Does anyone doubt theres life beyond earth?

Sylvia Else wrote:

Maybe if we were more intelligence we'd see ways, but here's the rub -
evolution gave us intelligence because it helped us survive a severe
drought in Africa, not so that we could become a starfaring race. Once
we'd evolved the intelligence required to cope, we stopped evolving in
that direction.

There is the hope of genetic engineering. When/if it becomes regularly
available a large number of parents will want their children to have
more intelligence because there is a high correlation between below
average intelligence and lack of success in life. That would trigger a
gradual competition trender to greater intelligence across generations.

Jeff Findley wrote:
says...

anyone? and why?

It appears that life emerged on Earth in its first billion years
probably even farther back than that. There are always doubts until
distant life is actually encountered but it very much appears that life
emerged spontaneously. That suggests that life, at least microbe life,
is present in very many locations in the universe. Very large error
bar. Still, my best guess is life is common. Doubts? Sure. The size
of the error bar insists that there be doubts.

Does anyone doubt the existence of the flying spaghetti monstor? If so,
why?

The flying spagetti monster is a deliberate fiction. It is known to
not exist in any usual sense. It's a very poor comparison to a guess
based on how early life emerged on Earth and how common planets are in
the universe.

Geez Bob, logic failure...

Examples using the flying spagetti monster have a very low batting
average as having valid logic. Yours contributes to the low percentage.

"Jeff Findley" wrote in message
...
In article , lid
says...

On 11/06/2012 11:22 PM, Jeff Findley wrote:
In articleaa7e1e9e-84ac-49d3-ae1e-
, says...

anyone? and why?

Does anyone doubt the existence of the flying spaghetti monstor? If
so,
why?

Geez Bob, logic failure...

It's hardly the same thing. The existence of life elsewhere in the
Universe is very much an open question. The flying spaghetti monster is
an invention, and its existence in the real world a matter of
considerable doubt.

Do I believe it's possible for life to exist elsewhere in the universe?
Absolutely. But that's not how Bob worded the question:

"Does anyone doubt theres life beyond earth?"

Maybe it's my exposure to too many English speaking people from India,
but when I see the question phrased that way, I immediately think, "I
have doubts". There is no definitive proof, so how could one not have
doubt?


What if the question is .."does anyone believe life emerged only
on Earth, and no where else in the entire universe?"

To believe that says quite a bit about the supposed
properties of life, that it's nothing more than some
enormous fluke. A complete anomaly that has nothing
to do with the underlying laws and tendencies of the
rest of the universe.

Life is just noise in the data. How rational would
that belief be?

Yet we live on a planet where life took hold just
as soon as it was possible, and against all kinds
of calamities and changes, continued to evolve
all the way from iron reducing bacteria to wisdom.

And if that's not enough, we can see clear evidence
of life elsewhere in the sky almost every night.

Look up the Great Oxygenation Event, a bloom
of life increases 02 levels enough for it to react
with the oceans, also called the great rusting event
this caused a world wide layer of iron deposits
to dust the glove, leading directly to the deepest
ice age period of all.

Look at Mars, it's ...red! The whole planet
is dusted with iron deposits, and then it went
cold. You don't even need a pair of glasses
to see evidence of life elsewhere.

And the very ..first planet we visit, we 'randomly'
set a rover down and it finds itself in a field
of countless billions of these things, as far as
the eye can see, all looking almost exactly ...alike.

What are the odds of that?



Large
http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/galle...P2907M2M1.HTML
http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/galle...P2933M2M1.HTML

Small
http://marsrovers.nasa.gov/gallery/a...0P2956M2M1.JPG
http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/galle...P2956M2M1.HTML

You know, all the iron deposits at Meridiani are
only in the spheres, hardly any in the soil. That's
a big clue.The whole planet is red, the spheres
must cover the bulk of Mars.

Definitive proof isn't required. To be a part
of a world overwhelmed by relentlessly
pervasive forms of life, too many to count.
While believing the rest of the universe must be
sterile, is a complete absurdity.


