Is Earth The Only Planet With Life?

[darksidZz]

I won't comment, I seek confettered statements from those of you on the forum. Is life unique to Earth? Does it exist elsewhere? Is Earth truly the only place capable of springing forth living beings? It's perhaps the most important question I've ever to post to you, thus I ask you consider it very carefully. Think on what you've learned regarding the universe... is it a real possibility... or are religious fanatics right at least about 1 thing?

[Nikelodeon]

Maybe, maybe not.

[darksidZz]

Can't you make a definitive choice, jeez :p

[Nikelodeon]

Not without solid evidence either way.

[orcot]

everything that happens can happen again and usually it happens a lot... like winnning the lottery the odds are small and there are 70000000000000000000000 (http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star) (rough gues of current) interested at the moment and some even bought more then one ticket. Anyway if Mars would turn out to have life then there probebly more extreterretrial species then their are asses to fill with probes.

[draqon]

The fact that we exist and there is indeed life in this universe means that life can indeed exist elsewhere, were the conditions like ours are the same.

Of course currently we are looking for terra-like planets but in reality I believe that other non-terra like planets can harbor life...like silicon based...or artificially made (by other intelligent species...or those who made us). This is of course speculation and we need to explore universe to prove and disprove it.

[Carl Sagan]

N = N* fp ne fl fi fc fL

N* represents the number of stars in the Milky Way Galaxy

fp is the fraction of stars that have planets around them

ne is the number of planets per star that are capable of sustaining life

fl is the fraction of planets in ne where life evolves

fi is the fraction of fl where intelligent life evolves

fc is the fraction of fi that communicate

fL is fraction of the planet's life during which the communicating civilizations live

N, the number of communicating civilizations in the galaxy

You do the math-anti-optimists

[draqon]

N = N* fp ne fl fi fc fL

N* represents the number of stars in the Milky Way Galaxy

fp is the fraction of stars that have planets around them

ne is the number of planets per star that are capable of sustaining life

fl is the fraction of planets in ne where life evolves

fi is the fraction of fl where intelligent life evolves

fc is the fraction of fi that communicate

fL is fraction of the planet's life during which the communicating civilizations live

N, the number of communicating civilizations in the galaxy

You do the math-anti-optimists

well Mr. illusional Carl Sagan, none of these is known in the universe. So this equation is useless. Sure we are the only civilization we know of, but that doesn't mean there are and there are not any other civilizations.

[psyfi]

Has anyone seen the ufo challenge on thefinalchallenge.com? If they've got proof, that's the place to go. Personally, I think we're alone.......so alone. Seriously, if there's life out there, they'd want to visit here about as much as I want to visit Ethiopia. Nothing of intrinsic value. If we ever discover life, we'll have to do the finding.

[ashpwner]

yeas we are the only planet with life i know this becuase i am a legend!

[Carl Sagan]

well Mr. illusional Carl Sagan, none of these is known in the universe. So this equation is useless. Sure we are the only civilization we know of, but that doesn't mean there are and there are not any other civilizations.

Mathematically, probability falls infavor of extraterrestrials. At least at a microbial period of evolution.
Evidence of absence is not the same as absence of evidence.

You are correct in asserting that Drake's Equation is possibly inaccurate.
However, we have formulated general mathematical values for some particular variables based on deductive reasoning.

I guess the question arises, do you agree with the feasibility of extraterrestrial life? When you stare into the enigmatic vastness of our marvelous cosmos, do you ask yourself what you would do if you found the anwsers to all your questions in a single constellation?

[temur]

There is a new discovery! They found a planet that can sustain liquid water!

[Carl Sagan]

well Mr. illusional Carl Sagan, none of these is known in the universe. So this equation is useless. Sure we are the only civilization we know of, but that doesn't mean there are and there are not any other civilizations.

You also have to remember that we can circumscribe particular areas. By this I mean, we can apply this equation to individual areas.

[Nikelodeon]

You also have to remember that we can circumscribe particular areas. By this I mean, we can apply this equation to individual areas.
I thought you were dead?

[Carl Sagan]

I thought you were dead?

