Kepler, Planets

Recently I attended a presentation to our astro club about the orbiting
Kepler telescope now being used to survey planets
(in a portion of our galaxy) that might support some form of life.
Apparently they think they have identified
several thousand planets within the observed portion of the Milky Way,
and it seems that there is general
anticipation that sooner or later they will discover some form of life.
They also seem to think that if
we should find a life form with which we can communicate, it ("they"),
will be far more advanced than we are.
(Can anyone tell me why this would necessarily be the case? Why wouldn't
it be just as likely that such a
life form would be less advanced? Or, more probably, a simple life form
such as a bacteria, mold, or the like?)

So far, of course, they are concentrating on a very small portion of the
Milky Way. What's puzzling to me is that if we
extend the search, looking for life forms that might exist elsewhere in
the universe (including on planets
or other bodies associated with stars in galaxies beyond our own, e.g.,
somewhere in Andromeda or beyond), how would we learn of
them, much less communicate with them, when limitations such as the
speed of light are considered. For example,
if they exist in a planet somewhere in Andromeda, communications each
way would take over a million years.
Or, if in Virgo, perhaps 30 - 50 million years. Anything at that
distance visible or detectable using an optical (or electronic or radiative)
instrument would be "seen" as it existed millions of years ago. -
Which also makes normal conversation somewhat
difficult. Also, nothing I'm aware of could provide details needed to
identify life forms at that distance.
In other words, the planets within our own galaxy that we CAN study
with Kepler or other such instruments
comprise only a very small portion of the trillions of possibilities
existing throughout the universe, making
the probabilities seem rather limited.


Perhaps someone can straighten me out.

Jim