conscious or otherwise, that higher intelligence is an advance - a good thing - resulting in a species that is "more fit". But our history suggests that the costs of higher intelligence far outweigh the potential advantages except in the most extreme and unique circumstanced which, in our case, involved a massive destruction of habitat along the exceptionally successful species adapted to it.

Maybe typically it is, but not in my case. I don't see it as any better than a wing or a liver. I just figure that any planet capable of supporting life will probably have a similar make-up to ours, and so life will adapt to it similarly as has happened here. It wouldn't be exactly the same, and there could be some huge differences, but it seems likely that intelligence would be one of the traits, like wings or internal organs, that emerged.

 

[Falvlun]

I don't believe I suggested anything of the kind. What I said was that we are the fortuitous result of a web of factors, a key one involving "a massive destruction of habitat along the exceptionally successful species adapted to it." We did not simply (or primarily) gain the full bipedalism that enabled neoteny, we lost a superb adaptation to our semi-aboreal existence. We're lemonade made from lemons and luck.

I can see your point, but I still disagree with it. Just because we arose from a series of natural disasters doesn't mean that intelligence requires natural disasters to arise. Imagine a world where the conditions brought about by the last major destruction of habitat were one of the original conditions of the planet. It would then be a massive destruction of habitat that would wipe out the intelligence (unless of course they were able to adequately manipulate their environment by that time to survive), rather than the massive destruction leading towards intelligence.

I mean, can we really say that the dinosaurs weren't on the road to intelligence? Perhaps some of these disasters were set-backs. As mball noted, raptors were exceptionally intelligent. Couldn't they have just as easily been one of intelligence's ancestors, rather than australopthecenes?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I can see your point, but I still disagree with it. Just because we arose from a series of natural disasters doesn't mean that intelligence requires natural disasters to arise. Imagine a world where the conditions brought about by the last major destruction of habitat were one of the original conditions of the planet. ...

Such a planet would not have supported the preconditions of our evolution. You don't get Homo without Australopithecus, and you don't get Australopithecus in the world you imagine. Higher intelligence shows every indication of being an unintended and exceedingly problematic side-effect, much much more so than, for example, flight.

 

[Magic Man]

Such a planet would not have supported the preconditions of our evolution. You don't get Homo without Australopithecus, and you don't get Australopithecus in the world you imagine. Higher intelligence shows every indication of being an unintended and exceedingly problematic side-effect, much much more so than, for example, flight.

Who needs Homo or Australopithecus? You seem to be making the same mistake rojse was. We're not talking about human-like intelligent life here. We're talking about intelligent life. That could come in many, many different forms. As I pointed out, there's no reason to assume velociraptors couldn't have become a species llike us, given enough time.

With that said, do you have any special reason to assume we couldn't possibly have gotten Homo or Australopithecus without those natural disasters, or is it just your saying so that we're supposed to take as gospel?

 

[Enlighten]

I believe "aliens" are actually demons, and coming soon....they will be introduced to exist publically.....

 

[linwood]

Ah. But this is the sticking point. It has also been noted by others in this thread that the very vastness of the universe suggests that suitable environments need not be prohibitively rare.

And it may seem so but that doesn`t make it so.
Granted, "our universe is a very large place" but that doesn`t necessarily correlate to "Our universe has many life sustaining planets within it."

If our universe was infinite that`d be a different story.

Again, I agree. But what makes you think that there are no other suitable environments in the universe for intelligence to arise? Also, what specific conditions in an environment do you think are necessary for intelligence? The conditions could actually be quite broad. Why do you assume that they are narrow?

They "could" be quite broad but I don`t believe they are.

I believe the conditions for life elsewhere are "decent".
I believe the conditions for complex life to be "less decent" in an exponential manner towards complexity due to probable environmental factors.

My reasons for this are essentially the "Sagan Equation".

I don`t believe there are many planetary environments that are as organism friendly as this one.

I could be persuaded to change my mind if we were to find evidence to support that there are friendlier environments out there.

In fact my mind would change exponentially with each new possibly habitable environment we found.
Happily.

 

[Enlighten]

So can I ask you then, perhaps I have misunderstood your point so forgive me if this is the case. Do you actually believe in the form of alien that we are taught?

Do you ever wonder about the alien that we may be introduced to especially at this time with regard to the current happenings?

 

[cardero]

This part sums up the Sagan equation for me quite nicely:

The problem, of course, is that none of the terms can be known, and most cannot even be estimated. The only way to work the equation is to fill in with guesses. [...] As a result, the Drake equation can have any value from "billions and billions" to zero. An expression that can mean anything means nothing. Speaking precisely, the Drake equation is literally meaningless...

I would suggest another approach for the search for intelligent extraterrestrial biological/other-worldly entities. One that preferably begins with humans bringing more consideration and understanding to theses problems and procedures than their own comparable evolution and the fear of losing the faith that mankind is the most special. purposeful, powerful and intelligent life-forms in the universe.

