Well-Actually War Trall Actaeon Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 The circumstances necessary for life as we know it (working definition: a self replicating structure which endeavors to protect its own existence) are highly unlikely to arise based on our current astronomical understanding. However, the Universe is so massive that, despite this, many people believe it is almost certain that it exists elsewhere. What happens when you pit a vast statistical improbability against an equally vast set of potential circumstances? Are there extraterrestrials? Where might they be? What form would they take, and would a meeting between us jive with science fiction, or end up as a massive anticlimax? (Pardon me if this has be broached before, but with the PPP apparently down, there's only so much I can do. Also pardon me if my perpetual random topics are problematic. I'm assuming someone will notify me of this eventually if that is the case.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magnificent Ornk Kelandon Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 Given the inordinately large number of extrasolar planets that we've found (I think the count is in the 700's now) in the few years that we've been looking, and given the number in the Goldilocks zone where Earth-like life could exist (a handful), I figure extraterrestrial life is very, very likely. Life might be pretty boring, though. Complex, multicellular organisms are by no means inevitable, and intelligent life even less so, speech and communication less so still. The odds of that are much harder to estimate, but I'd think that there's probably no one we could talk to in any distance at which we could actually reach them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hatchling Cockatrice Randomizer Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 You have several factors, but as Douglas Adams points out space is huge. There is a high probability of life existing, but it gets lower as you start to add conditions. Intelligent life, capable of space travel, near enough to reach us within out lifetime, existing at the same time as us, and wanting to head in out direction. It's probably out there, but we won't see it until we get faster than light traveling spaceships. Once they find out we have spambots, they'll leave our area convinced there is no intelligent life here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Well-Actually War Trall Actaeon Posted February 7, 2012 Author Share Posted February 7, 2012 I suppose, in order to calculate the probability of complex life, we'd need to better understand that causes of our own Cambrian explosion. The likelihood goes up if, in fact, early evolution can be spurred by the combination of simple life forms. (Another question that occurs to me is whether Earth is really as ideal for life if we think it is... might there be planets that would not have produced so many mass extinctions?) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hatchling Cockatrice Randomizer Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 Earth seems to have most of the required conditions. Planetary temperature, magnetic field to reduce solar and cosmic radiation, enough of the right elements available. Then enough time with the right conditions to work up from simple molecules to us. We could do with a few less massive impact meteors to keep changing conditions. Some theories have the basic organic building blocks formed extra terrestially. Most assume that the right elemental clay materials would allow organic molecules to form together. Still no has made it all the way from chemicals to cells. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Easygoing Eyebeast Jerakeen Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 Try the Drake equation, Actaeus. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ineffable Wingbolt Necris Omega Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 I'm not willing to rule out the possibility, but side with the idea that anything we find would be less complex then pond scum. Actual, intelligent life? ... That's such a tall order I'm not sure we'll be able to ever find it if it does indeed exist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Easygoing Eyebeast Goldengirl Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 There's a reason that pop culture calls them "aliens"; they would most likely act in a way that is completely foreign to us. So while some form of life almost certainly exists beyond the Earth, being able to even ascertain knowledge about its intelligence is problematic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Easygoing Eyebeast Jerakeen Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 It would be an epochal event if we found pond scum or anything like it anywhere but on Earth. It's not impossible that we could find it elsewhere in our solar system. Until we do, we have no way to really guess how likely life is to arise independently. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magnificent Ornk nikki. Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 Originally Posted By: Necris Omega Actual, intelligent life? ... That's such a tall order I'm not sure we'll be able to ever find it if it does indeed exist. We've barely found it on Earth, for instance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hatchling Cockatrice Lilith Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 Originally Posted By: Jerakeen Try the Drake equation, Actaeus. that's not so much "an equation" as "a basis for making Fermi estimates" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Well-Actually War Trall Actaeon Posted February 7, 2012 Author Share Posted February 7, 2012 Originally Posted By: Jerakeen Try the Drake equation, Actaeus. I'm familiar with the Drake equation. It's a useful framework, but crude both in terms of its parameters and the huge variance of potential figures for each term. I think both ne and fl are subject to enough debate to fuel this thread. As for your interpretation of my PDN... An interesting choice. Are you a biologist or a historian? (I'm sorry, I cannot accept an historian as proper.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Easygoing Eyebeast Jerakeen Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 Originally Posted By: Actaeon As for your interpretation of my PDN... An interesting choice. Are you a biologist or a historian? (I'm sorry, I cannot accept an historian as proper.) Ha! Neither, just distracted trying to figure out how to copy-paste a link on this phone. Sorry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Well-Actually War Trall Cairo Jim Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 Originally Posted By: Randomizer Some theories have the basic organic building blocks formed extra terrestially. Most assume that the right elemental clay materials would allow organic molecules to form together. Still no has made it all the way from chemicals to cells. Those mineral calys just sitting there by themselves and I don't think much will happen. But if add something a bit energetic, say like the radiation that would come from the Sun. Earth's atmosphere wasn't as thick, and of slightly different constituentcy than it is today, it would of let more radiation in, and may of cause a few wee little reactions here and there. Sort of a bit like photosynthesis. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hatchling Cockatrice Alorael at Large Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 Everything not forbidden is compulsory. Two possibilities exist: Either we are alone in the Universe or we are not. Both are equally terrifying. —Alorael, who will leave those two quotes. He can't imagine that the Earth is unique in an unimaginably vast universe. But lack of imagination isn't an argument, even in a subject so big you can't conceive of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magnificent Ornk Student of Trinity Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 Nobody really knows how probably or improbable intelligent life may be. We're starting to get a lot more data about extrasolar planets, but so far it's not even clear how probable a solar system like ours is. Solar system formation is a pretty mysterious subject at this point, as you might expect from being based heretofore on one data point. It might be that there are basic mechanisms that ensure that almost every star has a belt of small rocky planets surrounded by a belt of gas giants and then a lot of comet-like bits further out. Or it might be quite a fluke that we are that way. It's also not clear how important it is for life to have a solar system just like ours. It might very well turn out to be crucial to have exactly one predominantly large planet, like our Jupiter, in order to do the right gravity-things to keep asteroids and comets from bombarding your Earth every few millennia. Or maybe that's not an issue at all, and all you really need is one planet in the 'Goldilocks zone'. Intelligence would seem not to be quite as easy to evolve as, say, eyes, since there are lots of different species with eyes, and only one with the intelligence level of adult humans. Perhaps several other species would have evolved higher intelligence within only a few million years, which is only a brief delay in evolutionary time, if we humans hadn't gotten there first. Or perhaps humans really are a tremendous fluke. Perhaps the whole animal kingdom is a tremendous fluke. Or multicellular life of any form. Or perhaps everything up to humans and even beyond is basically inevitable in evolution, like a fire spreading in very slow motion. Perhaps intelligence is simply number seven or so among the 'million such things' in my sig. Finding extrasolar life would be great just for shedding some light on these issues. My fear is that it might be the only way to get any hint on them, because to decide them by purely theoretical analysis may simply be too hard for us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ineffable Wingbolt Erebus the Black Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 Originally Posted By: fade out again Originally Posted By: Necris Omega Actual, intelligent life? ... That's such a tall order I'm not sure we'll be able to ever find it if it does indeed exist. We've barely found it on Earth, for instance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Easygoing Eyebeast VCH Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 Originally Posted By: Actaeon I suppose, in order to calculate the probability of complex life, we'd need to better understand that causes of our own Cambrian explosion. The likelihood goes up if, in fact, early evolution can be spurred by the combination of simple life forms. (Another question that occurs to me is whether Earth is really as ideal for life if we think it