Jonathan


s


















Jeff
--
" Ares 1 is a prime example of the fact that NASA just can't get it
up anymore... and when they can, it doesn't stay up long. "
- tinker

"Sylvia Else" wrote in message
...
And while I'm sure you've heard of it, google Fermi Paradox

Although the answer to that may just be that it's too damned difficult
both to travel between the stars, and to make oneself noticed by other
means.

Maybe if we were more intelligence we'd see ways, but here's the rub -
evolution gave us intelligence because it helped us survive a severe
drought in Africa, not so that we could become a starfaring race. Once
we'd evolved the intelligence required to cope, we stopped evolving in
that direction.


I still can't believe how few people have a basic
understanding of evolution. Evolutionary events
follow a power-law distribution. Which is analogous
to an earthquake, countless minor events leading up
to the rare 'big one'. You just described one
of those big ones as happening at a 'critical point'.
Where some system is on the edge or tipping point
for it's survival, and suddenly, as if like magic, along
comes intelligence and now the Earth can sustain
orders of magnitude more life than before.

Intelligence opened up an enormous new possibility
space to explore, wide open and without any natural
competition to slow the expansion.

Well here we are at another of those 'critical points'.
And along comes things like the Internet, connecting
billions of individual minds into a massively parallel
network.

We're in the middle of the next great evolutionary step!
The rare 'big one'.

The collective wisdom of life usually finds a way
to take that next step, and just when it's needed
the most.

If intelligence emerges from a single mind.
What emerges from collective intelligence?
What is that which is above man, but can only
be known, not proven? What word should
we use to describe that something 'more' that
drives life towards it's mathematical destiny?



Jonathan


s




Any other race would likely face the same obstacle.

Sylvia.

On 12/06/2012 7:29 AM, jonathan wrote:
"Sylvia wrote in message
...
And while I'm sure you've heard of it, google Fermi Paradox

Although the answer to that may just be that it's too damned difficult
both to travel between the stars, and to make oneself noticed by other
means.

Maybe if we were more intelligence we'd see ways, but here's the rub -
evolution gave us intelligence because it helped us survive a severe
drought in Africa, not so that we could become a starfaring race. Once
we'd evolved the intelligence required to cope, we stopped evolving in
that direction.


I still can't believe how few people have a basic
understanding of evolution. Evolutionary events
follow a power-law distribution. Which is analogous
to an earthquake, countless minor events leading up
to the rare 'big one'. You just described one
of those big ones as happening at a 'critical point'.
Where some system is on the edge or tipping point
for it's survival, and suddenly, as if like magic, along
comes intelligence and now the Earth can sustain
orders of magnitude more life than before.

Intelligence opened up an enormous new possibility
space to explore, wide open and without any natural
competition to slow the expansion.

Well here we are at another of those 'critical points'.
And along comes things like the Internet, connecting
billions of individual minds into a massively parallel
network.

We're in the middle of the next great evolutionary step!
The rare 'big one'.

Evolution works on individuals. For higher intelligence to arise, it has
to provide a benefit to the individual, in terms of reproductive
success. I see no evidence that this is true at the moment. Indeed, the
lower birth rates amongst people of higher intelligence suggests exactly
the opposite. We may be seeing a gradual decline in intelligence. This
may progress to the point where it creates a crisis in the form of an
inability to sustain our technological society. What happens then is
anyone's bet.

Sylvia.

On 12/06/2012 3:14 AM, Jeff Findley wrote:
In , lid
says...

On 11/06/2012 11:22 PM, Jeff Findley wrote:
In articleaa7e1e9e-84ac-49d3-ae1e-
, says...

anyone? and why?

Does anyone doubt the existence of the flying spaghetti monstor? If so,
why?

Geez Bob, logic failure...

It's hardly the same thing. The existence of life elsewhere in the
Universe is very much an open question. The flying spaghetti monster is
an invention, and its existence in the real world a matter of
considerable doubt.

