Do you believe in aliens?

[Jayhawker Soule]

Just how many of you do you think there might be?

One, so far as I can tell...what's your point?

Simply that there exists neither a logical nor a scientific basis for rejecting the possibility of unique natural occurrences.

I'm not unique ....

Good grief ... :slap:

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Good grief ... :slap:

I can see intellectual honesty isn't really an issue for you.

 

[Falvlun]

Jay, consider the eye. It is a complex organ that required "an astronomically complex web of happenstance." And yet, biologists have evidence pointing to the fact that it has evolved many times, in different ways, to suit the needs of different environments. It seems preposterous that the eye evolved even once; and yet there is evidence that not only did it evolve once, but many times independently. By saying that intelligent life is too complex to have evolved more than once, you are making the same mistake as those who claim the eye is too complex to ever have evolved. You jump to the end result, claiming improbability, without regarding the probability of each, individual gradual step, which could very well be extremely probable.

Your characterization of the steps that led to our current form as "happenstance" is misleading. Chance has very little to do with it, since as you yourself pointed out, evolution is not teleological. It doesn't intend, it doesn't have a goal. What survived survived because it had the greater ability to do so. To put it simply, it was not a series of "chances" that created the eye; it was a gradual series of improvements that bettered the odds of the survival of the organism as a whole.

Richard Dawkins explains this a lot better in his book "Climbing Mount Improbable". When I get home, I might post a passage or two to better explain what I'm trying to say: in effect, if it were up to chance, yes, evolution is extremely improbable; but it's not a matter of chance.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Jay, consider the eye. It is a complex organ that required "an astronomically complex web of happenstance." And yet, biologists have evidence pointing to the fact that it has evolved many times,...

Therefore? We also know that throughout the overwhelming majority of Earth's history life was quite content to function without sight. I've read Dawkins extensively. I've also read Gould who notes:

The fossil record of life begins with bacteria, at least 3.5 to 3.6 billion years ago. About half the history of life later, the more elaborate eukaryotic cell makes a first appearance in the fossil record—about 1.8 to 1.9 billion years ago by best current evidence.

The first multicellular creatures—marine algae—enter the stage soon afterward, but these organisms bear no genealogical relationship to our primary interest: the history of animal life. The first multicellular animals do not enter the fossil record until about 580 million years ago—after about five-sixths of life's history had already passed. Bacteria have been the stayers and keepers of life's history.

Are you truly willing to argue that the leap from bacteria to intelligence was inevitable? Every step of the way was characterized by the most amazing tapestry of happenstance and indirection. So, for example, if it hadn't been for Panama you might still be swinging in the trees rather than typing at your computer.

Don't equate evolution with progress. More to the point, it is a rank fallacy to argue ...

• {X} is complex
• {X} has evolved many times
• {Y} is complex
• therefore
  {Y} has necessarily evolved many times

Also referring to Gould, Michael Shermer writes:

Gould then returns to his familiar metaphor of the tape, applying the model to the entire history of life:

"But if I could rerun the tape of life from the origin of unicellular organisms, what odds would you give me on the reevolution of this complex and contingent insect-flower system? Would we see anything like either insects or flowers in the rerun? Would terrestrial life originate at all? Would we get mobile creatures that we could call animals? Fine-scale predictability only arises when you are already 99 percent of the way toward a particular result -- and the establishment of this 99 percent lies firmly in the domain of unrepeatable contingency."​

The contingent evolution of insect-flower systems, however, is not what makes contingency dangerous. It is that contingent little twig called Homo sapiens that tasks us. We want to be special. We want our place in the cosmos to be central. We want evolution--even Godless evolution--to have been directed toward us so that we stand at the pinnacle of nature's ladder of progress. Rewind that tape of life and we want to believe that we (Homo sapiens) would appear again and again. Would we?

Most likely not. There are simply too many contingent steps along the way, too many trigger points where the sequence could have bifurcated down some other equally plausible path.

< -- snip -- >​

... Gould then returns to his familiar metaphor of the tape, applying the model to the entire history of life:

"But if I could rerun the tape of life from the origin of unicellular organisms, what odds would you give me on the reevolution of this complex and contingent insect-flower system? Would we see anything like either insects or flowers in the rerun? Would terrestrial life originate at all? Would we get mobile creatures that we could call animals? Fine-scale predictability only arises when you are already 99 percent of the way toward a particular result -- and the establishment of this 99 percent lies firmly in the domain of unrepeatable contingency."

The contingent evolution of insect-flower systems, however, is not what makes contingency dangerous. It is that contingent little twig called Homo sapiens that tasks us. We want to be special. We want our place in the cosmos to be central. We want evolution--even Godless evolution--to have been directed toward us so that we stand at the pinnacle of nature's ladder of progress. Rewind that tape of life and we want to believe that we (Homo sapiens) would appear again and again. Would we?

