Intelligent life is probably so rare in the cosmos and requires so many accidents stacked on top of each other for it...

He said intelligent life, not life.

So he did. Never mind then

We only have our own planet as a sample point to statistically determine how numerous life is. In a normal distribution, there is a 95% that the quantifiable characteristics is within +/- two standard deviation from the average stats for any other rocky world in the Goldilocks zone. So, let's look at some of the characteristics of life on earth.

It appeared fairly quickly (for geological time). 3.7 billion out of the total 4.6 billion years confirmed with one geological find hinting at life starting 4.1 billion years.

Out of those 3.7 billion years, 3.2 billion did not have any major animal phyla.

Out of the 500 million years since the Cambrian explosion, modern humans have existed only in the last 200,000 years.

Out of those 200,000 years, humans only had ~6000 years of written history.

Out of those 6,000 years of written history, only in the last century could humanity send and received electromagnetic signals (radio).

There are other species who are highly intelligent and arguably sentient like humans but are unable to manipulate their environment the way our species can (dolphins, whales, etc)

From our single data point, assuming Earth is typical, we can deduce the following:

Life arises pretty early but it's one-celled organism for most of the time.

It takes hundreds of millions of years from the time animal phyla appear to get sentient life.

Out of the billions of species to exist on this planet, only one built a technological civilization.

The conclusion that can be drawn from earth is:
-It's easy for a planet to get one-celled organisation but it takes time for more complex life.
-There's a good chance that most worlds will not have multi-cellular life and even fewer will have intelligent life. And when intelligent life does arise, odds are we'll miss since civilization is created in the blink of an eye in geologic time. We could be surrounded by dead civilization and not even know it.

>Intelligent life is probably so rare

NOOOOOOOOOOOoooooo

It is probably quite common depending on the environment conducive to life evolving to a state of awareness.

The problem is NOT the chance of life but the barrier of distance.

The alien visitor paradox is simply too big to ignore.

Traveling from any of the nearest stars require the kind of technology to be able to manipulate the simplest of elements into anything needed to travel light-years, which in itself is such impossible feat.

So the question is: If an alien race somehow acquire the ability to manipulate all matter into fuel, or anything, WHY WOULD THAT ALIEN RACE VISIT EARTH?

Humans assume with human thinking that aliens would visit for malicious intent, but that is a human behavior people assume aliens would have.

What gain would there be from destroying a civilization? Probably none.

Still, even then the question remains, why come to Earth with all of its disease infested environments when in space every raw material is available disease free in greater abundance?

The alien visitor paradox is a big deal because it is the pure logic that is undeniable. Purpose would have to overpower gain to make sense.

If an alien can manipulate all matter, why come to Earth? The obstacle of communicating, or traveling to is too big of a barrier.

The physics of space seems to have a barrier too big for any civilization to over come, and if that civilization can over come it the purpose of greeting other species becomes pointless.

>PURE LOGIC THAT IS UNDENIABLE
>y'know if you only make the huge assumption that intelligent life is common rather than rare

Physics may not be a barrier to visiting other species but rather intelligent life is likely to be incredibly rare, even if it wasn't rare it's still possible we are the first technologically advanced species to ever exist, as unlikely as it is its possible and your logic can't ignore this

No. The odds of there being intelligent life is far greater. Earth is relatively young compared to the rest of the Universe.

Our existence suggests that life merely needs time, and a habitable environment to flourish.
The odds of that are far greater when understanding that every square inch of sky we see contains 10 billion galaxies many of which have existed long before Earth.

...

That's not necessarily true, heavier elements that are likely required for life wouldn't have existed in the early universe, add to that the number of conditions that spurred on intelligent life on Earth - had conditions not changed then there's no reason big dumb dinosaurs wouldn't still be roaming the Earth. It's also an assumption that alien life would even have the capability to evolve at all.

This happened once
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis
Abiogenesis (Origins of Life), is the natural process of life arising from non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds...
...how self-replicating molecules, or their components, came into existence...

I hold my hope here
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panspermia
Panspermia (from Greek (pan), meaning "all", and (sperma), meaning "seed") is the hypothesis that life exists throughout the Universe, distributed by meteoroids, asteroids, comets, planetoids...