Do I believe it's possible for life to exist elsewhere in the universe?
Absolutely. But that's not how Bob worded the question:

"Does anyone doubt theres life beyond earth?"

Maybe it's my exposure to too many English speaking people from India,
but when I see the question phrased that way, I immediately think, "I
have doubts". There is no definitive proof, so how could one not have
doubt?

Jeff

I don't agree that "doubt that X" has the same meaning as "have doubts
about X". The former to my mind has the sense of believing that X is
probably not true, whereas the latter expresses a degree of uncertainty
about X.

Sylvia.

On 12/06/2012 6:35 AM, Doug Freyburger wrote:
Jeff Findley wrote:
says...

anyone? and why?

It appears that life emerged on Earth in its first billion years
probably even farther back than that. There are always doubts until
distant life is actually encountered but it very much appears that life
emerged spontaneously. That suggests that life, at least microbe life,
is present in very many locations in the universe.

Well, no it doesn't. We know that life emerged on Earth, and it appears
to have emerged quite early. But that really tells us only that life is
possible, and doesn't necessarily take a long time to appear. Its early
appearance may indicate that it appears quite easily, but it may just
have been chance.

Since the appearance of life was a prerequisite for our seeing it (the
anthropic principle), we can deduce nothing about the probabilities from
the fact that we see it. Only if and when we find another clear example
of a separate appearance of life can any notions about the probablility
be anything more than pure speculation.

'They' really ought to get on with a mission to Europa.

Sylvia.

On Jun 10, 4:19*pm, bob haller wrote:
anyone? and why?

No other life in the universe could possibly be as snookered,
dumbfounded and pathetic as us humans.

http://groups.google.com/groups/search
http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG, Guth Usenet/Guth Venus

In article , lid
says...

On 12/06/2012 6:35 AM, Doug Freyburger wrote:
Jeff Findley wrote:
says...

anyone? and why?

It appears that life emerged on Earth in its first billion years
probably even farther back than that. There are always doubts until
distant life is actually encountered but it very much appears that life
emerged spontaneously. That suggests that life, at least microbe life,
is present in very many locations in the universe.

Well, no it doesn't. We know that life emerged on Earth, and it appears
to have emerged quite early. But that really tells us only that life is
possible, and doesn't necessarily take a long time to appear. Its early
appearance may indicate that it appears quite easily, but it may just
have been chance.

To be concise, Earth provides us wiht a sample size of exactly one.
Obviously Earth proves life is possible, but beyond that, it proves
nothing. One can argue just about anything they want with a sample size
of one.

Since the appearance of life was a prerequisite for our seeing it (the
anthropic principle), we can deduce nothing about the probabilities from
the fact that we see it. Only if and when we find another clear example
of a separate appearance of life can any notions about the probablility
be anything more than pure speculation.

Agreed.

Jeff
--
" Ares 1 is a prime example of the fact that NASA just can't get it
up anymore... and when they can, it doesn't stay up long. "
- tinker

"Doug Freyburger" wrote in message ...

Sylvia Else wrote:

Maybe if we were more intelligence we'd see ways, but here's the rub -
evolution gave us intelligence because it helped us survive a severe
drought in Africa, not so that we could become a starfaring race. Once
we'd evolved the intelligence required to cope, we stopped evolving in
that direction.

There is the hope of genetic engineering. When/if it becomes regularly
available a large number of parents will want their children to have
more intelligence because there is a high correlation between below
average intelligence and lack of success in life. That would trigger a
gradual competition trender to greater intelligence across generations.


Except there's no real proof that intelligence guarantees success any better
than other evolutionary strategies.

If you look at almost any numbers, I'd say microbes are by far more
successful.

There's a very real chance that intelligence could end up as an evolutionary
dead-end.

If nothing else, only humans seem to have come up ways that could pretty
much wipe ourselves out.

Agent Smith may be right.




--
Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net