Is Earth The Only Planet With Life?

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.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

 

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?

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

 

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.

 

It is only the circumstance that makes me pompous.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

I believe it was more like 1 percent,

 

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.

 

Are woman living, cuz to me they seem like shadows

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!