Science and Society

I'd like to think there are more planets similar to ours. If we were the only ones, that would make the universe a pretty lonely place.

Another outstanding study on the improbability of life is The Privileged Planet. The book makes the case that not only is intelligent life exceedingly improbable, but also that the earth (and its atmosphere) just happen to be in the best place (and of the type - transparent, unlike atmospheres with more carbon which are much more common) in the universe to learn about ourselves and our universe. This scientific work, together with the exceeding improbability (or some say impossible) of complex life arising from macro evolution, is the basis of intelligent design.

I think it interesting that scientists believe that intelligence as a survival mechanism is somehow more successful than something like size, strength, or ferocity. Certainly, on an individual level, there is much to be said for it, but when an entire species comes to rely on it as humans have - it could well be our undoing. Different species of dinosaurs existed for millions of years, while H. sapiens has been around for about 100,000 years. I think it likely that any species developing intelligence has a high probability of self-extinction. We're likely to encounter many different versions of crocodiles and cockroaches.

The senses, knowledge and intelligence of man are limited, and therefore the instruments and calculations of man are also limited. We are as insects under a glass bowl on the kitchen table, and therefore should be humble enough to accept the ancient writings now available to us on our universe, why it even exists, and our purpose within it. Those writings are called collectively "The Vedas".

Well, if we only have about a billion years left before we fry, and we are most likely very alone, then that should alleviate any ethical concerns about Terra-forming potentially colonized planets. I say go after Mars first, it's next in line so when Earth gets too hot, Mars ought to be warming up nicely. Introduce some plant life and try and transfer some of Earths water to there before it evaporates and we could have a viable 2nd planet to call home. Then do the same for the next planet we find w/ similar circumstances as Earths', so as to perpetuate our species. I think that there is a reason we were endowed w/ intelligence...perhaps to eventually be masters of an empty (of life) universe. Perhaps we will be the ones to introduce life to other planets, and spread it throughout the galaxies. I'm a firm believer that everything, including our intelligence, has a purpose.

~ok...maybe I'm just drifting into sci-fi mode....but wouldn't that be awesome?

Lawrence is echoing Carl Sagan's idea that if we're indeed alone in the universe, it's a heck of a waste of space. Actually, given the vastness of space and the amount of "stuff" floating around therein, there's no reason why the odds would not permit life to exist somewhere. If here, why not in another corner?

Andy - I think we'll find that the universe is chock full of life. I just think intelligence is way overrated. It causes some of us "intelligent" beings to believe we're the sole cause for the existence of the universe.

It's not a question of where life might be... but when. Our star is but one of so many - all on different points of their life cycle. A civilization might have been around 1 million years ago... or might not be around until a million years from now (and the time scales here are probably more like billions). I think it's not where that is the hard question, when looking for a civilization like ours... but when. The odds of two worlds at the point where they could contact each other being around at THE SAME TIME is almost ZERO. We will not find anything - ever - and that's a real bummer.

With so many billion of stars, and so many galaxies, for as little the odd that might exist, there is a big a55 number for them to have chances.

i agree with a comment like benjalamelami's... but again, it's when. A civilization like ours could exist now... but if it's a million light years away (which is nothing in terms of cosmic distance) that means we wouldnt get a signal from them for a million years. SETI I think is cool - I just dont see it ever picking anything up. AT BEST, a very weak signal from a civilization that died millions of years ago... which in itself would still be amazing and probably the best anyone could hope for - as far as finding any kind of sign.

