Where Is Everybody? Where Are The Aliens?

[Revoltingest]

Too narrow for me. It just avoids the discussion completely.

I wouldn't say that.
But it does take the wind out of the sails for many people.

 

[jonathan180iq]

Once again, methane on the Earth NOW is a sign of life

Agreed

That has not always been the case.

Agreed

In the early Earth there would have been natural methane.

Agreed

Conditions were not the same then as now.

Agreed

Now we have massive amounts of molecular oxygen in the atmosphere and that does react with methane.

Agreed

That was not the case with primordial Earth.

Agreed

You made an incorrect claim. It was corrected. deal with it.

What was the incorrect, and thus corrected, claim?

You're also, again, skimming over the whole of the argument.

 

[james bond]

I think your biggest misunderstanding about Evolutionary Biology is that it is linear, with organisms like Man being the pinnacle. That's simply not how it works - and I would expand to say that's probably why you have such a hard time accepting the Science behind it in the first place.

We are a product of this planet's particular features, both spatial and environmental. Different features, environments, and variables will ultimately lead to different evolutionary paths. That's the very premise of Evolutionary Theory; and it's one that I believe is lost on far too many people.

It's folly to assume that life necessarily has to be anything like us at all. A Supermicrobe, for example, which feeds off of all organic and inorganic structures, would be considered more evolutionarily successful than bipedal, sapient, Aliens who have worked hard for 300,000 years to coloinze their Solar System.

Atheist science cap on. Then why would Fermi say what he did? Why do we have SETI as "science" when there is no evidence (and I'm not looking for private funding as the answer ha ha)? Why did Carl Sagan think just because there are countless planets and stars out there that there are intelligent aliens? Some say, like evolution.berkeley.edu, that Fermi said it to point out that intelligent alien life is rare, but why would that be something to make a lasting impression? I think you're saying intelligent life is rare after the fact. What Fermi meant -- he meant, literally -- where is everybody? Where are the friggin aliens? That makes an impression and gets people searching for answers. Not, "Oh, I didn't mean a paradox. I meant to point out that intelligent alien life is rare."

It's hard for me to answer "like Man being the pinnacle" with my atheist science cap on, so I must remove. That's the freakin' whole point. Humans and Adam and Eve were the pinnacle . The Earth was the pinnacle back in the day. That's why we admire perfection and strive for it. That's why there are NO ALIENS. Yada. Yada. Yada.

So, let's not waste time and discuss our differences here. I understand evolutionary thinking well enough and have presented a valid atheist science argument (excluding the more evidence for God statement ). Using evolutionary thinking, I would think there are intelligent aliens out there (assuming other life exists and ceterus paribus).

The only interesting part left is to ask atheist scientists what is an earth like planet and what kind of habitability scale are you using?

 

[james bond]

Here's a pop quiz on the subject. I got 5 out of 6 ha ha. (Hint: I missed the last one).

Self-Assessment Questions

 

[Subduction Zone]

Agreed


Agreed


Agreed


Agreed


Agreed


Agreed


What was the incorrect, and thus corrected, claim?

You're also, again, skimming over the whole of the argument.

Not skimming. Way back you tried to claim that methane on mars was evidence for life there when that is simply not necessarily the case.

You implied that the only source was biological. That is simply wrong. As to the methane on Mars it is a huge jump to claim that it is evidence for life, as this article explains:

Mystery on Mars: Does Methane Really Indicate Life?

 

[YmirGF]

Here's a pop quiz on the subject. I got 5 out of 6 ha ha. (Hint: I missed the last one).

Self-Assessment Questions

5/6

Blew the Fermi thingy as I'm not aware of the idea.

 

[Revoltingest]

I got 100%.
But this is by refusing to answer the question about the Fermi paradox.
There is no "Fermi paradox".

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Then ya gotta show your work, including all quantitative premises.

I don't see numbers there.

Tidal locking doesn't prevent water based life in the temperate margins.

We don't even know how many possible atmosphere compositions could support life.

Even if it happened multiple times, it's a inevitable that there'll be a first time.
So that disproves nothing.

Just counting zeroes is not calculating probability.

You haven't shown any math yet.
And remember that math is only a tool for modelling reality.
I require complete quantitative analysis for any such claim.