>It's also an assumption that alien life would even have the capability to evolve at all.

No it is not an assumption at all. The reason dinosaurs aren't here is because of a collision of a comet disrupting that lifeforms survival.

Comets, asteroids, broken pieces of planets float all through out space carrying the basic elements of life, and all it needs is many of the available conditions to flourish.

That fact that you can ignore this proves more about your inability to accept fact.

We evolved on this planet with two feet, because it worked best with the amount of gravity, and many variables.
A species adapts to the environment, and it is the environment that dictates the form of that species.

Why can't you accept that fact? Human ego needing to feel unique?

>It is probably quite common depending on the environment conducive to life evolving to a state of awareness.

Consider the fact that sexual reproduction only evolved once in the history of life on earth, and that every multicellular life-form on earth is descended from these creatures. Ask yourself, if sexual reproduction and multicellularity is such a great advantage, then why did it evolve only once?

You assume a species needs sex to reproduce. That is disproved by simple celled organisms that devour, multiple, and divide.
Again an assumption based on humans, not on the many forms of life revealed on Earth itself.

We live in a system with two asteroid belts, it may not be so common for other planets, a species based on earth adapts to its environment sure, that's how our life works. It's a huge assumption that alien life could ever become more than single cells or even develop something as complex as DNA. You keep saying 'facts' which shows you have no idea what you're talking about, why are you so butthurt that you may not have it all figured out.

>You assume a species needs sex to reproduce.
I assumed nothing of the sort. I just pointed out that complex multicellular life-forms evolved multiple times from sexually-reproducing colonial life-forms, yet evolved zero times from asexually-reproducing life-forms. This should raise some concerns about the statement that intelligent life is probably 'quite common.'

Also, sex to reproduce is perhaps an evolutionary procedure that came to be by needing to exchange elements to produce siblings with better adaptability against disease.

It has been discovered that fish which didn't exchange genetic information did not survive as well to overcome other species. That is a variable that may or may not be an obstacle on other planets.

What does the reality of genetic engineering tell us about the human evolution?

That doesn't seem to take into account that such a species would not survive if unable to sustain against other life forms with dangers.

In an environment where life is able to flourish there wouldn't be one single lifeform, but many. Only the best able to adapt goes on to survive. Basic evolution survival of the fittest.

>It has been discovered that fish which didn't exchange genetic information did not survive as well to overcome other species. That is a variable that may or may not be an obstacle on other planets.
Well, you're right that parasites are a major force in preventing species from reverting to asexuality, but there are like a bajilion other reasons also (the actual number of reasons is around 40-50, according to the latest scientific reviews.) I think the most compelling argument for the importance of sex is muller's ratchet, which points out that multicellular life-forms without sex will eventually accumulate too many negative mutations since they can't shuffle genes to remove mutated copies via crossing over.

For whatever reason, animals that revert to asexuality, such as the lesbian New Mexico Whiptail, generally go extinct shortly after due to asexuality being a poor long-term strategy.

Of course there are exceptions, such as rotifers, which have been asexual for a bout 30 million years. But rotifers are only able to pull it off because they are k-selected and are so tiny that they can over-come muller's ratchet through a brute force approach.

I will concede that it is hypothetically possible for there to be workarounds, perhaps a very efficient homology-directed repair system. But either way my larger point is that there are several significant barriers that could make intelligent life much much MUCH less likely than microbes, which I do believe might be common.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muller's_ratchet

In an environment where there are fewer natural abiotic barriers (compared to earth which has semi-regular major asteroid impacts and serious ice ages/environmental catastrophes) there would logically be more biotic danger, such as mass pandemics, parasites, and biogically-oriented climate change.

Hell, one of the most catastrophic mass extinction events was caused by oxygen-producing microbes.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Oxygenation_Event

>why are you so butthurt

Not butthurt at all. I just wonder why people like you can't accept full understanding of evolution, or the large number of possibilities given what we know of the in Universe.
I see infinite trillions of possibilities, and conclude the possibility of other lifeforms being quite probable, where as you assume it is rare which seems to ignore the vast huge volume of so much as if unable to accept that which you personally do not like being open to.
If this were a glass half fulll/half empty scenario you'd be the person saying there in no water at all.