"Now comes Dr. Andrew Watson, a climate scientist at the University of East Anglia in Great Britain,"......a climate scientist.....I guess we start off with faulty methods right from the start. Despite his eqation I believe it to be matmatically impossible to be alone in the universe. If one goes by the big bang theory that all matter came from the same place, the fact that there are only a qazillion, qazillion suns out there it only stands to reason that certain forces are quite common in the creation (non-religious meaning) of these suns. The fact we are now finding planets around many suns also goes to this process. These materials that make up our universe can be formed in many ways but those materials are everywhere...just in different proportions.While there are still undiscovered materials out there, there is only a finite number of different material (building blocks). Given the size of our galaxy (billions and billions of stars) and the fact that there are millions if not billions of galaxies is would be extremely unlikely to the zillonth power that the same combination of elements does not exist elsewhere in this universal that would permit life. This is just a snap shot picture of the universe at this moment. The universe has been around for billions of years......a world could have easily developed and died out even before we as life on this planet ever got out of the soup. This is not to say we will ever locate it.....I'm just saying we aren't alone.....just lonely.

and here's another point... even though the milkyway has a hundred billion stars - perhaps only the outer stars are capable of supporting life - the middle of a galaxy is a very bad place to be. There are many more stars packed into a given space as you near the center of any galaxy - which means many more super novas... which means lots of energy frying planets. Earth is some 25,000 light years from the center of our galaxy... so maybe far less of the average galaxy can support life. maybe only the outer stars. and if that's the case we would probably never hear from stars on the other side of the galaxy - just too far away.

"In Search Of The White Crow"-all we need to find to negate the null hypothesis is one: more then us!
Which is why the martian meteorite was so exciting, even if it was just and only an extinct mini-microbe from long ago although not-so far away.
As it stands there is NO 'evidence' of life anywhere else in the universe which not only implies a 'terrible waste of space' a la Sagan but also a great many other things both philosophical and otherwise.
'If' this is it, the 1 and only show in reality, 'we' aren't being very conscientious stewards of the most precious jewell in existence.

Nor are we the shining star of this crown either-intelligence apparently being way over-rated if only because in 4 billion years it hasn't arisen or repeated very often. (Indeed most viruses and anaerobic life forms have gotten it so right from the very beginning that they haven't had to change/evolve very much since!)

But that's the rub and the excitement of the mystery. For life may be exceptionally rare or incredibly abundant. Liquid water, ammonia alternatives, silicon or germanium life or even 'consciousness' in swirling clouds of magnetized and ionized nebulas. (For what is OUR 'consciousness' except the EM patterns and flows of our synaptic interchanges?)

God only knows and isn't telling except for what we can glean on our own.

with time the truth will be known,we are not alone,never,check out how vast the universe,humans have not yet made it to mars the nearest planet,there are many questions to the answers,right now milky way,andrea are the universes we even cant tell about it all,tell me what you think,its just common sense.

I think the Earth is much more rare than most people seem to think. You have to be in just the right place, just the right size, have just the right type of other planets, just the right type of moon, just the right type of magnetic field... it goes on and on. Just consider that the seasons are caused by only a slight wobble in Earth's axis of rotation. A couple of degrees one way and everything freezes over, a couple of degrees the other way and everything bakes under sweltering sunlight. Its a VERY fine line indeed.

Everyone seems to assume that life can form only on Earth-like planets. Who says life has to be carbon-based?

Intellgent design is a fake science brought up by bible thumpers to try to provr thier is a god. Nothing more nothing less. What we need to do is look at the observations around us to get a good concept of what may be happening on other worlds. This study assumes that all life is a carbon based life forms and also assumes that all planets must meet earths critera for there to be life present. However I'm not saying thier isn't a god but there is alot more we don't know about the universe than we do. I for one don't think life's orgins started on this planet I think they were brought by a comet. Also I think we will find life on other moons/planets in this solar system once we get out more and find it. We need to fund NASA like it or not the key to human survial is to get off this rock.

The problem with Panspermia, Joe, is that it just pushes the 'origin' question back a step, and into a place we can't even see or get to.
But then as Catskill seems to assume earth and life are a razor edge proposition involving an incredible confluence of 'just right' conditions.

That may NOT be true-we just don't know enough yet. But what is known is that when life DID first come into being the conditions were far from the perfection mentioned. A hot planet with a HUGE moon (Just after it splashed loose it was VERY close!)and massive tides and maybe no magnetic field at all (yet) and a 'poisonous' atmosphere and NO ozone and a whole long list of conditions quite anti-thetical to what is 'assumed' as essential.