This is a pretty good breakdown of some of the considerations in this preview, also a very interesting read if you have the time

The thing is that while the total number of stars estimated remains fairly constant, the improbabilites keep growing with our understanding, and each compounds the rest. Like the grains of rice on the chess board, the numbers get ultra astronomical very quickly

You can debate exact values for each point of course- but the larger point being, it's no stretch at all to rule out ET entirely, even though that is generally blasphemy to suggest in pop science


How Alien Would Aliens Be?

 

[Revoltingest]

This is a pretty good breakdown of some of the considerations in this preview, also a very interesting read if you have the time

The thing is that while the total number of stars estimated remains fairly constant, the improbabilites keep growing with our understanding, and each compounds the rest. Like the grains of rice on the chess board, the numbers get ultra astronomical very quickly

You can debate exact values for each point of course- but the larger point being, it's no stretch at all to rule out ET entirely, even though that is generally blasphemy to suggest in pop science


How Alien Would Aliens Be?

We've a law in Revoltistan....
"If you claim the probability of something, you must show your calculations under penalty of law."
The penalty for violating this law is to perform Debbie Boone's "You Light Up My Life" in public
once every day for a year. Second offense....the same, but you must wear a frilly pink tutu.

I don't make the law, I just enforce it.

OK....I do make the law, but I really like enforcing it.

 

[jonathan180iq]

Then why would Fermi say what he did?

Because that's what he thought...

That doesn't mean he was right.

Why do we have SETI as "science" when there is no evidence (and I'm not looking for private funding as the answer ha ha)?

...I'm not sure I understand what you're asking...

SETI is an organization that searches for a certain type of life in the Universe, using a certain type of communication. On the whole, it makes quite a few narrow assumptions about life, and what it's looking for. They could be using the wrong tool entirely...

You have to remember that SETI is only one very specific tool in our study of the Universe. It has it's shortcomings.

Why did Carl Sagan think just because there are countless planets and stars out there that there are intelligent aliens?

Speculation.

Given what we know about biological processes on Earth, it should be likely that other things exist in other places. What those look like, if they exist, and everything else that we could possibly imagine is up for speculation. None of us are right until the evidence is actually gathered.

Some say, like evolution.berkeley.edu, that Fermi said it to point out that intelligent alien life is rare, but why would that be something to make a lasting impression?

It's just one part of the conversational landscape of Cosmological study. It's not really a lasting impression... Just something you've recently become aware of, it seems.
Until you came across the article on SETI's website (I imagine after being linked to by a Creationist argument somewhere) did you have any knowledge of it?

Like I said before, it's little more than a thought experiment which assumes that all life progresses to a certain man-like point... That's a flaw in thinking for people both in and out of Scientific study. Fermi's was no more immune to it than you and I.

I think you're saying intelligent life is rare after the fact. What Fermi meant -- he meant, literally -- where is everybody?

Assuming that bipedal, sapient, explorers are common, they're either:

• Too far away
• Not there at all
• Haven't progressed far enough in their history

That's 3 solutions off the top of my head, each equally as plausible as the next.

Where are the friggin aliens?

They could be everywhere just as easily as they could be nowhere.

That makes an impression and gets people searching for answers. Not, "Oh, I didn't mean a paradox. I meant to point out that intelligent alien life is rare."

Sure - even assuming that you're understanding of Fermi's position is spot on, you've been given multiple possible answers/solutions. Even if he was 100% right, tell me how those solutions are faulty.

It's hard for me to answer "like Man being the pinnacle" with my atheist science cap on, so I must remove. That's the freakin' whole point. Humans and Adam and Eve were the pinnacle . The Earth was the pinnacle back in the day. That's why we admire perfection and strive for it. That's why there are NO ALIENS. Yada. Yada. Yada.

And this, my friend, is called Bias...

Is it possible that exploratory intelligence is exceptionally rare to the point of being confined to Earth? Sure.

Can you say the same thing about the inverse, using your worldview?
Is it possible, in your framework, to accept that extra terrestrial intelligence is at least a possibility?

So, let's not waste time and discuss our differences here. I understand evolutionary thinking well enough and have presented a valid atheist science argument (excluding the more evidence for God statement ). Using evolutionary thinking, I would think there are intelligent aliens out there (assuming other life exists and ceterus paribus).

So I'll assume your position again, take Fermi at his word, and assume that these civilizations should exist.

It may very well be that there's life out there - It may also be true that there's no way for any of it to contact us, or for us to contact them because of TIME and SPACE. Those two sentences are equally as true, making Fermi's "paradox" a non-started to begin with.