Yes, and (assuming you are the same person I've responded to) your assumption is that means trillions upon trillions of possibilities that sustainable intelligent life is rare. That proves nothing compared to the shear volume of possibilities.

D O L P H I N S

Seriously
>have an actual language, likely even dialects
>can rape
>can commit suicide willingly

>Yes, and (assuming you are the same person I've responded to) your assumption is that means trillions upon trillions of possibilities that sustainable intelligent life is rare. That proves nothing compared to the shear volume of possibilities.
My objective has never been to 'prove' that intelligent life is rare, but rather raise doubts about the assertion that it is probably common. I think agnosticism is a more reasonable attitude, since while I concede that there are myriad possibilities, what we know from life on earth indicates that there is a multiplicative effect caused by several barriers. If you multiply the unlikelihood a rare event by another rare event by another rare event, et cetera, you might actually end up with a number so small that it turns out there are only like a half dozen intelligent alien civilizations in the entire universe. That's the only point I'm making, that one should have an equal appreciation for the possible sheer magnitude of unlikelihood as one has for the sheer volume of possibilities.

>If you multiply the unlikelihood a rare event by another rare event by another rare event, et cetera, you might actually end up with a number so small that it turns out there are only like a half dozen intelligent alien civilizations in the entire universe.

Since we haven't truly defined the finite limits of our Universe with probable chance of life sustainable habitats I cannot accept that intelligent life being rare.

We don't know how many worlds are habitable to assume anything.
I too am agnostic on this, but lean towards the probability of there be many intelligent life forms as very likely not because I want there to be others, but simple the shear volume of unknowns.

Earth is relatively young, and in an area of space less dense of habitable life sustaining environments.

There is too much that we don't know to take such a hard position to assume intelligent life elsewhere is rare.

>I too am agnostic on this, but lean towards the probability of there be many intelligent life forms as very likely not because I want there to be others, but simple the shear volume of unknowns.

'Sheer volume of unknowns' is a better argument for strong agnosticism than it is for being agnostic but having a strong leaning towards the possibility that intelligent life is common.

That is your opinion, but I disagree.

I have to be just as open to the volume of unknowns as to what is known, and since there are more unknowns - I have to lean in that direction which means many possibilities we couldn't have yet imagined possible.

It is all about majority, and the unknowns win with many possibilities.

>I have to be just as open to the volume of unknowns as to what is known, and since there are more unknowns - I have to lean in that direction which means many possibilities we couldn't have yet imagined possible.
>It is all about majority, and the unknowns win with many possibilities.
Wouldn't that mean that there are likely also a large number of unknown barriers to intelligent life, in addition to unknown possibilities?

I mean, your argument just doesn't make sense at a very basic level. You're arguing against strong agnosticism in favor of jumping to a conclusion by saying 'there is so much we don't know.' It follows that if there is very much we simply don't know, then the parsimonious choice is to say 'we don't know, so we can't say either way whether it is probable or improbable.' Your alternative is basically saying 'there's so so much that we don't know that actually I sort of DO know that it is likely.' It's reasoning that is flawed at the most basic level.

>Your alternative is basically saying 'there's so so much that we don't know that actually I sort of DO know that it is likely.' It's reasoning that is flawed at the most basic level.

I lean towards a likely hood of intelligent life elsewhere based on complete unknowns based on my understanding of humans. When I think of all that humans have ever imagined, often times reality presents facts and events far more interesting, and complex. Our imagination has often been limited to what we know, and has often prove to be short sighted.
Reality presents scope beyond our understanding. Given this shortsightedness, I must accept the humbling truth that there is more. This also means forms of intelligent life we don't even have a basis to imagine. We're a very young species of self aware cognitive beings that may have only been here for a mere hundred thousand years or so. We know so little about what is out there.

I believe we'll make contact with intelligent lifeforms within the next 20 years but the obstacle of distance, and communication will prove too much to over come. They will be just as clueless to understanding us as them, and the distance acts as a gate keeping us all from meeting being to being.

As I mentioned in my first post, space and the distances act as a barrier too great to over come, and should it be over come the purpose of meeting others becomes pointless.

>I must accept the humbling truth that there is more.

This is another point on which I think you are confused. Your certainty that intelligent life is common is not humble at all. A truly humble reaction to the number of unknowns would be to say that we can't know the possibility of intelligent life at all, and so we should refrain from jumping to conclusions.