Curiosity(extraterrestrial life) killed the cat
But satisfaction(Europa) brought it back.:)

[psyfi]

They couldn't possibly know if that plane could or does have water on it. The report said, it could be water...it could be ice. It's temerature is somewhere between 32 and 104...ie: it's hot or it's cold. They shouldn't have even reported on it.

[Carl Sagan]

They couldn't possibly know if that plane could or does have water on it. The report said, it could be water...it could be ice. It's temerature is somewhere between 32 and 104...ie: it's hot or it's cold. They shouldn't have even reported on it.

Have you ever woke in absolute curiosity of possibility?

I have and it has made me quite the scientist.

[hypewaders]

But the awe was not so humbling, I gather.

[Dinosaur]

The history of the Solar System strongly supports the notion that life exists elsewhere in the universe. It also strongly suggests that intelligent life is extremely rare.

We might be the only intelligent life in our galaxy.

[Fraggle Rocker]

fL is fraction of the planet's life during which the communicating civilizations live.

N is the number of communicating civilizations in the galaxy.You need another factor for the distance between the planets. We cannot be certain that FTL communication is possible. Therefore in order for two civilizations to communicate effectively, they have to survive long enough for light-speed communication to make at least one complete round trip.

The percentage of stars in the universe with planets that host civilizations can be so incredibly tiny that those planets are 10,000 light-years apart. Nonetheless that is a lot of civilizations in the universe. Still, the two closest ones have to survive for 20,000 years after the invention of electronic technology in order to communicate.

We've only had radio for a century. Will we endure for another 19,900 years so we can have a conversation with somebody?

[orcot]

19,900 ... :bugeye: !!! 19,900 years well I'm sorry but I done plane that far agaid. There is the possible and the inpossible and theoritical possible chould stay with the last one. Anyway there are so many examples in history and there is so little know abouth the structure off the universe that I'm quit cetain that if you give the quistion a other 100 years or so someone might be able to scarp a zero of.
Anyway 20 LY for a somewhat habitable planet isn't that much and there might be even smaller ones nearby and I gues that we'll proberly find out and even photograph them in a reasenable timeframe

[Red Devil]

Drakes Equation answers this for me.....

Jody Foster says in answer to a question about meeting the Aliens in the film Contact and what would she ask them?

Answer: How did you manage to survive technology without killing yourselves off?

[Billy T]

I thought you were dead?Don't discriminate. The dead have rights to post here - perhaps more wisely than some living who do.

[draqon]

Don't discriminate. The dead have rights to post here - perhaps more wisely than some living who do.

thats just an assumption.

[Carl Sagan]

Don't discriminate. The dead have rights to post here - perhaps more wisely than some living who do.

Interesting, an intellectual with a well developed astro-philosophical imagination.
I could use your thought pattern to better further everyones knowledge.

Go to my thread Anti-Reductionalism.

[darksidZz]

You guys know, it could be argued the Earth has no intelligent life, lmao

[Dinosaur]

So far, it is 15 to zip in favor of life elsewhere. I hope all who voted interpreted this as meaning life, without implying intelligent life.

As I posted earlier, intelligent life is very likely to be rare. We might be the only intelligent life in our galaxy.

[orcot]

We might be the only intelligent life in our galaxy

their are proberly more then 10E11 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy) galaxy's in the known universe

[Carl Sagan]

I am currently associated with what I have denoted as the Generation Hypothesis. This hypothesis is circumscribed by star generations. An example would be our sun. It is a second generation star.

I have excepted this particular in hopes of redefining the Fermi Paradox.
Except, I am openly stating that under general circumstances(the size(most important) of the stars are not yet taken into account), it is more probable that a first generation stars hz planets have acquired superior technological communication methods than a second generation stars hz planets. As my mathematical proofs unfold, you will be the second to know.


This is open to constructive criticism:)

[Lord Sithis]

Of course, life as WE know it may not be the same as life as THEY know it. Life here needs water. Maybe they need Silicia, or Uranium, or the mineral rich Magma. What we know may not be truth. Modern science is only like 100 years old, or at the very least the discovery age.