 

[Magic Man]

And it may seem so but that doesn`t make it so.
Granted, "our universe is a very large place" but that doesn`t necessarily correlate to "Our universe has many life sustaining planets within it."

No, but it does point to it being a highly likely situation.

They "could" be quite broad but I don`t believe they are.

Well, you're entitled to that opinion, but it seems to only be based on your desire for it to be true.

I believe the conditions for life elsewhere are "decent".
I believe the conditions for complex life to be "less decent" in an exponential manner towards complexity due to probable environmental factors.

My reasons for this are essentially the "Sagan Equation".

Ah, I see, so you're narrowing it down to aliens we could possibly communicate with. That's a different story. We might never communicate with other lifeforms from other planets. That doesn't mean they don't exist, though.

I don`t believe there are many planetary environments that are as organism friendly as this one.

Good for you. Why should that matter in an objective discussion, though? Unless you have some kind of evidence to back it up?

 

[cardero]

I see that there is a lot of discussion to Carl Sagan and his theories but what about the reference and discussion to the dedicated research efforts of George Andrews, John Keel, Clifford Wilson, Michael Craft, George Knapp, the men and women of APRO (Aerial Phenomenon Research Organization) Jaques Vallee, Budd Hopkins, Ted Bloecher, Colin Andrews, Brad Sparks, Frank Edwards, Jenny Randle, Howard Blum, Phillip Imbrogno, Dr. James Harder, John Fuller, Peter Gersten, Karla Turner, James Walden, William Steinman, Michael Cohen, Richard Hall, Carol Rosin, John Mack, Barry Downing, Don Ecker, Walter Andrus and the academic volunteer research of MUFON, Bob Oechsler, Leonard H. Stringfield, Larry Warren, Edward Ruppelt, Dr. Edgar Mitchell, Brad Steiger, John Carpenter, Wendall Stevens, Stanton Friedman, William Bramley, David Jacobs, Mexico’s Jamie Maussen, Donald R Schmitt, Timothy Good, Christopher O’Brien, Linda Moulton Howe, Allen Hendry, Dr. Brian O’Leary, Whitley Striber, James Walden, Robert Sheaffer, William Cooper, Dr. Bruce Macabee, Richard M. Dolan, Charles Berlitz, Donald Keyhoe, Donald Menzel, Raymond Fowler, Dr. Leo Sprinkle, Daniel Fry, J. Allen Hynek, Jim Marrs, Kevin Randle, Paris Flammonde, Curtis Peebles, Philip Klass, Raymond Fowler, Ellen Crystall?

 

[Zhakir]

Do i believe in aliens? yes i do.
It's mentioned in the Quran
in 42:11
And among His Signs is the creation of the heavens and the earth, and the living creatures that He has scattered through them: and Hehas power to gather them together when He wills.
The God has no begining,there is no such thing as the first creation (or last) of God,Aliens are there in this 15000000000 years old universe,and in others before it.

 

[rojse]

I see that there is a lot of discussion to Carl Sagan and his theories but what about the reference and discussion to the dedicated research efforts of George Andrews, John Keel, Clifford Wilson, Michael Craft, George Knapp, the men and women of APRO (Aerial Phenomenon Research Organization) Jaques Vallee, Budd Hopkins, Ted Bloecher, Colin Andrews, Brad Sparks, Frank Edwards, Jenny Randle, Howard Blum, Phillip Imbrogno, Dr. James Harder, John Fuller, Peter Gersten, Karla Turner, James Walden, William Steinman, Michael Cohen, Richard Hall, Carol Rosin, John Mack, Barry Downing, Don Ecker, Walter Andrus and the academic volunteer research of MUFON, Bob Oechsler, Leonard H. Stringfield, Larry Warren, Edward Ruppelt, Dr. Edgar Mitchell, Brad Steiger, John Carpenter, Wendall Stevens, Stanton Friedman, William Bramley, David Jacobs, Mexico’s Jamie Maussen, Donald R Schmitt, Timothy Good, Christopher O’Brien, Linda Moulton Howe, Allen Hendry, Dr. Brian O’Leary, Whitley Striber, James Walden, Robert Sheaffer, William Cooper, Dr. Bruce Macabee, Richard M. Dolan, Charles Berlitz, Donald Keyhoe, Donald Menzel, Raymond Fowler, Dr. Leo Sprinkle, Daniel Fry, J. Allen Hynek, Jim Marrs, Kevin Randle, Paris Flammonde, Curtis Peebles, Philip Klass, Raymond Fowler, Ellen Crystall?

Cardero, do you honestly think that anyone interested in this is going to spend the effort in researching the work of every single institute and person you have mentioned, or is this just compiling a list in order to prove your argument?

Why don't you just get one or two of the most authoritative individuals and sources in order to present information on your argument?