Oldest fossils ever found suggest life in the universe is common

[Kalis]

Whether or not we (life on Earth) are alone in the universe is an unknown.

One of the beauties of science is that “We don’t know” is a perfectly acceptable answer, it is often followed by “So let’s find out” and is a driver of scientific understanding.

[khalltusk]

Life starting early on a planet doesn't necessarily mean life is easy to start. It may mean that IF life starts, it does so early (after which the conditions necessary for life to start become uncommon).

Another possible scenario is that life can spread between very young planetary systems when they are still packed together in their birth cluster (with thousands of systems per cubic parsec). In this case, IF life arises early on one planet, it can then spread to thousands of others. Even if life is uncommon, this multiplication effect could greatly increase the fraction of lifebearing planets where life "started early".

I like this last scenario, since it allows there to be potentially thousands of lifebearing planets in our galaxy, about the same age as Earth, but without running into the Fermi paradox.

- - - Updated - - -



We've found plenty of bones of species that are alive today, and buried ones too. As we go back in time, the fossils diverge from what's alive now.



Actually, it's because evolution makes all sorts of predictions that, if they were falsified, would rule out the theory, while at the same time providing explanations for mountains of evidence.

This is in contrast to the "God did it!" theory, which makes no testable predictions that could falsify it (and is therefore useless).



The Big Bang theory also makes testable predictions, and is the only plausible natural explanation of much evidence. There is no other way to get the Cosmic Background Radiation without the universe having one been much denser and hotter, for example.



Your choice is based on willful ignorance, it seems.

With regards to the CBR was it not that at first it was found that many stars were red shifted from us? This lead to the idea that if these stars in other galaxies were moving away from us then they originally had to be much closer. Which I think they then put forward the idea of the big bang and later found out about the cosmic back ground radiation left over from that event which helped provide more evidence for the big bang.

Basically we stumbled upon it as the previous idea was a static universe that lasted for ever or something.

[Osmeric]

You're either not a scientist or a really bad one if you really just called an opinion on an unproven theory wrong... Not only that but I didn't jump to a conclusion, I stated an opinion. I think, based on what we know, that thinking we are the only life in the universe is stupid. You might disagree which is perfectly fine but considering what we know about life and how little we know about the universe, if I had to make a bet I would bet on there being life out there somewhere. It might not be in a form we recognise but I'd still bet it was there.

That's the fun about theories, right or wrong it's still interesting when the result is proven. In this case Arthur C. Clarke sums it up pretty well.

“Two possibilities exist: either we are alone in the Universe or we are not. Both are equally terrifying.” ― Arthur C. Clarke

Sorry, you're still totally full of crap here.

Opinions on objective matters, as opposed to opinions on matters of personal preference, can indeed be wrong.

This opinion BS is just your way to weasel out of being called out for spouting a mathematically illiterate argument: that the universe being "really big" means life must exist out there.

[Draco-Onis]

Sorry, you're still totally full of crap here.

Opinions on objective matters, as opposed to opinions on matters of personal preference, can indeed be wrong.

This opinion BS is just your way to weasel out of being called out for spouting a mathematically illiterate argument: that the universe being "really big" means life must exist out there.

Both arguments have merits because to be fair humans are just too stupid to know if there is life in the universe. We have too many unknown variables to figure out maybe if we progress to the next phase without destroying our species but we are probably thousands of years away from having enough knowledge to know for sure.

[Osmeric]

With regards to the CBR was it not that at first it was found that many stars were red shifted from us? This lead to the idea that if these stars in other galaxies were moving away from us then they originally had to be much closer. Which I think they then put forward the idea of the big bang and later found out about the cosmic back ground radiation left over from that event which helped provide more evidence for the big bang.

Basically we stumbled upon it as the previous idea was a static universe that lasted for ever or something.

Right. Hubble found the red shift/distance correlation. Theoretically, solutions to the Einstein field equations (General Relativity) had produced expanding universes. Einstein had added a "cosmological constant" (basically, a constant of integration allowing multiple solutions to these equations) to make the universe static, but abandoned it after it was pointed out the static solution was unstable: slight over or under density would cause it to collapse or expand.

After this, and the discovery of the expansion, Einstein called the introduction of the cosmological constant his greatest mistake, but ironically, long after his death, observations have now indicated it is in fact nonzero (but is driving the universe to expand even faster.) So adding it wasn't a mistake at all.