Both the drake equation and the new findings are based on too many unknowns to be useful. It requires guessing things - like what percentage of planets support life and what percentage of time planets exist that support life. Of course, there are probably a lot of planets, so that even a small percentage is a big number of planets with life like ours. But probably isn't science to me - and neither is the Drake equation or this. It is faith or belief, and this article will not change anyone's belief either way - in my opinion.

The surest sign that there is inteligent life out there is the fact that it is smart enough to not make itself know to us. When we stop destroying everything they may show up, or if they need help fighting something else.

Get off this rock! We know it isn't going to last forever, and if we want to live beyond our birth planet, then we have to find another place to go...or we all die. It's just that simple.

The problem is scientists are looking for life as we KNOW it. Suppose there is life as we DON'T know it? While rocks on Earth aren't alive, perhaps they are on another planet.

Isn't .01 percent still millions of planets?

I read Rare Earth and promptly threw it in the trash. Brownlee and Ward seem to think that the absence of an observation is proof that something is not possible. This is not how science works.

Ok, so there's little chance of their being life on another planet. But isn't it pretty much IMPOSSIBLE for earth to be the only planet that can support life??? Maybe there's a planet that supports life, but the beings there don't need air or water or something. But there is no possible way that we're the only planet that has life, sorry to say. And I agree with Don...

I think we might be able to answer that question sooner or later, if we are determined enough. We wouldn't have to look all that far, only 20 lightyears away. Gliese 581c and Gliese 581d.

Two planets that are within the star's habital zone and are deemed earth-like. As noted earlier, they are only 20 lightyears away, very very close.

The estimated temperatures of Gliese 581c are estimated to range between 32º and 104ºF, very comfortable and very very similar to earth.

Life could exist there pretty easy. Could we? Probably not - their gravity is stronger due to having more mass. It is said it is only 50% larger than us but 5 times more massive.

For some fun - the Superman movies that aired on tv broadcast 25 or so years ago should have reached them. You know, the whole red sun planet (Krypton) and comming to a yellow sun planet (Earth) and having super power thing.

I believe there is life on other planets, and think that it is selfish of man to think that we are the only ones. Who says that those life forms must be human-like? Are the people of this planet as a whole ready to accept that there is other life elsewhere? Are they intellectually ready to actually meet intelligent beings from another planet and converse with them?With so many unwilling and not ready to accept that there is a God, how can they be ready to accept beings possibly many millions or billions of years more advanced than we are?

My personal opinion differs. I even disagree with Professor Hawking on this topic. I say that over the coming years the following will be evident, even more evident than they are now:

1. As the resolution of telescopes improves it will turn out that nearly every star has its own system of planets. I base that on the fact that with our limited abilities now, most stars that we can look at closely enough and given that many systems of planets will be tilted at an angle relative to us that we can't detect the wobble in their parent starsugeests this statement as likely true.

2. Nearly all of these systems of planets will have at least one planet, or system of moons around a planet in a zone with liquid water.

3. Forming planets as they cool upon reaching the correct temperature spawn life fairly rapidly. I base this opinion on the idea with the fact that trillions of chemical reactions occur in even a small amount of water per second. Any substantial mass with the correct energy inputs and chemical composition should again fairly rapidly produce the useful building blocks that will be used for life.

4. Even if life under the right conditions is very unlikely, the number of chances for it to occur suggests that the probability is close to 1.

5. Once life and the competition for resources begin, the probability of intelligent life eventually is also nearly 1.

6. Dr. Hawking when asked if there is intelligent life in the Milky Way did not answer that question. He stated that it is unlikely that there is life within a few hundred light years of Earth. This I also question for several reasons. We might not be all that interesting to people that might be even say 100 million years more advanced than we are. Also, if one examines the direction of technology, they could probably make certain that we could not detect them if for some reason that did not want to be seen. Furthermore, the fastest idea that we forsee in the future that is as certainty for interstellar travel will be matter-antimatter engines. If that is all there is then space travel may be very expensive, rare and slow.

7. The statement that SETI has detected nothing means nothing. We may currently think that we have been studying the correct wavelengths of clear communication between the stars, but that might be wrong, or an intelligent species may learn that to advertise their presence might be a bad idea.