I mean statements like this:
>I believe we'll make contact with intelligent lifeforms within the next 20 years but the obstacle of distance, and communication will prove too much to over come

Aren't consistent with someone who says there is too much beyond our understanding for us to know anything for sure. If the objections I raise to intelligent life forming, namely the existence of at least two potential bottlenecks (the formation of a nucleus and the origin of sexual reproduction, both of which occurred only once in Earth's history) can be dismissed by saying "well, we just don't know," then arguments like 'we don't understand the variables involved' cannot logically lead us to say 'intelligent life is probably not rate' can be dismissed just as easily. If we can't comprehend the number of ways life could work around obstacles, then we also can't comprehend the number of potential barriers that might make such life rare. The truly humble position is strong agnosticism.

>This is another point on which I think you are confused.

I am not confused. I see this as a disagreement of opinions. You seem to believe that a default position should be that intelligent life is rare, and I disagree simple based on the volume of unknowns and my understanding of evolution.

Basically when there is such uncertainty either way it is up to opinions either way, neither which can be confirmed.

I'm siding with the odds of unknowns. I simply cannot accept the possibility of rare with so much unknown.

You're opinion cannot be any more verified than can mine. You can prove no more of an absence of intelligent life than can I prove of.

In my OPINION, I see so much unknown that I accept openness of many possibilities I could not have imagined.

Why be so certain on intelligent life being rare? How would such a stance prepare you to deal with unforeseeable unknowns?

>I am not confused. I see this as a disagreement of opinions. You seem to believe that a default position should be that intelligent life is rare, and I disagree simple based on the volume of unknowns and my understanding of evolution
You are confused, because I have stated quite clearly that my position is agnosticism and yet here you say I am claiming it is rare. What I am actually saying is that there is an argument that can be made that it could be rare, just like there is an argument that can be made that it isn't, and since we don't have en info to judge which argument is favored by the evidence, we must remain neutral if we want to be humble in the face of several unknown possibilities.

i present this thread as evidence of the rarity of human-level intelligence

anyway did anyone define intelligence?

>2016
>not knowing about Tabby's star

>What I am actually saying is that there is an argument that can be made that it could be rare

Certainly any argument could be made, but your argument seems shortsighted about the fundamentals of evolution with the basic life giving elements. My understanding is that the simplest forms of life are scatter all throughout the Universe like seeds, and all it needs is proper conditions for it to grown, and evolve.
Since we literally do not know how many habitable conditioned places there are in the Universe, and how much time those habitable places have provided an environment favorable to life, and intelligent life we must accept that there could be many.

>My understanding is that the simplest forms of life are scatter all throughout the Universe like seeds

This is a baseless claim, we don't have to accept anything when you are pulling nonsense like this out of your arse

the other way of looking at it is as a claim about exclusivity

rather than asking whether or not life (or intelligent life) are common, ask instead whether we should expect them to be exclusive

the idea of life being exclusive to earth is not new, and almost certainly pre-dates science, so it would be wise to be vigilant, hidden assumptions are extremely common in pre-scientific discourse

But it is not nonsense since you do not know of it to be untrue.
I did not pull it from my butt, or any other orifice for that matter. It comes from our current understanding of how life evolves on a planet.

Not accepting that the basic seeds of life are scatter across the Universe would be just as much a baseless assumption.

Why so solid on believing in nothingness, when literally anything within bounds is possible?

AND AGAIN I'LL ASK...

How does assuming intelligent life is rare, prepare you against unforeseeable unknowns?

I'd say it makes you more susceptible to errors, and misguided directions.

I accept the same elements are there if that's what you mean however your wording made it imply actual life is there, it doesn't matter what you want to believe it's what is reasonable to believe and you are making sweeping claims without anything to back you up, you don't seem to have a grasp of how difficult it was for life to form and you seem to have a limited understanding of evolution

Your assumptions about me seem arrogant, presumptuous.

You would rather classify unknown possibilities as void of intelligent life elsewhere.
You, yourself also seem fixed on how evolution works, and somehow you've fixated that based on the "unknowns" intelligent life elsewhere is rare.