[Dinosaur]

Carl Sagan: You need an education in astrophysics.An example would be our sun. It is a second generation star.

I have excepted this particular in hopes of redefining the Fermi Paradox.
Except, I am openly stating that under general circumstances(the size(most important) of the stars are not yet taken into account), it is more probable that a first generation stars hz planets have acquired superior technological communication methods than a second generation stars hz planets. As my mathematical proofs unfold, you will be the second to know.I would be very much surprised to discover than Sol is only a second generation star. The solar system is about 4.6 billion years old, while the Big Bang occurred about 13 billion years ago. Some of the early stars were much more massive than Sol and went through their life cycle in less that 1-3 billion years.

No first generation star could support life. The early universe was composed almost entirely of hydrogen and helium (about 90% to 10% I think). Life requires heavier elements like carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, iron, et cetera. These heavy elements were created in the interiors of stars and spewed into interstellar space at the end of the life cycle of stars somewhat more massive than Sol.

BTW: there is a narrow habitable zone in a galaxy. Closer to the center and there is too much radiation hostile to living creatures and many fast moving stars, preventing a stable solar system for the billion or so years required to develop the intitial simple life forms. Farther from the center and the interstellar gas clouds (from which solar systems are made) do not have enough of the heavy elements required by living creatures.

[Absane]

You guys know, it could be argued the Earth has no intelligent life, lmao

By definition we are intelligent. Isn't that great?

[weed_eater_guy]

"We came to this planet looking for intelligent life, oops, made a mistake." Robin Williams in Mrs. Doubtfire

[Carl Sagan]

Carl Sagan: You need an education in astrophysics.I would be very much surprised to discover than Sol is only a second generation star. The solar system is about 4.6 billion years old, while the Big Bang occurred about 13 billion years ago. Some of the early stars were much more massive than Sol and went through their life cycle in less that 1-3 billion years.

No first generation star could support life. The early universe was composed almost entirely of hydrogen and helium (about 90% to 10% I think). Life requires heavier elements like carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, iron, et cetera. These heavy elements were created in the interiors of stars and spewed into interstellar space at the end of the life cycle of stars somewhat more massive than Sol.

BTW: there is a narrow habitable zone in a galaxy. Closer to the center and there is too much radiation hostile to living creatures and many fast moving stars, preventing a stable solar system for the billion or so years required to develop the intitial simple life forms. Farther from the center and the interstellar gas clouds (from which solar systems are made) do not have enough of the heavy elements required by living creatures.

It is interesting how you feed off of others ideas and make non of your own.
We can theorize with supportive evidence that life can exist in a microbial state and a element-combined state. An example would be(element-combined) a jelly fish is about 90 percent water. How than, is it not feasible that life may be purely hydrogen based? Remember a different evironment calls forth different claims. Albert E.

[Dinosaur]

Carl Sagan: We cannot all be Nobel Prize winners.It is interesting how you feed off of others ideas and make non of your own.What original ideas & worthwhile have you produced?

BTW: Even your jellyfish composed of 90% water requires more than hydrogen & helium . The other 10% is what is required for it to be a living creature.How than, is it not feasible that life may be purely hydrogen based?If you think it is possible for a living creature to be based solely on hydrogen or any other single element, you need an education in more subjects than astrophysics.

Start with elementary chemistry.

[Ophiolite]

N = N* fp ne fl fi fc fL
You do the math-anti-optimists
OK
N* represents the number of stars in the Milky Way Galaxy 400,000,000,000

fp is the fraction of stars that have planets around them 0.95
ne is the number of planets per star that are capable of sustaining life 0.000001

fl is the fraction of planets in ne where life evolves 0.5

fi is the fraction of fl where intelligent life evolves 0.000001

fc is the fraction of fi that communicate
0.5

I'll stop there.
Number of intelligent civilisations ever trying to communicate in the galaxy =
400,000,000,000 * .95 * .00001 * 0.5 * .0000001 *.5 = .95 or approximately 1.

Just a moment, that must be us.

[Red Devil]

Its life, Jim, but not as we know it!

