Not trying to offend anyone here or anything, but isn't the thought that we're alone kinda ignorant? I mean, the universe is relatively infinite, so how would it make sense if life was only on Earth?
That predator would also be considered life, no?Serving UpSmiles said:You do realize our entire existince as the human race is a once in a trillion chance right? If some predator murdered the first homo sapians (apes) We wouldn't have survived all these years.
I think you're not optimistic enough. You're assuming that life can only exist on earth-like planets.Velvo said:Considering the number of Earth-like planets that Kepler has already found in it's rather short search of the galaxy, I am optimistic about complex life on other planets.
I mean, since there's organic matter just floating out there in the cosmos in absolutely staggering amounts like, for instance, that massive cloud of drinking alcohol which would last earthlings for billions of years, wouldn't it be a shame if no-one but us could get tanked on it?
Perhaps we won't find that UFOs are aliens (they're time travelers, I'm sure of it!) and perhaps the only life we find under the ice of Enceladus will be the lonely bug in the submersible we send, but if it's possible, and we know it is (vis a vis, Earth), it has to exist somewhere else too. Or maybe we are just ABSURDLY unlucky. That would be one hell of a torment, to be the ONLY life ANYWHERE. Chances are low on that, methinks.
You're going to have to elaborate on this, I appear to have missed out on the scientific discovery of the century somehow.TheFederation said:hate to say it, but we've already discovered microspopic organisms on mars...
Not quite- that discovery was reported very inaccurately (a more cynical view might be "dishonestly") by the media. What they actually discovered was that a species of extremophile can use arsenate instead of phosphate in small sections of their DNA backbone, but only when they're placed in an artificially high concentration of arsenic for a long time. It's still exciting stuff, but it's incorrect to say that the species in question is "arsenic based".NASA has found arsenic based life forms, meaning that life can evolve without hydrogen.
sigh, somehow i saw this coming,yes you are correct our knowledge is definitely not complete, but the drake equation is our best guess with what we have and as we learn more we add or subtract to the equation. it was never intended as a be all end all on the existence of alien life but its a step in the right direction.falconsgyre said:I see your Drake equation, and raise you Xkcd. [http://xkcd.com/384/] We don't know shit about the universe. Any speculation on the last 5 constants may be completely unwarranted. What if they're on the order of 10[sup]-80[/sup] or so?Nerdstar said:i believe there's life out there as to whether its "advanced or not i don't know but given the vastness of space i find in REALLY unlikely that were the only living things cling to a ball of rock and mud, so enter the drake equation
N = N* fp ne fl fi fc fL
N = the number of civilizations in our galaxy with which communication might be possible;
and
R* = the average rate of star formation per year in our galaxy
fp = the fraction of those stars that have planets
ne = the average number of planets that can potentially support life per star that has planets
f§¤ = the fraction of the above that actually go on to develop life at some point
fi = the fraction of the above that actually go on to develop intelligent life
fc = the fraction of civilizations that develop a technology that releases detectable signs of their existence into space
L = the length of time for which such civilizations release detectable signals into space
as long as there's any number there larger than zero there's a possibility of life (whether we find it or not is another story)