The only interesting part left is to ask atheist scientists what is an earth like planet and what kind of habitability scale are you using?

So far as we know, it's exceptionally rare, all things being equal.

Does that make you happy?

We also don't know much at all about the 3,300+ Exoplanets that have been discovered, other than they exist, we can ascertain their size, density, and some of their atmospheric makeup... As our technologies to study them improve, so too will our understanding of them. So while it's possible that what we will find will only solidify the position that Earth is some unique, seemingly magical cosmic marble, it's also POSSIBLE that we will discover that the Earth is not really exceptional at all.

Studies in our own Solar System seem to be trending that direction.

 

[jonathan180iq]

Not skimming. Way back you tried to claim that methane on mars was evidence for life there when that is simply not necessarily the case.

I think I admitted that Methane alone was not necessarily evidence for anything other than Methane existing... If I didn't, accept this as clarification.

I agreed with you the first time you responded, citing Methane as existing in different places (Titan) and in different forms (liquid) all throughout the Solar System - and not coming from biological sources.


I stated, quite clearly, that Methane on Earth is known primarily to come from biological sources, yes.
I also purposefully linked an article citing all of the different known sources for Methane on Earth, which includes geochemical and other non-biological origins.

My argument was that the seasonal releases, in correlation to where other biotic research has been conducted, should be looked at in tandem - and I believe they are indicators of, at least, past biological processes. I believe that because the conversion and loss rate of gaseous Methane in a Martian environment means that the percentage found in the overall Martian atmosphere must have a source of very substantial output. Since geologic activity is all but zero on Mars (the volcanoes have been dormant for eons) and the last substantial impact site wasn't near these zones, (so external sources are a no-go), nor was it substantial enough to be considered a supplier. The only real possibility is conversion on the Martian surface, or the remnants of extant or extinct Martian ecology. I've said as much multiple times.

You implied that the only source was biological. That is simply wrong. As to the methane on Mars it is a huge jump to claim that it is evidence for life, as this article explains:

Mystery on Mars: Does Methane Really Indicate Life?

It's not a huge jump - it's simply one part of a possible explanation.

Like all of these articles will attest, it's either geochemical or biological...

"One hypothesis that doesn't involve life holds that methane commonly gloms onto Martian soil particles in dry conditions and then is released into the air when salts known as perchlorates "deliquesce" (become liquid after absorbing atmospheric water), said lead study author Renyu Hu, who's based at the California Institute of Technology and NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL), both of which are located in Pasadena.

The other nonlife idea posits that Curiosity encountered a random, localized outburst of methane that had previously been locked in a subsurface aquifer, Hu said."

Even my supporting articles have stated as much.



We can keep bickering about Methane all day - but do you have any thoughts on the possibility of fossilized microbial mats?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

We've a law in Revoltistan....
"If you claim the probability of something, you must show your calculations under penalty of law."
The penalty for violating this law is to perform Debbie Boone's "You Light Up My Life" in public
once every day for a year. Second offense....the same, but you must wear a frilly pink tutu.

I don't make the law, I just enforce it.

OK....I do make the law, but I really like enforcing it.

Not room to break down every calculation here of course, but I can summarize a few rough figures for you, and request my sentence be reduced to 'are you on the road to lovin me again'


So we start with a general consensus of about 10^22 stars

each 1 in 10 probability knocks one of those zeros off the wall

Stars

Galactic habitable zone (most stars exist in radiation soaked galactic hub or too far flung for vital chemicals) -2
roughly the right size star, our sun or slightly smaller -1
right age -not too old or young -1

Solar system

Outer Gas giant providing shield -1
Earth-moon Combo- -2

Tidal locking- also a rotation that was too slow would be too extreme -1

Magnetosphere to shield solar radiation -1

correct dynamic/ stable atmosphere system -2

^ in combo with above surface water (also needed in a certain propotion) -1
& correct amount of tectonic/ volcanic activity vital to life -1

Life

Odds of abiogenesis occurring at all? add your own here!

intelligent life - probably the biggest of all, we have just 1 fleeting instance out of about a billion species -9

That's 22 , even with abiogenesis as a given, and leaving many more factors out, it's even odds

 

[Revoltingest]

Not room to break down every calculation here of course, but I can summarize a few rough figures for you, and request my sentence be reduced to 'are you on the road to lovin me again'