The Universe contain tens of trillions of galaxies to every square inch of sky we see, and even if you were to limit "intelligent life" to one out of every ten trillion, that's billions of intelligent life forms you'd call "rare".

AND AGAIN fot the third time I'LL ASK...

How does assuming intelligent life is rare, prepare you against unforeseeable unknowns?

How does that make you better equipped to understanding the Universe?

We have no idea how rare or common the seeds of life are. We have no idea how rare or common the right conditions are, and we have no idea how long the average lifespan of an intelligent species might be, so with all those variables, concluding that it is probably common is naive. A more reasonable conclusion would be "since the number of planets is astronomically high and the likelihood of life could be anywhere between likely and one in a trillion, we have no idea how probable or improbable intelligent life is."
>Since we literally do not know how many habitable conditioned places there are in the Universe, and how much time those habitable places have provided an environment favorable to life, and intelligent life we must accept that there could be many.
I can and do accept that. My position of agnosticism (a concept you seem unable to grasp) allows me to believe that the number of intelligent species in the universe could be as low as 1 or as high as millions.

Maybe.

Recents studies has sugested a importance of life in evolution of planet. Maybe life has emerged in billions of planets in galaxy but if it not change the planetary environment no will survive.

Even if intelligent life exists

the homo sapiens emerged roughly a hundred thousand years ago and only less than two centuries ago radio waves were discovered.

>We have no idea how rare or common the seeds of life are.

I would agree. Although considering how much material of the most basic simple celled organisms, including plant life could be preserved in space debris cannot be ignored.

>We have no idea how rare or common the right conditions are, and we have no idea how long the average lifespan of an intelligent species might be

I agree.

>so with all those variables, concluding that it is probably common is naive.

I disagree. Assuming intelligent life elsewhere is rare would be just as naive.
The possibility of either is likely, but I happen to lean more towards intelligent life being elsewhere as more probable because of the short amount of time Earth has had to cultivate life compared to the rest of the Universe which more than likely has a variety of condition perhaps more conducive to life.

>A more reasonable conclusion would be "since the number of planets is astronomically high and the likelihood of life could be anywhere between likely and one in a trillion, we have no idea how probable or improbable intelligent life is."

We have no proof, we don't know for certain, correct. Still with those odds the likelihood should be a factor. I would much rather be prepared for the possibility that there are many different forms of intelligent life throughout the Universe.
In my opinion assuming humans are a rare exception gives into a false sense of exceptionalism, and arrogance.

In fact I would encourage you to look at every species on Earth, and imagine that each one of them given the right conditions could potentially have evolved into an intelligent species.
That could be pretty funny to imagine, but it is a possibility. Just consider the multitude of species of Earth of both past, and present. Every type of living creature from a chicken to a cricket could potentially be a species that evolves into a highly intelligent being self aware breaking from instinct to do more with its larger brain.

we are the center of the universe. we are children of the most high. we are sent here to be tested upon freewill and have a choice of going with satan or with god.
heliocentric theory is satans way of moving you against from god as a form of deception.
this is the age of wonder before the day of judgement.
hell is not eternal for us, though it may last generations upon generations, the most sincere of repents are saved.
There will be everlasting shame for those who were knowing yet willfully worked against the truth.

True

>In fact I would encourage you to look at every species on Earth, and imagine that each one of them given the right conditions could potentially have evolved into an intelligent species.
>That could be pretty funny to imagine, but it is a possibility. Just consider the multitude of species of Earth of both past, and present. Every type of living creature from a chicken to a cricket could potentially be a species that evolves into a highly intelligent being self aware breaking from instinct to do more with its larger brain.

I don't think the main barrier is a multicellular life-form with a brain evolving a more sophisticated brain. The fact that animals from different lineages (corvids, molluscs, elephants, apes, cetaceans) convergently evolved intelligence independently tells me that it isn't that rare of an event. My concern is that the evolution of complex cells such as eukaryotes and the evolution of sexual reproduction might be very rare events, as we only observed them occurring once in the history of earth. They might simply be rare, or they might be abysmally rare, but with a single data point we can't draw any conclusions, and saying intelligent life is probably common is just as naive as saying it is probably rare.

This person is an example of exactly the kind of false sense of exceptionalism, and arrogance, I referred to.