Those are just for starters some things to comtemplate. Just as one last thought: Since intelligent life in some sence exists here it is more probably typical, because it happened at all, than atypical which alone begs the interesting question: how typical is life? ...so let's go find out!

I read a few years ago that if our own instruments were aimed at earth they could only pick up our stray signals from 100 light years away. Only 100 light years away. So if life at our level is out there it needs to be within 100 light years. That's nothing.

I beleive God made our planet special and that there are no more like it in the universe. He truly is awesome!

Life is very rare?

No kidding? Try "impossible".

Life is a creation in itself. We have millions of such life forms to account for each one of which is an impossibility.

Evolution did not make any of these life forms. Who did? You don't suppose it was God do you? You know, the One that visited us and took our sins on Himself, carried them away, forgave us and sent us His Spirit of truth to convince us of everything (sin righteousness and judgment).

I find it inappropriate for a scientific forum to be used to espouse religious testimonials.
Don't get me wrong here. I value deeply held religious beliefs.
I with humility ask writers to consider that the direction of a scientific forum should be science. Advancing one's religion or feeling the need to shout out "The good word" is off topic. There are many excellent avenues to pursue one's religion instead of disrupting scientific discussion.
Now, addressing those that feel passionately that all forums are appropriate to show the exuberence of their beliefs, let's understand that scientific discussion is not here to discount your beliefs. We don't know mathematically how the universe came to be or exactly how it is constructed yet. We are simply pursuing the mathematics to completely understand it..and it is likely that we will.
Not today or tomorrow, but with persaverance in the future we will understand.
If one is one is feeling that religious discussion is obligatory in all forums, I will be happy to hear your thoughts but tranferred to a religious discussion group, not here.

Respectfully,
Zachary L. Pesold

I have great difficulty imagining how humans would decide which off-Earth creatures were intelligent. For a life form that uses pheromones to communicate, we would seem very noisy and stupid. The data is not all in about all the creatures that live HERE. Learn to speak Elephant or Whale. They might surprise you with what they think of us. They DO think. We have intelligent life right here that we don't bother with at all. Why should anywhere else be any different.

(Quote)I think that there is a reason we were endowed w/ intelligence...perhaps to eventually be masters of an empty (of life) universe. Perhaps we will be the ones to introduce life to other planets, and spread it throughout the galaxies. I'm a firm believer that everything, including our intelligence, has a purpose.

~ok...maybe I'm just drifting into sci-fi mode....but wouldn't that be awesome?(Quote)

Yes, the human race is intelligent to a degree, but right now we are in a "diseased state" so to speak, and no I don't think to spread our intelligence throughout the universe in this "diseased state" we are in would be a good thing at all. It would be when we are cleansed of the disease. By "diseased state" I mean that this world we are presently living in is evil, and man is being held captive by it. There is so much hatred, murder, theft, lying, greed, illness, cheating, ignorance, etc., and not nearly enough love and compassion. It is a cold and cruel world, and this would definitely not be a good thing to spread around the universe. When we are cleansed of this then yes the intelligence God gave us will be a wonderful thing to teach, but not until then.

If Science wanted to get at the facts, they could get there so much faster if they placed more value on the historical record found in Scripture.

It is clear and obvious to me that there is absolutely no evidence to support evolution. I could have told you that life on other planets was mathematically impossible (without a Creator) without the use of a high powered computer.

Scientists are just not being realistic and they are not facing the facts because of their preconceived beliefs in a false belief and teaching called evolution. It is the same false teaching that is forced on children in our public schools.

There is nothing wrong with teaching history that was actually written down by reliable historians. And the Bible has proven to be very reliable.

As a species this makes a big difference when it comes to our perspective of the future. As individuals it is irrelevant since our perceptive life span is typically less than 100 years. Our individual motivators for the future have always been in what our posterity will add upon what we have accomplished. If we are not already a creation of another species then we have the potential to become the creators or ancestors of new ones. Sound familiar?

.....God did a good thing......