The CBR requires the universe once have been hot and in thermal equilibrium with radiation (which it now is not) so that the CBR has a blackbody spectrum (which it does, to an incredible level of accuracy, better than laboratory blackbody sources can achieve.) There is no other way to get the CBR than by the Big Bang; red shift/scattering of light from current sources of radiation cannot do it. The discovery of the CBR killed the competing "Steady State" cosmology stone cold dead.

Ironically, the scientist who first came up with the idea that the universe was much denser, and had a finite age, was a Catholic priest. Although he didn't have the details quite right (he didn't make it hot enough) he had the basic idea. I think the fact he was a priest led to reluctance to accept the theory, as it was viewed as religious science. Of course, eventually the evidence won out.

[khalltusk]

Right. Hubble found the red shift/distance correlation. Theoretically, solutions to the Einstein field equations (General Relativity) had produced expanding universes. Einstein had added a "cosmological constant" (basically, a constant of integration allowing multiple solutions to these equations) to make the universe static, but abandoned it after it was pointed out the static solution was unstable: slight over or under density would cause it to collapse or expand.

After this, and the discovery of the expansion, Einstein called the introduction of the cosmological constant his greatest mistake, but ironically, long after his death, observations have now indicated it is in fact nonzero (but is driving the universe to expand even faster.) So adding it wasn't a mistake at all.

The CBR requires the universe once have been hot and in thermal equilibrium with radiation (which it now is not) so that the CBR has a blackbody spectrum (which it does, to an incredible level of accuracy, better than laboratory blackbody sources can achieve.) There is no other way to get the CBR than by the Big Bang; red shift/scattering of light from current sources of radiation cannot do it. The discovery of the CBR killed the competing "Steady State" cosmology stone cold dead.

Ironically, the scientist who first came up with the idea that the universe was much denser, and had a finite age, was a Catholic priest. Although he didn't have the details quite right (he didn't make it hot enough) he had the basic idea. I think the fact he was a priest led to reluctance to accept the theory, as it was viewed as religious science. Of course, eventually the evidence won out.

Yeh this is what I remember as well from reading up on it a while ago. It is a fascinating subject. On a different note there was a group of ladies either in the 1800s or early 1900s who were tasked with cataloging different stars and their colour spectrum's.

Heres a link about it : https://www.smithsonianmag.com/histo...spect-9287444/

[Queen of Hamsters]

There are loads of people who are theists and accept science just fine.

Which is why my post was aimed at the theist in this specific thread, who's not accepting science "just fine".

[Ripster42]

If you actually read my fucking post it would be lovely.

I premised with the idea that people spout 1 in a billion for the chance of life. Please feel free to continue with your bullshit though.

We have no basis for saying what the odds of life are. You can't say it's 1 in a billion. It's currently "1 in we have no fucking idea." We literally cannot make an informed guess as we only have one data point.

You're either not a scientist or a really bad one if you really just called an opinion on an unproven theory wrong... Not only that but I didn't jump to a conclusion, I stated an opinion. I think, based on what we know, that thinking we are the only life in the universe is stupid. You might disagree which is perfectly fine but considering what we know about life and how little we know about the universe, if I had to make a bet I would bet on there being life out there somewhere. It might not be in a form we recognise but I'd still bet it was there.

That's the fun about theories, right or wrong it's still interesting when the result is proven. In this case Arthur C. Clarke sums it up pretty well.

“Two possibilities exist: either we are alone in the Universe or we are not. Both are equally terrifying.” ― Arthur C. Clarke

You're another member of the "I don't know how stats works" club. Grats.

[kenthovind]

Zero of those bird fossils are old.

- - - Updated - - -

Worldwide does not the water was dropped from the sky, the bible says the fountains of the great deep were broken up, and created HUGE tidal waves.

Infracted - Forbidden Topics

[unbound]

Life is likely to be pretty common in the galaxy...at least prokaryote life is likely pretty common.

Intelligent life is a bigger question because there are a multitude of steps that have to happen, and we really don't know how easy or hard those steps are.

For example, the process that got mitochondria into cells (eukaryotes) may be extremely uncommon. In fact, to the best of our knowledge, it has only happened once on Earth (compared to multicellular life which developed at least 30 times that we know of). And, without eukaryotes, we don't get to multicellular organisms which, to the best of our understanding, would be needed to get to colonies, society, language, etc. Life on earth spent about 2 billion years with nothing more than prokaryote life before the chance evolution of eukaryote life started.

