Arbogast

I dunno amigo...

I only speculate, I am not suggesting we are the product of careful breeding by aliens.

But, suppose we are but a low level intelligent creature in the local neighborhood, and although aliens are all over, they dont spend much time in our solar system because it doesnt have a suitable habitat.

They might find it important to weed out a species that if left unmolested will become troublesome when it becomes technological. Or, that our planets biology at certain times is altered by microbes from a passing alien ship.

I would consider these not extremely likely, but likely enough to consider as our technology improves.

Fiach

That is begging the question, of what started life on Earth or elsewhere. All of this Alien rubbish is based on no evidene. It is pseudoscience, what on the street we call bullshit.

We need to investigate how living forms arises from naturally forming replicating molecules to form cells. We don't know that yet. Genuine real science will answer the question, not superstition or Tabloid alien bollocks will just keep people from understanding real science and contributing to the already serious lag in science literacy in America compared to Europe.

Fiach

Wounded King

What are you trying to Say, Arbogast? That as soon as we reach a cetain technological level the Greys are going to sweep down and atomise the planet?

That sounds dreadfully pessimistic. Im sure that once we get cold fusion and perpetual motion sorted out the Greys will come down and welcome us into the galactic brotherhood, this will probably involve rolled trouser legs and funny handshakes.

Arbogast

Arent the Greys that part of the UFO whacko theory???

"I dont buy any UFO or alien story I have ever seen or heard of. "
I quote myself here...


What I am saying is the following as a reasonable theory, not as proven fact or anything definite. But it is a reasonable theory that
a. Life is common in the Universe
b. There are a great many intelligent species
c. Interstellar Colonization is a relatively simple trick given time and a higher technology.
d. Given the long period of time of the universe, there has been ample time for species to have spread over great distances.
e. That it is a short leap to then theorize that we are surrounded by alien civilization(s), but that we are an isolated backwater planet.

Due to our near total lack of knowledge of such matters, due to low technological level in space exploration, we know next to nothing. If one is honest, they would have to concede we dont know if their is an alien prescence in our solar system and nearby stars. In fact, all you could say about an alien prescence in our solar system is that

a. It doesnt exist at all or
b. It is unobtrusive to us
c. If aliens are in the solar system, it is not inconcievable that their prescence has affected the biology of earth.
d. The evidence is clearly in favor of either no aliens or aliens that are not affecting the earth in obvious ways. Greys and Roswell Stories are ridiculous. But that doesnt really matter much.

It is merely an article of faith that there is no alien prescence in our solar system, albeit not an insane opinion like the UFO whackos propose.

I concede this, it is an article of faith to me, that MOST LIKELY mankind is NOT the most advanced civilization in our region of the stellar neighborhood, and the reason we dont have aliens all over our solar system is that it is not the correct ecological niche, and we dont know about them cause we probably arent real interesting to them.

Wounded King

I think the question of how reasonable your theory is is decidedly open to debate.

There is, obviously, no evidence pointing to the existence of any extraterrestrial intelligence. As such it is pure speculation on your part as to the likelihood and prevalence of even life alone arising in the galaxy, let alone intelligent life.

You say

But in fact it means quite a lot. It means that all your talk of microbes on passinf spaceships, and our insignificance in the galxy and so forth is pure moonshine without a shred of evidence to back it up.

As the man says Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, at the moment your theories seem to have absoloutely no proof. It is quite simple to demonstrate that the world is roughly spheroid, Eratosthenes had done so, and estimated its circumference, using trigonometry at least a hundred years BCE.

The belief in a flat earth, as with modern creationist beliefs, had more to do with culture and the sheer stupidity of what is often called "common sense" than with a lack of evidence. Every tall masted ship which sailed to sea was evidence of the earths curvature.

Arbogast

No, I am a fence sitter with prejudice in the direction that we arent the top of the food chain most likely.

The human species is 99.999% blind as to what goes on beyond our little rock.

The claim that there are no aliens is equally extraordinary.

Both claims are going to need extraordinary proof before they are acceptable.

The claim that there are no aliens in the stellar neighborhood is based upon almost zero evidence. So is the claim that there are aliens in the stellar neighborhood.


We are in a similar situation to a Neanderthal looking out over the Atlantic, and claiming we know what is beyond the horizon. All claims are speculation. I am on the side (as an act of faith), with the Neanderthal who thinks there must be more than we can possible imagine out beyond the horizon.

Secular Pinoy

The rare earth hypothesis might be the best inference for the paucity of evidence of intelligent aliens.

Fiach

It is a big universe. I am one who thinks the earth is not a rare accident but rather a likely situation. With billions of billions of stars, some have planetary systems (some 40 are known now). Some systems have more than one planet. In a groups of planets, say 6 or more, there is a good chance one of them is the right distance from its star to be in the liquid water zone or biozone. How many is speculation, anywhere from 10 to 10 billion.

Fiach

Godot

Grade A manure it most definitely is, but the question as to the origins of life being extraterrestrial is moot. Irrespective of where they came from or how they came to be here, once here, life forms are subject to the whims and vagaries of natural selection.

I agree with the sentiments on the role of science, but I have two questions here:
1) what (in your opinion) qualifies as "genuine real science", and how is it to be distinguished from the background noise?
and
2) The sentence before that one (investigating how living.... blah, blah, blah) is a bit constipated. Could you please be kind enough to smooth it out for my feeble mind? thanks

Fiach

We need to investigate how living forms arises from naturally forming replicating molecules to form cells. We don't know that yet.

We have some tantalising but inconclusive evidence. There are pre-Cambrian fossils of intracellular organelle appearing things not in cells. Mitochondria contain DNA and could represent a simple proto-cell. It is present in cells where it preforms respiration for the cell (Kreb's anaerobic cycle) and makes some proteins. It also has DNA called "Maternal DNA" "cytoplasmic DNA".

Genuine real science will answer the question, not superstition or Tabloid alien bollocks will just keep people from understanding real science

Genuine and real are redundant aren't they. But remember English is my third language. Scottish is my primary, and Gaelic my secondary.

Real Science means following either testing methods in a protocol that can test short time events like Na+ with Cl- forming table salt. But events over a long time scale are studied by collection large amounts of evidence, preferably from various sources. In the case of evolution: fossils, fossil anatomic comparisons, fossil dating, dating corroborated by other chronological methods. Those data sourses are sea-floor spreading rates (tectonic plate movement and continental drift 2cm per year) which back dated by the velocity of separation of Brazil from Africa is 240 million years. Rocks with Lystrosaurus fossils on both sides of the sea coast where the continents split, are 240 million years old by isotope dating. That is extremely accurate on such a time scale.

When we compare the fossil anatomy of various life forms at timed periods we can trace out a family tree from the Cambrian 500 million years ago to now. It is not that different from Genaeology. The traces as we go back, intersect at a common point, and the new trace intersects with another common point millions of years earlier until the lines (branches converge). When you put it all together it is a convincing picture of our family tree. It is hard science but complex enough for many not to understand it. We have approximately 4000 transitional forms despite fundamentalists claiming that there are no "missing links."

Now we have genetic data, with the genomes of a number of animals including us. We have found that our human genomes still retain the ancient genes for a notochord from Pikaia in the Burgess Shale Cambrian deposits in Western Canada. We have genes for gills, tail, and other structures long discarded. Our genome is a textbook of evolution. When we got that data in 2000 CE, it put the icing on the cake of the FACT of EVOLUTION.

I don't know if I answered your question, clearly.

Fiach