Just look at how many different life forms there are on this planet alone. Life it seems, grows like a weed, in abundance and varied extremely. Especially the insect world...look how many species of insects there are and how different they appear. I can see why some who've claimed to have had a close encounter of the third kind say, "They look like bugs!"

I believe given the smallest chance, life flourishes throughout the universe. It is highly probable there are many planets with intelligent 'bugs'.

Debbie,

Who says the Bible is reliable? I don't believe that the evidence supports that position. The Bible, when read from an Aramaic (Jesus' native language) translation, sounds very different than the King James version spouted by the Bible thumpers. Any linguist can tell you that you need to be careful of any "literal" interpretation. Even English is "literally" different than when the King James version was translated. As the saying goes, "It's the thought that counts." Jesus has no specific opinion on creation. It's all in the Old Testament.

This calculation is very significant. This is what we Creationists have been saying all along. Life is, for all intents and purposes, impossible without having a Creator. Of course this is exactly what our historical record has been saying for thousands of years as well.

Well, we should have a better idea in just a few years. And based on actual observation. Both NASA and the ESA have missions planned to image the light of earth sized worlds out to 40 ly. If they detect large amounts of oxygen and water vapor in an atmosphere, there is a good chance for life as we know it as our atmosphere's composition was created by biology. Within 20 years we should have some idea of how common these places are in our neighborhood.

Why is everyone stuck on this idea that life can only exist given the conditions on earth? Any given race of being can evolve to meet the surroundings it is put into. case and point is the fish and life at extreme depths in the ocean. nothing like the rest of the fish. If a plant presents other factors and building blocks of life then there could be a chance that a life form that needs no water and no oxygen to survive could exist. Humans some time are to vain to see out side the box. maybe time we start to think this way and stop thinking that are so special. Perhaps if everyone intrested in this topic would assist NASA to get the funding they need desperately (ie lobbing your elected officials) we could better understand these things.

This calculation is very significant. This is what we Creationists have been saying all along. Life is, for all intents and purposes, impossible without having a Creator. Of course this is exactly what our historical record has been saying for thousands of years as well.

PQQAm: so your god can only create life on one planet?

Fascinating subject. Gary Renard's book "The disappearance of the universe"
is a must read when searching for answers.

How can anyone possibly calculate the chance of life elsewhere?

In ANY scientific experiment, you need more than 1 observation (Our Planet) to make any kind of hypothesis. All these assumptions are just that, assumptions without having any kind of data to support it. They do not even know if life exists, or existed on Mars, and Mars is right next to us.

Of course, they also don't take into consideration, that there are over 400 Military and Intelligence officers, doctors, physicists, law enforcement agents, corporate insiders, who are willing to testify before congress, that contact has already been made, but has been hidden for national security reasons.

Here is the problem with the pesimistic views described in this article. They assume the number of stars and planets as fixed in time. If the universe (or other universes) have existed in an infinite amount of time before NOW then the possibility that intelligent life has existed on planets other than Earth is 100 percent.

Our planet could only be "rare" if there were a relatively small universe with a relatively small number of galaxies. This is not the case. Here is an analogy. Let's say we cure old age, so no one ever grows old or dies from age related disease. Does this mean we will live forever? NO. There is a 100% chance you will die either by accident or some unpredicted event. The larger the number involved, the closer to 100% you get. We really need to find other intelligent life out there so we can get over our childish, egocentric and selfish view of the universe and ourselves.

This is all nothing but conjecture. It's an educated guess, yes, but a guess, nonetheless. We don't yet even know the limit of our own universe. How far does it go? We don't know! How many galaxies are there? They keep going & going! To date, more than 500,000 galaxies have been discovered! Scientists estimate there are 100 billion galaxies in the visible universe. Our galaxy alone contains around 100 billion stars. That's a LOT of stars people! The question is not whether extraterrestrial life exists anywhere else in the universe besides this planet. The question should be will we be able to search the billions of galaxies in our universe with reasonable sufficiency to find life before it or we ourselves become extinct.

I think it's pretty darned funny that we use ourselves as the poster child for intelligent life.

Can you prove that assumption? I can present a darn good counter argument.