This is the fundamental problem when people try to fill in the Drake Equation. Many people assume that the development from life (fl) to intelligent life (fi) is a simple percentage (say 10% or 1%) when, in fact, it is probably more likely to be 1 in a million.

So, yes, there is likely to be a lot of life in our galaxy...but there probably aren't very many out there that we can converse with.

[Katchii]

Zero of those bird fossils are old.

- - - Updated - - -

Worldwide does not the water was dropped from the sky, the bible says the fountains of the great deep were broken up, and created HUGE tidal waves.

Why should we care what the bible says about something like this? It provides no evidence whatsoever, it just says it happened. Sure, the stuff in there might be what starts the journey to discover the facts, uncover the evidence and ultimately make a discovery, but by itself it's meaningless.

[Deleted]

Exactly my view. Life is common in the universe, we'll probably find it on multiple planets in our own solar system. But it'll be simple life.

Intelligent life should be more rare, but given the scope of the universe still relatively common. The distance seems an issue though. But we can't comprehend technology 100 years from now, let alone thousands if not millions of times ahead of us. So who knows, they might find us.

[Steelcryo]

We have no basis for saying what the odds of life are. You can't say it's 1 in a billion. It's currently "1 in we have no fucking idea." We literally cannot make an informed guess as we only have one data point.



You're another member of the "I don't know how stats works" club. Grats.

When we actually know how life begins from nothing but random elements forming into something we recognise as a life form, we can talk stats. Until then it's all just theories and beliefs. I never stated any stats, just a belief/opinion.

The number of people in this thread making stupid statements as if they were facts about unproven theories is way too high. As I said before, you can disagree and you can look at whatever information you like and come up with your own opinion/theory/belief/whatever you want to call it but until someone goes out and finds life or searches every planet out there and comes up empty, that's all we have. Sure you could maybe work out probabilities and chance percentages but again they are based on unfinished evidence and theories.

Before anyone could actually make a guess that would be more "correct" than anything else (outside of actually searching every planet) we'd need to know how life starts and what life needs to be supported. New information leading towards answers of both those questions is being discovered every day and changing how we think about life and it's requirements. So yeah unless you have information the worlds leading scientists don't, discuss theories and ideas all you want but don't tell people they are wrong for thinking something different to you when there's no hard evidence proving either side correct.

[Ripster42]

When we actually know how life begins from nothing but random elements forming into something we recognise as a life form, we can talk stats. Until then it's all just theories and beliefs. I never stated any stats, just a belief/opinion.

The number of people in this thread making stupid statements as if they were facts about unproven theories is way too high. As I said before, you can disagree and you can look at whatever information you like and come up with your own opinion/theory/belief/whatever you want to call it but until someone goes out and finds life or searches every planet out there and comes up empty, that's all we have. Sure you could maybe work out probabilities and chance percentages but again they are based on unfinished evidence and theories.

Before anyone could actually make a guess that would be more "correct" than anything else (outside of actually searching every planet) we'd need to know how life starts and what life needs to be supported. New information leading towards answers of both those questions is being discovered every day and changing how we think about life and it's requirements. So yeah unless you have information the worlds leading scientists don't, discuss theories and ideas all you want but don't tell people they are wrong for thinking something different to you when there's no hard evidence proving either side correct.

Congrats on completely ignoring the foundation of science. It can only truly work when we get enough data to work with. There's literally not enough data to work with, one way or the other. To say that you believe someone is stupid for not believing there's life elsewhere in the universe means you've abandoned any claim to being unbiased, so your opinion is worthless on this subject. Because remember, that's where you started. Other people are stupid for believing something you don't believe, based on no data.

[Steelcryo]

Congrats on completely ignoring the foundation of science. It can only truly work when we get enough data to work with. There's literally not enough data to work with, one way or the other. To say that you believe someone is stupid for not believing there's life elsewhere in the universe means you've abandoned any claim to being unbiased, so your opinion is worthless on this subject. Because remember, that's where you started. Other people are stupid for believing something you don't believe, based on no data.

Ok I’ll accept this one as being my fault, I misspoke. I never intended to mean I thought people were stupid for believing we were alone in the universe, rather I meant claiming that we are alone was stupid. Just as me claiming we aren’t would be. So sorry about that