Most likely not. There are simply too many contingent steps along the way, too many trigger points where the sequence could have bifurcated down some other equally plausible path.

- [Glorious Contingency]

Am I reasonably certain that there is no extraterrestrial intelligence. Absolutely not. In fact, I am deeply agnostic about it. But my bias is against teleology and the (as far as I know baseless) certitude that intelligent life was an inevitability.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Am I reasonably certain that there is no extraterrestrial intelligence. Absolutely not. In fact, I am deeply agnostic about it. But my bias is against teleology and the (as far as I know baseless) certitude that intelligent life was an inevitability.

Who said anything about the emergence of intelligent life being inevitable?

Apart from that however, the fact that intelligence did emerge here, out of the elements and physical laws which permeate and define our universe, certainly increases the likelihood that it developed elsewhere in a universe of the scale of ours, assuming consistency of those physical laws.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Your characterization of the steps that led to our current form as "happenstance" is misleading. Chance has very little to do with it, ...

See Evolution and Chance.

 

[Falvlun]

Therefore? We also know that throughout the overwhelming majority of Earth's history life was quite content to function without sight. I've read Dawkins extensively. I've also read Gould who notes:Are you truly willing to argue that the leap from bacteria to intelligence was inevitable? Every step of the way was characterized by the most amazing tapestry of happenstance and indirection. So, for example, if it hadn't been for Panama you might still be swinging in the trees rather than typing at your computer.


Don't equate evolution with progress.

Huh? Where did I ever equate evolution to progress? Where did I say the leap from bacteria was inevitable?

I was merely giving the example of a complex organ that has independently evolved multiple times in order to rebut your claim that simply because something is complex, and requires a large number of small steps to get to a certain point, it is improbable for it to happen more than once.

More to the point, it is a rank fallacy to argue ...

• {X} is complex
• {X} has evolved many times
• {Y} is complex
• therefore
  {Y} has necessarily evolved many time.

I did not say that {Y} necessarily evolved many times. I said that it is possible that a complex organ (and to extend, a complex organism) could have evolved many times.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I did not say that {Y} necessarily evolved many times. I said that it is possible that a complex organ (and to extend, a complex organism) could have evolved many times.

Then we are in complete agreement, since 'possibility' is not at issue. The argument being made, and I think it a baseless one, is that possibility implies repeatability given a large enough stage.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

If not, why not?

If the original question was in regards, not merely to life existing elsewhere, but to aliens visiting the earth (ufo's), the likelihood is extremely minute. The size of the universe and the comparitively stand-still speed-limit imposed by light, makes the possibility of biological life traveling between the stars highly unlikely. And if they did overcome the technological and engineering hurdles to be able to do so, why would they sneak around in the skies and not communicate with us?

 

[cardero]

If the original question was in regards, not merely to life existing elsewhere, but to aliens visiting the earth (ufo's), the likelihood is extremely minute. The size of the universe and the comparitively stand-still speed-limit imposed by light, makes the possibility of biological life traveling between the stars highly unlikely. And if they did overcome the technological and engineering hurdles to be able to do so, why would they sneak around in the skies and not communicate with us?

mball once put an analogy forward that I would like to expand upon.

We could probably liken this situation to the way that humans can build vehicles that travel faster than most of the animals on earth but humans do not encourage communcative relationships with animals. Not to sound offensive but there are many people who assume that other-worldly entities perceive humans as intelligent. As unflattering as it sounds these "aliens" probably see us as humans view animals.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

mball once put an analogy forward that I would like to expand upon.

We could probably liken this situation to the way that humans can build vehicles that travel faster than most of the animals on earth but humans do not encourage communcative relationships with animals.

Actually, there have been numerous studies and programs to develop and understand communication with animals - primates, dolphins, horses, parrots, etc. In many fields, particularly animal training, there is constant striving to increase our ability to understand animals, and for them to understand us. At the very least, we interact with animals, and do not go out of the way to hide from them.

 

[cardero]

Actually, there have been numerous studies and programs to develop and understand communication with animals - primates, dolphins, horses, parrots, etc. In many fields, particularly animal training, there is constant striving to increase our ability to understand animals, and for them to understand us. At the very least, we interact with animals, and do not go out of the way to hide from them.

There have also been endless studies and programs that humans have developed to exploit animals and current researchers into the alien phenomenon have documented countless cases that seem to mirror the techniques and experiments that humans perform on animals. The &#8220;aliens&#8221; do not want to get to know us as much as they prefer just to use humans. This investigation has also led to the theory that other-worldly intelligences might also be dependant on humans (in much the same way as humans are in need of animals).

 

[rojse]

I'm not unique - there are nearly 7 billion other homo sapiens on this planet. Your analogy is faulty.

How many of our sun exist? One.
How many type-g yellow dwarf stars are there in the universe? Billions.

Everything is unique as a discrete entity - very few things are unique as part of a set or classification.