Life does not have to constitute humanoid to qualify ;)

[orcot]

I can't say that I agree with Ophiolites numbre let me try
Originally Posted by Carl Sagan
N* represents the number of stars in the Milky Way Galaxy
400,000,000,000 stars* 0.3(amount of stars in the galactic hab zone)*0.95( exclude stars that will life to short)
Originally Posted by Carl Sagan
fp is the fraction of stars that have planets around them
0.80
Originally Posted by Carl Sagan
ne is the number of planets per star that are capable of sustaining life
1.00 (both earth venus and mars had water so where somewhat capable not to mention europa, so basicly you could go +1 but due to the large amount of red dwards with little hab zones and the changes of extreme slow rotation with higher more massive stars [venus] I simply keep it at 1 optimistic?)
Originally Posted by Carl Sagan
fl is the fraction of planets in ne where life evolves
0.000001 (litterally again 1 but to withstand the parrels of withstanding the first couple of billion years when life is simple and the sun gets hotter to be on a planet that retains it's water (http://www.space.com/searchforlife/seti_solarsystem_010108.html) and doesn't migrate to much that life is able to opres the greenhouse gasses enough to keep the planet from fatally cooking or fatally going in a snowbal[that nearly happend on earth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowball_Earth)]

Originally Posted by Carl Sagan
fi is the fraction of fl where intelligent life evolves
:) 1.01 (no shit I already subtracted the necesairy time for planets to evolve and the fact that there are around 2 million years between homo habilis and modern humans means that somewhere else more then one intiligent species might somewhat evolve. Don't forget that we had the neanderthale next to homo sapiens if that would have been intiligent enough. Basicly it's yust fun to add one more then 1. Altough ...) times 0.6 f(or the guessed amount of stars that are somewhat older then our sun.)

Originally Posted by Carl Sagan
fc is the fraction of fi that communicate
0.05 (That's low no offence but WWII and the cold war anyway global pollution is going to be a problem anywhere especially smaller planets)



400,000,000,000 stars* 0.3*0.95*0.80*1*0.000001*1.01*0.6*0.05=2763

2763 that's rather a lot...

[Carl Sagan]

Carl Sagan: We cannot all be Nobel Prize winners.What original ideas & worthwhile have you produced?

BTW: Even your jellyfish composed of 90% water requires more than hydrogen & helium . The other 10% is what is required for it to be a living creature.If you think it is possible for a living creature to be based solely on hydrogen or any other single element, you need an education in more subjects than astrophysics.

Start with elementary chemistry.

I am currently a Princeton student working on String Theory. The foundations of this theory rely on the feasibility of area-breakdown, this means there is a chance that particular laws are redefined. I do doubt the possibility all together, but is it not possibility that drives xenosociobiologist such as myself?

I am currently working as a studeny for Michigan State, but that is online through several proffs.

[orcot]

xenosociobiologist wow xeno-socio-biologist I'm not quit sure what it means but I must be verry wrong if it's related to string theory

[nanrek]

Our observable universe is estimated to be 1.3 x 10^10 years old and the number of stars are estimated to be 10^14. The probability against the random emergence of pre-Darwinian complexity for natural selection to begin is one chance in 10^40,000. The odds against life on more than one planet in our universe is nearly impossible. Of course, in a multiverse of infinite universes, life would exist on an infinite number of planets. Finding living beings on more than one planet in our universe would be an argument (not a proof) for some kind of intelligent design.

[John99]

Our observable universe is estimated to be 1.3 x 10^10 years old and the number of stars are estimated to be 10^14. The probability against the random emergence of pre-Darwinian complexity for natural selection to begin is one chance in 10^40,000. The odds against life on more than one planet in our universe is nearly impossible. Of course, in a multiverse of infinite universes, life would exist on an infinite number of planets. Finding living beings on more than one planet in our universe would be an argument (not a proof) for some kind of intelligent design.

That is precisely what my thread in the human science section is about. And no one (except for one person) is taking it seriously.

[Carl Sagan]

xenosociobiologist wow xeno-socio-biologist I'm not quit sure what it means but I must be verry wrong if it's related to string theory

Xenosociobiology is related indirectly to any unification theory. This is because, particular laws apply to life and become circumstantial if laws are redefined based on the area.

