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. It also seems that
they 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?)

What's puzzling to me is that if we are speaking of life forms that
might exist 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 near a star somewhere in Andromeda, communications each way would
take over a million years. Or, if in Virgo, for example, 30 - 50 million
years. And, of course, we have been broadcasting "messages" for 30-40
years, with no answers. 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 no
rmal 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