Cool, so a position I do not advocate (intelligent life is rare) is being advanced using an argument I did not use (God) by a person who is not me.

The fact that he is wrong does not make you any less wrong.

>saying intelligent life is probably common is just as naive as saying it is probably rare.

Yes, I agree but I would still prefer to side with those preparing themselves to understand life, and the Universe.

>the evolution of sexual reproduction might be very rare events

That I do not agree with. The manner in which a species reproduces could have little to do with intelligence. Intelligence has more do with the capacity of the brain. It is our belief that humans evolved to have bigger brains because of our ancestors beginning to eat softer foods, which allowed the jaw muscles to shrink allowing our brains a larger capacity to grow, with more cognitive awareness.
It is the brain, and its capacity which allows for intelligence beyond instinct to grow.
Our DNA is filled with ancestral junk DNA that allows switches to trigger mutations that can prove to be useful or not according to the environment.
So far being bipedal has proved to be best suited to Earth's gravity.

>That I do not agree with. The manner in which a species reproduces could have little to do with intelligence.

I was referring to the link between multicellularity and sex, not sex and intelligence.

Wasn't my intention to prove right or wrong, but to note the kind of false sense of exceptionalism that accumulates from many of those taking a hard stand on intelligent life being rare.

Fine. Still don't understand how you can assert a rarity of potential intelligent life in a blind sea of the Universe with potentially multiple trillions of possibilities.

Man I have explained this like six times now. I'm not asserting that intelligent life is rare but merely pointing out that intelligent life being very rare is a possibility and the humble, intellectually honest option is complete agnosticism. "There are a lot of possibilities out there" is not a coherent response to the objection that we don't know how unlikely life is. In mathematical terms, I'm basically saying "We don't know how rare intelligent life is, could be one in a hundred or could be one in 10^100" and your response amounts to "yes but there are 10^24 stars."

>intelligent life being very rare is a possibility and the humble, intellectually honest option is complete agnosticism.

And again that is where I disagree, again.
In being humble it also means acknowledging unknown possibilities in view of a vast amount of unknown possibilities.

I gave a rough estimate of ten trillion galaxies to every one inch block of sky that we see. That is a lot of sky, with many blocks of ten trillion galaxies. This means we're in a ballpark figure in the multiple trillions, many times over. which to me seems quite reasonable to lean toward similar conditions to Earth or probability of intelligent life probable.

To deny is arrogant, short sighted, and over presumptuous.

What if intelligent life exists but lives at a different pace than us? Like a super intelligent being smarter than any single human, but thinks so slow it requires years or even centuries to complete a single thought. Would we even be able to recognize such a thing as intelligent? How about the opposite? Something that's so quick, both in it's thought speed and lifespan that we barely even notice it.

C is the great filter.

Google search: probability of intelligent life in universe

The researchers then calculated the probability that Earth was the universe's first-ever abode for intelligent life, after taking into account the number of stars in the observable universe (about 20 billion trillion, according to a recent estimate).May 5, 2016

Twenty billion trillion is too much for me to take a belief that intelligent life is rare.

>Twenty billion trillion is too much for me to take a belief that intelligent life is rare.
That's because you lack an appreciation for mathematics, so you see a really big number and you go 'wow, that number is huuuuuge!'

You don't realize that you can make a big number small by dividing it by another big number, and then make it even smaller by dividing it by another big number, et cetera. Since we have no idea how big the denominator is, it is more reasonable to be agnostic.

...

>wow, that number is huuuuuge

Yes, as in possibilities. Your interpretation of agnosticism seems to ignore a large amount of possibilities. In fact, twenty billion trillion possibilities.

>We could be surrounded by dead civilization and not even know it.

Eh, not on the scale of humanity. At this point the combined non-degradable trash, space debris, extinctions, and rapid climate change are going to be noticed for millions of years (even ignoring things like Mount Rushmore that will be recognizable as artificial for huge periods of time).

There's 10^22 stars in the observable universe. If intelligent life requires 20 accidents with 10% probability to evolve there would only be about 100 cases in the entire observable universe. It could require many more than 20. If it required 30 we're almost certainly alone.

The point is that once we have to start stacking accidents on top of each other even a number as big as 10^22 is quickly reduced to a small amount.