[Carl Sagan]

That is precisely what my thread in the human science section is about. And no one (except for one person) is taking it seriously.

I would be more than happy to take it seriously. What is it called?

[Kendall]

There is a good chance that we will never be able to say that there is no life elsewhere in the universe and be certain. I think that there is or at least will be, was life somewhere else in the universe. Could just be like bacteria, fungus or anything really.

The question shoud have been "do you think(believe) there is life elsewhere in the universe.

[Dinosaur]

The Drake equation is likely to be meaningful when applied to determining the number of places likely to have living creatures. Its use in estimating the number of intelligent species in a galaxy is questionable at best.

Most people assume that intelligent life is an evolutionary inevitability. This is a very questionable assumption.Dinosaurs existed for over 150 million years without coming close to developing intelligence. It is believed that they died out due to a an asteroid impact, rather than due to being unsuccessful. This strongly suggests that vertebrates of various sizes can be very successful without developing intelligence.


If that asteroid had hit about 10-20 million years later, it might have wiped out the primates who were our ancestors, although it did not wipe out some of the earlier mammals from which primates evolved. It seems to take a bit of luck to survive even if a species is very well adapted to its environment.


The basic primate design seems to be best for an intelligent species: Bipedal, allowing two limbs to have hands or claws capable of using tools. Note that something like hands with 1 or 2 thumbs opposing two or more fingers seems to be a prerequisite for the development of intelligence. Primates evolved as tree dwellers or at least tree climbers, resulting in their developing 4 hands.

In spite of the good basic design of all the primates, only the Neanderthals and our species developed intelligence capable of making and using tools. Note that the Neanderthals did not survive long enough to develop technology, and probably did not develop agriculture. .


It has recently been discovered that Chimps have evolved further than humans from the common ancestor. Id est: There have been more mutations in the chimp branch of the primate family tree than in the human branch. This supports the notion that natural selection does not necessarily lead in the direction of intelligence capable of creating a high technology culture, although it can be argued that chimps might have gotten there in another 10-20 million years.There is good reason to believe that intelligence is merely a lucky fluke.

[orcot]

In spite of the good basic design of all the primates, only the Neanderthals and our species developed intelligence capable of making and using tools. Note that the Neanderthals did not survive long enough to develop technology, and probably did not develop agriculture. .

you call 2 times a fluke? Anyway the first one dissapeared 24,000 years ago humans only started with agriculture 1,1500 years ago. So there is also a enviromental thing to wonder abouth

[McMicky]

The conditions on earth are so perfect for life. It is difficult to imagine life on Mercury because it’s too hot and on Saturn because its too cold... we don't know how big the universe is perhaps we are the first people in it?

[Red Devil]

The Drake equation is likely to be meaningful when applied to determining the number of places likely to have living creatures. Its use in estimating the number of intelligent species in a galaxy is questionable at best.

Most people assume that intelligent life is an evolutionary inevitability. This is a very questionable assumption.Dinosaurs existed for over 150 million years without coming close to developing intelligence. It is believed that they died out due to a an asteroid impact, rather than due to being unsuccessful. This strongly suggests that vertebrates of various sizes can be very successful without developing intelligence.


If that asteroid had hit about 10-20 million years later, it might have wiped out the primates who were our ancestors, although it did not wipe out some of the earlier mammals from which primates evolved. It seems to take a bit of luck to survive even if a species is very well adapted to its environment.


The basic primate design seems to be best for an intelligent species: Bipedal, allowing two limbs to have hands or claws capable of using tools. Note that something like hands with 1 or 2 thumbs opposing two or more fingers seems to be a prerequisite for the development of intelligence. Primates evolved as tree dwellers or at least tree climbers, resulting in their developing 4 hands.

In spite of the good basic design of all the primates, only the Neanderthals and our species developed intelligence capable of making and using tools. Note that the Neanderthals did not survive long enough to develop technology, and probably did not develop agriculture. .