Any intelligent species would not point to itself and grunt and use that vague impression to define both of those terms in one swelled grunt.

Repeatedly we set test definitions send probes and declair the results invalid because the results were positive.

I bet they can't even define intelligent in any meaninful way.

I know that they cannot define life.

The real question is: Is there intelligent life in the universe?

Would YOU want to contact the people of this rock? I know I wouldn't.

I want to respond to this comment:

I read a few years ago that if our own instruments were aimed at earth they could only pick up our stray signals from 100 light years away. Only 100 light years away. So if life at our level is out there it needs to be within 100 light years. That's nothing.

I think this is outmoded. We are a couple years away from the Webb space telescope, which can not only detect earth-like planets at a great distance, but can also do spectroscopic analysis of the reflected light, which would permit one to detect an oxygen-nitrogen atmosphere, which we now know is a signature of life. My point is that an equally intelligent civilization could use the same technology to find us from a great distance, assuming their biology was roughly comparable to ours. The fact that none have made contact now seems to suggest they are not out there -- much more so than when we believed they'd only find us when our radio signals reached them.

If we are the only lifeforms with intelegence (and who realy knows) maybe it our job (humans) to populate the universe. Let's face it, the worlds resourse will run out way before a billion yeras has past. Unless thats how life works. We all become extinct then another species evolves millions of years later once oil and minerals have been restored. But once the sun fries Earth its all over, we have to get off before then.

I believe that the human race is still at the "stone knives and bearskin" level of knowledge. We are still unable to get along with our own kind, much less reach out to the stars. I see little hope for the human species.

However, I also believe the Universe is teaming with life, intelligent life with civilizations that are probably homogenous in nature and "get along" with themselves. They explore and seek raw material in their travels. I also believe the US Gov't knows much more than they want to share with the public in this regad.

Well,
It is rather small of humans to think(?) that they could be the only beings to exist. I'm saying if we exist, why can't they . And if they do, they may have not developed to our level of thought, or, as some have said, smart enough not to let their existance be known to us.....

I read an interesting book once about space exploration and man's desire to explore the Universe. The writer quoted the distances between the earth and the moon and then the distances between the planets in our solar system to us. He went on to quote the distances between our solar system and other solar systems, as well as the distance between our galaxy and our closest neighbour - the Andromeda galaxy. He came to the conclusion that the distances between all of the other solar bodies and our own seemed to be no accident. He also concluded that the distances between us and them could be likened to a fish in a glass fishbowl. We can see out but we are PREVENTED from leaving our planet. He also concluded that the phenomenal distances between our planet and other solar bodies ENSURED that we would never leave our home planet Earth. In other words, we are being prevented from leaving this planet because we are a destructive species, whose own planet is testimony to that fact, and that we are NOT BEING ALLOWED TO GO ANY FURTHER THAN THE MOON. I can hear all the gasps of disgust from those who believe that logic and research are far more reliable than the idea that something or someone could be responsible for preventing space exploration beyond the moon. But I agree with the writer. Not only because of the distances between our planet and the others but the fact that we are most certainly a danger to any planet or species outside of our home environment of the Earth. If I were responsible for creating this Universe, I would make sure that human beings would never be able to travel beyond the moon physically (and with great difficulty)except in the form of a mechanical device fashioned from his own mind. The whole exercise of creating such devices would teach its inventor about the immensity of the Universe and his frustration at trying to understand its existence while reeling from astonishment at its complexity. I would never allow a human being to contaminate any other world but allow them to seek other ways to go there without putting the rest of the Universe at risk. Not even a logical scientific brain could deny that they would put in the same kind of measures if faced with a "dangerous organism". In light of that, I am of the firm belief the mankind are going nowhere, and will still be sitting on this rock in a hundred years times, if we haven't destroyed our beautiful earth before then. That's my opinion of course, but food for thought, huh?

Seems to me that assumptions like those of Dr Watson and friends are what they are - assumptions.
Just as much as the Drake equation is.