is... might there be planets that would not have produced so many mass extinctions?) The Cambrian explosion, like many major upticks in speciation, occurred after a mass extinction, of which there has been 5, and perhaps now an ongoing 6th. (Mass extinctions are events in which large percentages of the Earths species are driven to extinction in a short period of time—a few million years or less). Species exists as groups of act-alikes and look-alikes because natural selection, most of time, punished innovation. No two species can occupy the same niche, that is, they can't live in exactly the same way, or require exactly the same resources. This is a well known principle called competitive exclusion. What happens after a mass extinction is a lot of niches open up, i.e., a lot of ways of life are open. Thus, natural selection no longer punished individuals that vary greatly from the species mould they came from. Hence, we get large scale speciation among the surviving taxa—for example mammals after the extinction of the dinosaurs. But it's important to note that the adaptive radiations that occur after a mass extinction just return the overall level of biodiversity (slowly) to what it was before the extinction event. Interestingly, as I alluded to earlier, many scientist believe we are currently in the midst of a 6th mass extinction. It will be interesting to see just how different life looks on this planet in the future. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Easygoing Eyebeast Dintiradan Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 Meh, I've never really gotten the whole "Keep perspective because space is big" line. "I don't have to do the dishes: Andromeda is huge!" Is it really that narcissistic to stay that space is big, but Earth is the only interesting part of it? It's gonna make the astrophysicists cry, but as long as they've studied something else (and not something completely useless like, say, classics), they can still be functioning members of society. EDIT: Wait, isn't skyrocketing biodiversity the Cambrian Explosion's thing? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Well-Actually War Trall Cairo Jim Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 Originally Posted By: Actaeon (Another question that occurs to me is whether Earth is really as ideal for life if we think it is... might there be planets that would not have produced so many mass extinctions?) On the contrary, the last mass extintion, although as the name suggests, wiped a lot of critters out, mostly the dinosaurs, it also helped other lifeforms to flourish. For instance, while the dinosaurs were around, they were the "dominant species". While there were mammals around, there were very few and very small, mostly rodent like things. Originally Posted By: Necris Omega Actual, intelligent life? ... That's such a tall order I'm not sure we'll be able to ever find it if it does indeed exist. Define intelligence. I've watched doco's where people have studied a few different ape species. One thing that stuck in my mind was when they left a saw with and orangutan. It actually picked up it, "studied" it for a few quick minutes and then sawed a log open to get to its food source. Not only do I find this amazing, I do see it to being a bit more intelligent tahn Sheldon Cooper. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Easygoing Eyebeast VCH Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 Yeah, you're right Jim, we need a working definition for intelligence. On the one hand, every species is a professional at whatever they do to survive—amateurs need not apply—but on the other hand, humans are really good at a lot of things that are absent or rare in the rest of life as a whole. But maybe that's because we choose what variables to measure. What truly makes humans unique on this planet is the fact that we can change our niche so readily. That is, we can change how and where we live without evolving. No other live form can do this so readily. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hatchling Cockatrice Randomizer Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 You have intelligence which humans share with other primates, dolphins, and a few other species. Then there is tool use and tool creation to use intelligence to make stuff that advances intelligence. A dolphin has a lot farther to go towards the stars than primates that can build tools. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Well-Actually War Trall Cairo Jim Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 Originally Posted By: Randomizer A dolphin has a lot farther to go towards the stars than primates that can build tools. Said dolphin has a lot farther just to get to land first. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Well-Actually War Trall Cairo Jim Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 Sorry about the double post, but I read this way after I posted. Originally Posted By: VCH Yeah, you're right Jim, we need a working definition for intelligence... On the one hand, every species is a professional at whatever they do to survive... You've said it quite well there. I can't agree with you more. As I mentioned before, an orangutan figuring out how to use a saw within a few quick minutes, which to say the least, is a fair bit better than what a lot of people would do. If at all, every animal in existence has it's intelligence very much so relevant to it's living conditions. If anything, we humans have made ourselves a lot more less intelligent. Originally Posted By: VCH What truly makes humans unique on this planet is the fact that we can change our niche so readily. That is, we can change how and where we live without evolving. No other live form can do this so readily. I do agree to this, but only partially. We as a species have actually been able to manipulate our environment and mostly everything in it. But I do think it's gotten to a point where it's starting to backwards slightly. Within the last 30 odd years, we've seen the rise of things like tv, computers, the internet and the like. While all these things can be useful to spread information and the like, it's also been used to spread a whole heap of misinformation and absolute nonsense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hatchling Cockatrice Lilith Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 Originally Posted By: Cairo Jim You've said it quite well there. I can't agree with you more. As I mentioned before, an orangutan figuring out how to use a saw within a few quick minutes, which to say the least, is a fair bit better than what a lot of people would do. it took me longer than that to figure out what to do the first time i tried to use a bottle opener Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Easygoing Eyebeast Dantius Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 Originally Posted By: Dintiradan It's gonna make the astrophysicists cry, but as long as they've studied something else (and not something completely useless like, say, classics), they can still be functioning members of society. Hey, zingers against liberal arts majors is my job here! You trying to put me out of work? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Well-Actually War Trall Actaeon Posted February 7, 2012 Author Share Posted February 7, 2012 Originally Posted By: VCH The Cambrian explosion, like many major upticks in speciation, occurred after a mass extinction, of which there has been 5, and perhaps now an ongoing 6th. Since the Big Five are all in the Phanerozoic, a pre-Cambrian extinction would add another (plus the Holocene). I wonder, though, how one can even prove an extinction in that era, as there is relatively little intact strata that old, and few life forms were even macroscopic. I'm willing to accept that mass extinctions can be beneficial to long term ecological growth, but on a planet with more stable conditions than Earth, biodiversity might not be so essential. As for intelligence... for the purposes of this discussion, it is generally being applied as "capable of positing the existence of other life forms and attempting to get in touch with them". That rests less on similarity to humans (the problem with most definitions of intelligence). Of course, we may not pass this test, as our attempts to contact other worlds have been relatively meager, and in any case, a highly intelligent race could find it unnecessary or unpractical to do so. Edit: Originally Posted By: Erasmus Do you think people would take me more seriously if I had white hair and a pink suit? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Well-Actually War Trall The Ratt Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 Well there's already the question of extraterrestrial life being out there, and we're looking for it the wrong way. A good analogy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rotghroth Rhapsody Soul of Wit Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 Originally Posted By: Cairo Jim We as a species have actually been able to manipulate our environment and mostly everything in it. But I do think it's gotten to a point where it's starting to backwards slightly. Within the last 30 odd years, we've seen the rise of things like tv, computers, the internet and the like. While all these things can be useful to spread information and the like, it's also been used to spread a whole heap of misinformation and absolute nonsense. This intrigued me. You see the electronic information age (for lack of a better term) as a backslide in evolution; whereas, I see it as an advancement. I do see the degradation of our environment as a possible way to increment the Earth's mass extinction count by one. .....<O> I've always viewed extraterrestrial life as likely. The usual caveats about intelligence only limit the possibility of reasoning life, without eliminating it. I will concede that fear of infinity plays a part in my universe view. It seems quite anthropocentric to dismiss ETs out of hand. Thus far, the non-anthropocentric have a pretty good track record (Kopernik, et al.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rotghroth Rhapsody Soul of Wit Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 Originally Posted By: The Ratt Well there's already the question of extraterrestrial life being out there, and we're looking for it the wrong way. A good analogy. Is there an adage, similar to Godwin's law, which expresses the likelihood of an xkcd link being introduced to a growing thread? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Well-Actually War Trall Actaeon Posted February 7, 2012 Author Share Posted February 7, 2012 For this community? Absolutely. Someone do a statistical study so we know which member to name it after. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Easygoing Eyebeast Dintiradan Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 Godwin's Law was named after the dude who came up with it, not the dude who constantly broke it. Therefore, we now have Soul of Wit's Law! Soul's Law? Wit's Law? Hmmm, needs work. Quick, someone invoke Dintiradan's Law to solve this problem! Originally Posted By: Dantius Originally Posted By: Dintiradan It's gonna make the astrophysicists cry, but as long as they've studied something else (and not something completely useless like, say, classics), they can still be functioning members of society. Hey, zingers against liberal arts majors is my job here! You trying to put me out of work? You're an engineer, I'm a masters student. Trust me, I need the work more than you do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Well-Actually War Trall The Ratt Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 But this thread is only on its second page? You would kill it so early in its youth? It is arguable that the electronic age (or modernization) is a step backward. For instance, it speeds up the spread of ideas and information, which means that new concepts can be introduced in far away societies, but also those societies will not be thinking for themselves and/or breaking tradition. For instance take the "primitive" tribe in the African jungle that lives in frugality, they only "have" as much as they need to survive. If you introduce the Western ideas of civilization to them (particularly materialism) they will now seek more than is necessary and will see themselves as never having enough, eventually reaching a point where they must either compete in the market or die. If they do compete in the market they are now stuck in poverty. At the point of frugality everyone was essentially equal. In the modern capitalist society equality is undesirable, because for one to get ahead, one has to be better than someone else. This suggests that the capitalist system that America is based on is inherently unequal. Edit: Why not "of's Law"? I jest, I like "Wit's Law" the best. In all seriousness though, I don't think it is fair to call a thread over when someone posts an xkcd comic, usually they still have some steam left in them. Maybe whenever the law is invoked the one who posted the xkcd has to replace it with a post of real words instead of pictures? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Well-Actually War Trall Actaeon Posted February 7, 2012 Author Share Posted February 7, 2012 Originally Posted By: Dintiradan Therefore, we now have Soul of Wit's Law! Soul's Law? Wit's Law? Hmmm, needs work. Yeah, that's why I thought someone else might be more apt. SOW's Law, perhaps? We could make that punny. Or "Brevity's Law"? Is there actually a law for law naming? Otherwise we could just name it Munroe's Law (which in turn sounds a bit like the Munroe Doctrine). Edit: I hope that the application of this law doesn't result in fewer xkcd links. While noting the likelihood of a Nazi comparison discourages making them, xkcd is quite varied in its topics, and can often add to a discussion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hatchling Cockatrice Alorael at Large Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 Godwin's Law, in many formulations, states that Nazis are invoked and useful conversation has ended. I think you can invoke xkcd without putting brakes on the thread. It's just that the probability of xkcd approaches one as the length of a thread approaches infinity. —Alorael, who will go ahead and point out that mass extinctions are usually precipitated by changes in the availability of niches and resources. The Holocene/Anthropocene Extinction is closing off a lot of resources. To be sure, urban is a habitat with resources like any other, but that does no good for the animals dying off. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hatchling Cockatrice Randomizer Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 The Electronic Age with the Internet is the next step in decreasing the need to remember information. When written language was confined to the few, most people had to memorize large chunks of information. You had poets recited thousand line sagas from memory using key phrases to trigger the next section. The printed book and moveable type reduced the need to memorize everything because you could now look it up in books. You only needed to remember the particular book and pages to find it. It was how to locate information. Now thanks to Google all you need are keywords. No need to remember the source material because search engines find what you want. Now it's more how to use information. "Google, you've enslaved over half the World, but you're still the best search engine." - Lisa Simpson Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ineffable Wingbolt Necris Omega Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 Define "Intelligent"... Hm. Instead of dissecting dolphins and monkeys and overachieving parrots, let's crank it up a notch - "civilized" life. (Dissected monkeys leave such a mess anyways... )Intelligent relative to human standards. Something that no one would say is incapable of "sentient" thought and relation. On that scale, it becomes even more difficult to find anything out there we could relate to other than a basic drive for self-preservation and reproduction. With increased intelligence the potential for self-destruction also increases. If we're anything to go by, nuclear self-annihilation is easier to pull off than say... interplanetary travel. On the scale of disasters... Yeah, nature can do some downright wicked, nasty things to a population, but nature isn't nearly as dynamic, creative, or evil as intelligent life. At a certain point of technology, the likelihood of a self-made apocalypse greatly eclipses that of being hit by a galactic stray bullet or random super-plague, which makes intelligent life not only developmentally rare, but far more volatile. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hatchling Cockatrice Alorael at Large Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 The threshold of malice or error required to send the human population crashing and possibly end civilization as we know it is terrifyingly low. Extinction is a much more remote threat, as cold as that comfort may be. There are a lot of humans in a lot of places. Some would almost certainly survive just about any apocalypse we can yet concoct. Of course, for the purpose of interstellar communication losing the ability or spare resources to transmit to the heavens and wait for a reply is effectively periodic extinction. —Alorael, who thinks the greatest threat to humanity is simple resource overexploitation compounded by environmental catastrophe. Even that, though, won't kill off humanity. It probably wouldn't even kill off most of humanity, just gradually and steadily make life worse and shorter for everyone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Well-Actually War Trall Cairo Jim Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 While randomly clicking around on Wikipedia out of boredom, I stumbled across this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extremophile While it may not constitute as "intelligent", a libing this is a living thing. And by the the looks of this article, it's possible it could happen somewhere else. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rotghroth Rhapsody Soul of Wit Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 Originally Posted By: Denver on $133 a day! Godwin's Law, in many formulations, states that Nazis are invoked and useful conversation has ended. I think you can invoke xkcd without putting brakes on the thread. It's just that the probability of xkcd approaches one as the length of a thread approaches infinity. This was, indeed, what I was implying. I vote for Brevity's law. That should be sufficient to confuse future participants in these forums. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magnificent Ornk Kelandon Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 While we only have one data point in a certain sense (Earth), we can look at what evolved to fill similar niches after mass extinctions to give us some very, very general sense of at least certain probabilities. We didn't end up with complex mammals the first time evolution filled empty niches for large animals. Most famously, dinosaurs came earlier, and mammals showed up only after those niches were emptied and given a chance to be filled again. Of course, the niches changed somewhat between then and now, too, which affected what filled them. But the point remains the same, at least for extraterrestrial life: something that looks like us is really, really specific and path-dependent. However, I suppose to know about the probabilities of complex life at all (say, multicellular life), we'd have to look at a mass extinction that wiped out all multicellular life and see what came about after such a thing. I'm not sure that there's ever been anything so extensive that we know anything about. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ineffable Wingbolt Erebus the Black Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 Originally Posted By: Actaeon Originally Posted By: VCH Edit: Do you think people would take me more seriously if I had white hair and a pink suit? Short answer : yes. Long answer: but only if you had that singing voice and a portable hole (so you could enter people's fridges unannounced and unperturbed (except for the obvious frost bites, of course (of course (I'm a horse(and my brother Swen is a moose))))). Please excuse the announcer of the previous paragraph he is so very tired by the time he get's to write these answers, and so am I. (Swen the moose) *A thonk and drag sounds followed by echoing footsteps* *a throat is cleared* Please excuse both of the previous announcers for their silliness they have been both dealt with forthwith and will impose on this broadcast no more. Thank you and we hope you will have a pleasant reading and a good evening. And now we will return to our previous discussion of extraterrestrial life and the likelihood of their existence. Lama!!! (40 specially trained Ecuadorian mountain llamas) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Well-Actually War Trall Actaeon Posted February 8, 2012 Author Share Posted February 8, 2012 I wonder if one could create a Monty Python themed thread that didn't discend into posting games. ALBATROSS! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Easygoing Eyebeast VCH Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 Originally Posted By: Kelandon However, I suppose to know about the probabilities of complex life at all (say, multicellular life), we'd have to look at a mass extinction that wiped out all multicellular life and see what came about after such a thing. I'm not sure that there's ever been anything so extensive that we know anything about. The vast, vast majority of life on this planet is unicellular. And really, multicellular beings are just consortiums of single cells working together, like an ant colony, but much more specialized. We could therefore expect, based on that, that life out there should, by and large, be single celled, or single something any way. That being said, it's also likely that if life exists, there will be complex life-forms, meaning that there will be things with more parts, or more ways to move, (or whatever) than other life-forms on some newly discovered planet. Because, if evolution always starts with simple things, then there really is nowhere for the statistical average (complexity) to move but up. But just where that average moves, as you said, depends on the environment that exists: other life forms, gravity level, solar radiation, and whatever else. Evolution is only progressive in the sense that existing lineages of species see increases in the number of adaptations that fit them to their environment. Progressive increases in morphological complexity is expected only if it benefits a lineage; similarly, increased brain size is expected only if it is beneficial to a lineage. There is no ladder in evolution moving from the simple to THE US (humans). If we use an animal's definition of progress we see that lineages do progress, but like I said, the progress is towards things useful to them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Well-Actually War Trall Harehunter Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 Originally Posted By: Actaeon Originally Posted By: Dintiradan Therefore, we now have Soul of Wit's Law! Soul's Law? Wit's Law? Hmmm, needs work. Yeah, that's why I thought someone else might be more apt. SOW's Law, perhaps? We could make that punny. Or "Brevity's Law"? Is there actually a law for law naming? Otherwise we could just name it Munroe's Law (which in turn sounds a bit like the Munroe Doctrine). Edit: I hope that the application of this law doesn't result in fewer xkcd links. While noting the likelihood of a Nazi comparison discourages making them, xkcd is quite varied in its topics, and can often add to a discussion. Actaeon, you'll have us all at Witt's End if you keep this up, and I'll get blamed for it again. Just don't Say PLUGH! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Understated Ur-Drakon Sudanna Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 Originally Posted By: VCH Originally Posted By: Kelandon However, I suppose to know about the probabilities of complex life at all (say, multicellular life), we'd have to look at a mass extinction that wiped out all multicellular life and see what came about after such a thing. I'm not sure that there's ever been anything so extensive that we know anything about. The vast, vast majority of life on this planet is unicellular. And really, multicellular beings are just consortiums of single cells working together, like an ant colony, but much more specialized. We could therefore expect, based on that, that life out there should, by and large, be single celled, or single something any way. That being said, it's also likely that if life exists, there will be complex life-forms, meaning that there will be things with more parts, or more ways to move, (or whatever) than other life-forms on some newly discovered planet. Because, if evolution always starts with simple things, then there really is nowhere for the statistical average (complexity) to move but up. In my opinion, it's pretty futile to even speculate on what extraterrestrial life might be like. Everyone lacks the knowledge, and most people the imagination, to treat the subject as carefully as we should. Even assuming other varieties of life would consist of cells seems presumptuous to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Well-Actually War Trall Harehunter Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 Click to reveal.. (<<<Bad rabbit>>>) I think you may have just horta their feelings. I would have to speculate that amongst a crowd who relish games based upon imaginary worlds, that there is little shortage of imagination here. And I do believe there is a broad spectrum of scientific knowledge here as well. BTW, has anyone else heard of the Discover magazines recent article re turning Einstein's theories on their heads? I haven't had time to read it through, but there are indications of particles traveling >>Faster<< than C. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Easygoing Eyebeast Dantius Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 If this is about that neutrino thing at CERN, then that was actually shown to be a calculation error a little while ago, so Einstein's still safe (until they discover the Charon relay!). On a semi-related note: Click to reveal.. (Bad Dantius!) The bartender says "We don't serve your kind here". A neutrino walks into a bar. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Well-Actually War Trall Actaeon Posted February 9, 2012 Author Share Posted February 9, 2012 On a even more tenuously related note, Dantius, is your avatar Hubble Deep Field? (Ultra Deep Field is, I suppose, equally possible.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Easygoing Eyebeast keira Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 Ultra Deep Field, by the looks of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.