It has recently been discovered that Chimps have evolved further than humans from the common ancestor. Id est: There have been more mutations in the chimp branch of the primate family tree than in the human branch. This supports the notion that natural selection does not necessarily lead in the direction of intelligence capable of creating a high technology culture, although it can be argued that chimps might have gotten there in another 10-20 million years.There is good reason to believe that intelligence is merely a lucky fluke.

Define intelligence? No, don't bother, thats a different subject but what I mean is that intelligence is equated to anything with a brain. People used to say to me that a fish only has a limited memory span of approx 30 secs therefore it cannot learn anything.

I, as an Aquarist, ridicule that statement. I work in an Aquarists, on the IT side. Until recently we had a Giant Gourami in the shop which was being trained by me to recognise me, it was quite easy really. Everytime I walked past him I would stop and rub on the glass. Eventually he would come to the front of the tank when I appeared without my rubbing the glass. This indicates a form of memory. Then, once he was doing this, I started to put my hand in the tank with some food. At first he was quite aggressive in going for the food so I would withdraw my hand and not feed him. Eventually, again, he saw reason and approached the hand bearing the food more slowly and got his just reward. Then after that I would put my hand in and stroke along the body of the fish. Eventually he accepted all three as part of OUR life. Call it intelligence, call it conditioning, but it implies both intelligence and memory.

[Ophiolite]

1.00 (both earth venus and mars had water so where somewhat capable not to mention europa, so basicly you could go +1 but due to the large amount of red dwards with little hab zones and the changes of extreme slow rotation with higher more massive stars [venus] I simply keep it at 1 optimistic?)
The key word in the statement is sustaining: capable of sustaining life. Sustaining life for the billions of years it will take to lay the groundwork for intelligence. Maintaining equilibrium conditions in the face of stellar fluctuations, orbital eccentricities, bolide impacts, nearby supernovae, etc. Just too damned difficult. We were lucky to get the moon. We were lucky to get Jupiter where it is. We were lucky to be within the sun's Goldilock's zone for 4.5 billion years (Gaia not withstanding). Luck, all the way. 0.00001 is much more realistic.

[Saquist]

It's actually a goog chance that life as we know hasn't occured anywhere. It's even more unlikely we'll ever find out in the future. While we as curious stargazers make dream of such things...the catastrophies of our own world will likely prevent us from discovering the truth.

[Ophiolite]

I see you are back to pure opinions devoid of any supporting facts, Saquist..
I applaud your consistency.

[Saquist]

I applaud your pompous consistency.

It wasn't just luck. There are numerous factors almost to numerous to number lending credence that it's not a simple accident that the Earth is just in the right place...in the solarsystem...in a solitary star, in the right place in the galaxy.

[Ophiolite]

It is only the circumstance that makes me pompous.

[orcot]

The key word in the statement is sustaining: capable of sustaining life. Sustaining life for the billions of years it will take to lay the groundwork for intelligence. Maintaining equilibrium conditions in the face of stellar fluctuations, orbital eccentricities, bolide impacts, nearby supernovae, etc. Just too damned difficult. We were lucky to get the moon. We were lucky to get Jupiter where it is. We were lucky to be within the sun's Goldilock's zone for 4.5 billion years (Gaia not withstanding). Luck, all the way. 0.00001 is much more realistic.

Maintaining equilibrium conditions that's the big one. I'm not sure why you say that where lucky to have the moon though. I believe that the moon is a by product of when big planets form, Venus might not have a moon but it took one hell of a impact to make it's orbit retrograde I actually believe that Venus ones had a similar moon like our own but that it was in a much closer in a unstable orbit while the impact and the tides slowed venus down. Therefore I think that any planet that has enough mass to retain it's atmosphere for the long duration is going to have a serious change on having either a high orbit moon or a od rotation.

[Ophiolite]

The current theory for the formation of the moon, as you probably know, assumes the impact of a Mars sized planetesimal with the proto Earth. Around 10% of the debris throown into space by the collision rather rapidly coalesced to form the moon. Now in all the simulations of this there is a very small angle of incidence that leads to the formation of a sizeable moon. On that basis I consider that while the moon is not unique, it is very rare. Without it the Earth's revolution would be much less stable. Polar orientation would change dramatically, and I am less certain that with smaller tides that life would have left the oceans.