There is no reason that intelligent life had to develope in conditions similar to earths. It's quite likely that there have been, are, and will be advanced civilizations through the universe. Asside from the narrow time range any given environment is likely to be hospitible for developing life, the physical distances are enormous... Warp and hyper space drives are just scifi at this point. What are the odds that they are not possible?

Anyway, if you want to see intelligent alien life, just wait another 100 years and see what our biotech industry is putting out.... It'll be just as alien to earth as any Vulcan or Ewok.

Do we have a hundred years? The last time I read a newspaper, the world's top scientists were saying that we had 10 years to reverse global warming before it would be "irreversible". And since then, I have heard that the timeframe is now thought to be 7 years. That being the case, it would seem highly appropriate for the scientific community to channel all their intelligence into saving this planet. Forget about going to Mars. Forget if there are other alien peoples somewhere out there. There isn't another planet in our solar system that can sustain human life. Planet Earth is what matters. No self-respecting alien would bother to come to this planet to interact with the human race. We would probably nuke them or steal whatever technology or incredible advancements they have made before murdering them. Let's stick with what we know, and not with what we don't know. No-one knows if there are any other life forms out there, and if they're there, they're not making any effort to contact us. So, forget all this endless debate about the existence of aliens and concentrate on what matters most - our own beautiful unique blue bubble called Earth.

Well, he doesn't rule out life all together. And, if life does exist, wouldn't it follow the rules of evolution?
If so, then if life and evolution then the possibility of intelligent life.

The only way this rule would not be in effect is if there is no, remote possibility that life could exist in the universe other than earth.

I find these types of observations to be narrow minded considering the immensity of the universe and the matter it contains. I would never propose such an assumption.

Why would life have to follow the rule of evolution? Evolution is a theory put forth by a man who claimed that there would be sufficient fossil evidence to prove that human beings emerged from primates to homosapiens, so to speak. to date, we have millions of fossil specimens in Universities and Museums around the world and still NO MISSING LINK. How long ago did Darwin make that assertion? Over 150 years ago, and still no missing link. In all honesty, if his assertion about man's alleged evolution were true and substantiated, then one could reliably say that life could come into existence on other planets, in exactly the same way. I see no proof, to date, of his assertions. In a hundred years time, when more scientific FACTS come to light about our TRUE ORIGINS, people will back at our generation with amusement because of the BLIND FAITH that our the majority of the learned and scholarly figures of the last two centuries have placed on such a theory proposed by Charles Darwin. Facts, not assumptions, are the order of true science.

I think we should be careful about wanting to contact other life forms on other planets or galaxies...What if just one of these can be as cruel and as inhumane as we have been in our history...they would come right over as and turn us into their slaves...they would kill those that did not represent their ideal of a perfect race...they would take our women and implant them with their own sperm to ensure their own survival...Are we sure we want to contact these other intelligent beings?...Why do we imagine they would be so nice?...We have sent out probes into space with inscriptions on how to find our planet amongst the galaxies...and with information on what we look like and even samplings of some of our voices and music...I am not so sure this is a good idea...I am all for the advancement of science and the human race...but we do need to be careful how we do it...I am sure as kids some of us saw an ant hill and sprayed it with Raid to poinson the ants not thinking anything of it...and then set it ablaze just to see the little ants pot and fry to a crisp...did we even ponder to try and communicate with the ants first?...No-oooooo!...Same Thing!...In comparison to their own advancement...i.e. being able to detect us and transport themselves to our own planet with little effort...they may view us as interesting little creatures with no feelings intelligence or value...so why not take their own version of a can of Raid and spray us...just to see what happens...Think about that scientists and philosophers!!!!

It's kind of silly for Watson to even pursue the study at this point. We are only just now on the verge of detecting earth sized worlds and figuring out the composition of their solar systems.

Then we will have actual hard numbers.

Push the button Locke!

Almost every week there is a report (on coast2coast) of a UFO someplace in America. So there must be other life out there just watching us. Eventually they will make contact, if we don't kill them first.