Of course, there is no scientific basis for rejecting the possibility of unique natural occurrences - nor did I say there was. But, there is a logical basis for doing so. If you look at the observable universe, we can see that it is made up of the same elementary particles and is subject to the same physical laws. This uniformity has resulted in the repeated formation of the same structures (suns, galaxies, pulsars, nebulae, etc) billions upon billions of times, across the observable universe.

Because of this commonality of outcome based on the laws and elements which comprise our universe, it is logical to assume that anything that arises naturally out of this common formula, has a fairly good chance of arising more than once.

But seven billion people sprang up from presumedly one single being. A sample size of one race, not seven billion individuals.

 

[rojse]

Intelligence was also a natural outcome of life on this planet, so there's no reason to think there is anything particularly unique about intelligent life emerging where conditions allow.

When you learn something of the numerous circumstances that led up to us, you would see that it is a happy accident, no more.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

When you learn something of the numerous circumstances that led up to us, you would see that it is a happy accident, no more.

I'm fully aware of the circumstances which led to our existence. I'm not sure what you mean by a "happy accident", how and if it differs from what I'm saying, and what, if any, your disagreement with what I'm saying is. Can you clarify any points that you disagree with. Also, keep in mind the context of my original post you were quoting.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I'm fully aware of the circumstances which led to our existence.

That would be remarkable. You should publish ... :yes:

 

[Kilgore Trout]

That would be remarkable. You should publish ... :yes:

Maybe next year - my schedule is kind of full at the moment.

 

[rojse]

I'm fully aware of the circumstances which led to our existence. I'm not sure what you mean by a "happy accident", how and if it differs from what I'm saying, and what, if any, your disagreement with what I'm saying is. Can you clarify any points that you disagree with. Also, keep in mind the context of my original post you were quoting.

Let's start with "intelligence was a natural outcome on our planet". Can you please show me any evidence where evolution has a propensity to favour animals with higher intelligence over lower intelligence?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Let's start with "intelligence was a natural outcome on our planet". Can you please show me any evidence where evolution has a propensity to favour animals with higher intelligence over lower intelligence?

I think you're confusing "natural" with "inevitable". I meant "natural" in that it was a result of natural processes resulting from the physical laws of our universe, not that it was destined to occur.

 

[Falvlun]

See Evolution and Chance.

Jay, this article essentially corroborated what I was saying, though perhaps I was saying it poorly. To claim that the evolution of man was simply brought about by "happenstance" is simply erroneous, and to claim that chance is the leading force behind evolution is exceedingly misleading. I thought the article you provided made this clear.

For one, the common English usage of the word chance has different meanings than that used in the scientific community. From your article:

We need to distinguish between two senses of "random": the one kind that involves a total break in the causal chain, and in which the event is essentially chaotic; the other that requires only unpredictability, such as the decay of unstable atoms, or Brownian motion, but which remains a caused event. These get confused all the time. There is nothing about changes in a genome or a gene pool that is random in the first sense, but much of the second sense.

and

"In ordinary English, a random event is one without order, predicatability or pattern. The word connotes disaggregation, falling apart, formless anarchy, and fear. Yet, ironically, the scientific sense of random conveys a precisely opposite set of associations.

The actual process of evolution is highly regimented by many "natural laws" such as the the heritability of genes. See the heading called the "Rules of Life" in your article.

As far as to how randomness and chance do enter into evolution, I thought Dawkins' states it best (who your article also conveniently quotes):

It is grindingly, creakingly, obvious that, if Darwinism were really a theory of chance, it couldn't work.

and

Darwinism is widely misunderstood as a theory of pure chance. Mustn't it have done something to provoke this canard? Well, yes, there is something behind the misunderstood rumour, a feeble basis to the distortion. one stage in the Darwinian process is indeed a chance process -- mutation. Mutation is the process by which fresh genetic variation is offered up for selection and it is usually described as random. But Darwinians make the fuss they do about the 'randomness' of mutation only in order to contrast it to the non-randomness of selection. It is not necessary that mutation should be random for natural selection to work. Selection can still do its work whether mutation is directed or not. Emphasizing that mutation can be random is our way of calling attention to the crucial fact that, by contrast, selection is sublimely and quintessentially non-random. It is ironic that this emphasis on the contrast between mutation and the non-randomness of selection has led people to think that the whole theory is a theory of chance. Even mutations are, as a matter of fact, non-random in various senses, although these senses aren't relevant to our discussion because they don't contribute constructively to the improbable perfection of organisms. For example, mutations have well-understood physical causes, and to this extent they are non-random. ... the great majority of mutations, however caused, are random with respect to quality, and that means they are usually bad because there are more ways of getting worse than of getting better.

However, the best part is the one line conclusion of this FAQ sheet, located right at the top:

Genetic changes do not anticipate a species' needs, and those changes may be unrelated to selection pressures on the species. Nevertheless, evolution is not fundamentally a random process.