[trickster39]

It seems to me that with the possibly infinite space in the universe with the countless stars with the nearly countless planets that could possibly circle those stars that we are the only life in the universe. It seems that it would be foolish to assume that we are the only life on a planet that is just a small, insignificant rock in the vast universe. Now that is not to say that any life out there is intellegent or even aware of its own existence, but life is life no matter how you classify it. So I for one will say that I believe that there are other forms of life somewhere out there in the cosmos.

[orcot]

life is life but you can't compare something like one celled organism (that might life on mars) with something as advanced like ... wel terrestial life.

The current theory for the formation of the moon, as you probably know, assumes the impact of a Mars sized planetesimal with the proto Earth. Around 10% of the debris throown into space by the collision rather rapidly coalesced to form the moon.

I believe it was more like 1 percent,

[Science Contingencies]

There is a good chance that we will never be able to say that there is no life elsewhere in the universe and be certain. I think that there is or at least will be, was life somewhere else in the universe. Could just be like bacteria, fungus or anything really.

The question shoud have been "do you think(believe) there is life elsewhere in the universe.

Absolutely
I agree with the microbial outlook of extraterrestrial life.

Think, if you will, about the feasibility of self sustaining microorganisms that might have been displaced(a carl sagan idea). Is it likely that life could have adapted to an unsuitable environment in terms of its development?

Opinions Please.

[darksidZz]

Are woman living, cuz to me they seem like shadows :(

[Chatha]

"The problem is that we really don't know what the fuck life is, so we don't know what to look for when we get to mars and stuff"---some dude

[orcot]

true (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16516952/)

[Athelwulf]

Jody Foster says in answer to a question about meeting the Aliens in the film Contact and what would she ask them?

Answer: How did you manage to survive technology without killing yourselves off?

That's a good quote.

BTW: there is a narrow habitable zone in a galaxy. Closer to the center and there is too much radiation hostile to living creatures and many fast moving stars, preventing a stable solar system for the billion or so years required to develop the intitial simple life forms. Farther from the center and the interstellar gas clouds (from which solar systems are made) do not have enough of the heavy elements required by living creatures.

Wouldn't this only apply to life as we know it? For example, microwaves aren't terribly hostile to us (as far as I know), but it could possibly be hostile to another kind of life form. I admit that I don't know how common certain forms of radiation are, and it's very likely a matter of natural selection for the more common forms of radiation. But I hope you understand what I mean.

Our observable universe is estimated to be 1.3 x 10^10 years old and the number of stars are estimated to be 10^14. The probability against the random emergence of pre-Darwinian complexity for natural selection to begin is one chance in 10^40,000. The odds against life on more than one planet in our universe is nearly impossible.

Where are you getting these numbers?

you call 2 times a fluke?

Homo neanderthalensis and Homo sapiens are very closely related. One may consider their common ancestor — which I don't imagine to be much older than either species — a fluke.

Anyway the first one dissapeared 24,000 years ago humans only started with agriculture 1,1500 years ago.

11,500 years ago?

The conditions on earth are so perfect for life.

Life as we know it, yes.

It is difficult to imagine life on Mercury because it’s too hot and on Saturn because its too cold...

It's hard to imagine life as we know it in those areas.

we don't know how big the universe is perhaps we are the first people in it?

Maybe.

It wasn't just luck.

You may be right, depending on how you think of it.

There are numerous factors almost to numerous to number lending credence that it's not a simple accident that the Earth is just in the right place...in the solarsystem...in a solitary star, in the right place in the galaxy.

I think you're confusing cause and effect. We weren't meant to be here. This place wasn't prepared especially for us. If the conditions were different, we most likely would've evolved to fit those conditions. If our environment is the only one that can possibly support any kind of life, and somewhere else in the universe hosted this environment, "we" (but technically not "we") would've developed there instead.

I wonder if "we" would've raved about how perfect life is for "us" in that other place in the universe that it must not have been a mistake! :p