I have a hard time reading some of the creationism posts on this topic. Stating that we are all created in "god's" image and there is no solid evidence of Darwin's theory or any type of evolution. I just laugh at this because these people must not be reading anything by any palentologist in the last 50 years. The fossil record is almost filled out on the human side and there is no more missing link argument. Try being involved in scientific fact a little more and less in a story that was written 2000 years ago. The bible has been translated several times and basically rewritten to fill the needs for more converts by the churches. Churches are also businesses!

It was only a very few short years ago that we found out life on EARTH could exist and thrive without benefit of sunlight.

It was a real long time ago that we thought the Earth was the center of the universe.

AND it was a very very few years ago that we even detected the first planet outside our solar system.

So in the billions upon billions upon billions of stars we are incredibly arrogant if we think we are so special as to have this entire universe to ourselves.

I will tell you why we may never seethem they know man kinds first thought will be to try to eat enslave or just plan kill it the people is why we will never see aliens

science is not anti god , it just deals in facts only . not belief systems that exist only on persistent variables that can many opposing solutions at the same time . like a room can be light and dark at the vary same time . a belief system is based on things never possible or provable. any answer can be right and wrong at the same time depending on argument . the fact that it requires a belief proves it's not true or else it can be demonstrated . they refuse what is already proven to prove their point . fact is our existence is the result of many accidents to get to this level of smarts . many astroids have proteins , some combined into the right . combination for life . so that is there . we may well be the result of that seeds planted in fertile ground . to have a condition like this is the result of a very delicate balance . the right sun, the right distance from it , the right temp so the universal solvent is in solution . chemicals too hot over react chemicals too cold don't interact at all .NOT EASY . this helps to make all this far and few between . as it is our place is in trouble as the sun is getting larger do to loss of mass and will engulf the earth in a billion years or so . we know when we will all die now . to me its sad . this is a terrible loss . in time we will be completely erased save for the rockets that went to space . not only that andromada and milky way have an appointment . OUTCH ! everything is soooo far apart the outlook is not good . see --- we are of the universe , the universe is not of us . no believing is required . just the fact mam . just the facts . we ought to be looking for a new home . and hope we have enough time , its a BIG problem if anyone cares . fuel is limited to the energy in particles . that being a large amt is still a finite amount .can't get 2 gal milk out of a 1 gal container no matter what .the reason we wont go faster than light is that there is no material with enough energy to push enough . light is a particle . 4# of light hit the earth each day . it is expelled with the available energy at hand and does the best it can . with a space ship's weight not a chance . best we can do will be about 25% light . so to start thinking on this is good but --- oh well

Some good speculations and more facts then some Jim, though I'd addendum them a bit.
True, the sun will inevitably brighten in a billion years but it won't actually ENGULF the earth for about 3-5 billion years from now-when the sun experiences the helium flash from its ash and becomes a red giant. (And lets hope WHEN Betelgeuse goes SUPER-nova 'soon' it won't have too adverse an effect on earth since that red supergiant is less then a thousand light years away!)
Still, a lot can happen in a billion years-or not!
Recall the Cambrian Explosion was 'only' about 600,000,000 years ago when life went from single cells to everything we see and are today. (Though for 3 billion years BEFORE that single cells were IT!)
Considering the pace and implications of research and discoveries it's still not known what's possible even as others might pontificate about what's IM-possible because Leviticus didn't discuss it.
F'rinstance, should the Higgs Boson be created its study could help define what's possible and why as regards the limits of Newton's 2nd and 3rd laws.
Inertia and momentum are determined by them after all and they determine the physics of space travel.

But then as another thread indicated there are sufficient Luddites and their ilk who would eschew such studies as either blasphemous or too frightening to pursue for their comfort levels of timidity and ignorance.
Early research in electricity and magnetism shocked people-literally-it woulda/shoulda been banned way back then by the 'logic' prevailing in some today!

And of course all this is assuming there's something useful and revelatory to yet know and that we all don't return to the caves with the next political crisis.

keith
You may be right, I suppose that exploration teams will have to inclue an archaeologist to look for signs of past civilizations. If there is life on a planet that we land on we will have to make sure that we dont make the same mistakes as the european explorers made, spreading disease and taking advantage of less advanced cultures.