So we start with a general consensus of about 10^22 stars

each 1 in 10 probability knocks one of those zeros off the wall

Stars

Galactic habitable zone (most stars exist in radiation soaked galactic hub or too far flung for vital chemicals) -2
roughly the right size star, our sun or slightly smaller -1
right age -not too old or young -1

Solar system

Outer Gas giant providing shield -1
Earth-moon Combo- -2

Tidal locking- also a rotation that was too slow would be too extreme -1

Magnetosphere to shield solar radiation -1

correct dynamic/ stable atmosphere system -2

^ in combo with above surface water (also needed in a certain propotion) -1
& correct amount of tectonic/ volcanic activity vital to life -1

Life

Odds of abiogenesis occurring at all? add your own here!

intelligent life - probably the biggest of all, we have just 1 fleeting instance out of about a billion species -9

That's 22 , even with abiogenesis as a given, and leaving many more factors out, it's even odds

I find these assumptions to be more convenient than reasonable.
But I'll tell you something you'll like....
I don't know what the probability is either.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I think I admitted that Methane alone was not necessarily evidence for anything other than Methane existing... If I didn't, accept this as clarification.

I agreed with you the first time you responded, citing Methane as existing in different places (Titan) and in different forms (liquid) all throughout the Solar System - and not coming from biological sources.


I stated, quite clearly, that Methane on Earth is known primarily to come from biological sources, yes.
I also purposefully linked an article citing all of the different known sources for Methane on Earth, which includes geochemical and other non-biological origins.

My argument was that the seasonal releases, in correlation to where other biotic research has been conducted, should be looked at in tandem - and I believe they are indicators of, at least, past biological processes. I believe that because the conversion and loss rate of gaseous Methane in a Martian environment means that the percentage found in the overall Martian atmosphere must have a source of very substantial output. Since geologic activity is all but zero on Mars (the volcanoes have been dormant for eons) and the last substantial impact site wasn't near these zones, (so external sources are a no-go), nor was it substantial enough to be considered a supplier. The only real possibility is conversion on the Martian surface, or the remnants of extant or extinct Martian ecology. I've said as much multiple times.


It's not a huge jump - it's simply one part of a possible explanation.

Like all of these articles will attest, it's either geochemical or biological...

"One hypothesis that doesn't involve life holds that methane commonly gloms onto Martian soil particles in dry conditions and then is released into the air when salts known as perchlorates "deliquesce" (become liquid after absorbing atmospheric water), said lead study author Renyu Hu, who's based at the California Institute of Technology and NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL), both of which are located in Pasadena.

The other nonlife idea posits that Curiosity encountered a random, localized outburst of methane that had previously been locked in a subsurface aquifer, Hu said."

Even my supporting articles have stated as much.



We can keep bickering about Methane all day - but do you have any thoughts on the possibility of fossilized microbial mats?

Fossilized microbial mats? I highly doubt it. It would take erosional processes to release that methane and the rate of erosion on Mars is very low. It is not non-existent, but it seems to be quite a stretch.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I find these assumptions to be more convenient than reasonable.
But I'll tell you something you'll like....
I don't know what the probability is either.

Even just 30 years ago there were mainly assumptions, but we have a lot more objective data now

They are based on an increasingly comprehensive understanding, of just how many ways there are, for a star or planet's attributes to make complex life extremely unlikely.

Which in particular do you find 'unreasonable' what are you basing this on?

 

[Revoltingest]

Which in particular do you find 'unreasonable' what are you basing this on?

All your numbers are guesses.
We don't know all the criteria for life.
No final calculation.
You look like a pirate.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

All your numbers are guesses.

educated ones

We don't know all the criteria for life.
No final calculation.

not yet, but they are getting tougher, not easier

You look like a pirate.

Yarr, there you have me.. I'm thinking of updating me avatar tho, what do you think of this??

 

[Revoltingest]

Yarr, there you have me.. I'm thinking of updating me avatar tho, what do you think of this??

It's too complex to fit in the little avatar box.
I've avoided many a great avatar pic because of this.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

It's too complex to fit in the little avatar box.
I've avoided many a great avatar pic because of this.

hmm I don't know much about Scottish football, but isn't this the rival of the team logo you are bursting out of?

I was hoping to stoke a little tribal feuding...

 

[Revoltingest]

hmm I don't know much about Scottish football, but isn't this the rival of the team logo you are bursting out of?

I was hoping to stoke a little tribal feuding...

All I see is an airborne Groundskeeper Willie.