Considering the ZERO evidence of extraterrestrial advanced life, it is impossible to "estimate" such a thing. Estimates are based on data, and there is no data showing any advanced life anywhere out there, so no estimate can be made.

The Drake equation is bullshit. It's a wild-ass guess wrapped in math.


I *believe* there are probably other instances of advanced life in the universe somewhere, but it really *is* possible that we're the only ones, anywhere, ever, until evidence to the contrary is observed.

It is comical to make declarations about life outside of earth when we only have one data point.

If the universe is finite then it will have unique things in it.  For all we know right now earth is unique to life.  That may change in the future but that is all we have to go on now.

Statistics doesn't produce life.

Earth First!  Of course spreading throughout the galaxy would be much more enticing if there were hot green women with three breasts every other solar system or so.

In a nutshell, this is correct.

The DE was a half-assed attempt to estimate ET life based on a lot of assumptions, any of which could be wrong, and any of which would torpedo the whole shebang.  It's not bad per se, it's just so limited as to be essentially useless.

It is a FACT that we are the only currently known, or even suspected, life in the universe.  That could change.  It would be interesting if it does.

Was not a serious equation, was designed to spark discussion

Stabbing isn't exclusive to knives.

A perfect snapshot of your narrow-mindedness.

At first we imagined that if our spherical bit of mass floating in space had people on it, then EVERY spherical bit of mass floating in space did as well - and they'd all be humans just like is with the same exact technology.

Then we found out we were wrong.

Step 2 - well at least SOME of them will have complex life, and PEOPLE - but they will be a lot different than us.

Nope, wrong.

Step 3 - well then in the wider universe there has got to be others, right!

Well- maybe not.

Here's where the Fermi Paradox enters in.  And i'll let you google that.  But there's a problem with the Fermi Paradox.  It comes from the starting point that we are normal life is normal etc etc.

PROBLEM 1

If there is a set of 1, there is no way to determine if that 1 is normal or abnormal.  All our theories hinge on earth being 'normal'.   But every time we follow that chain, we end up not finding the expected results.  Likely, earth, life, complex life, sapient life---that's an abnormality.

PROBLEM 2

Space is infinite.  We all know about infinite monkeys typing.  Thing is, the amount of STUFF in space is not infinite.  Sorry monkeys.

PROBLEM 3

Our understanding of the universe and time have changed.  Now we look at the big bang and find that the galaxies all went through various changes.  Example, for a long while the universe had a lot less stars, but they were all massively big.    Anyways, only this recent cycle has been the type of universe where planets could have formed, let alone life.

PROBLEM 4

Looking at life on earth even if we assume we are 'normal' - it took a long time and some really specific circumstances for life to start.  Further, in complex chemicals there's this feature called 'chirality'  basically you have 1 molecule and then a mirror image of that molecule.  These are called R (right) and S (Sinster -an old word for left).  



In anything where complex chemicals are formed there's a mix of R and S.  But in life, we find it's an all or nothing.  ALL amino acids are left-twisting (S) and all sugars, DNA, and RNA is right-twisting (R).   If life had hundreds of starts, or even after starting had hundreds of moves from very simple to complex, we'd expect to see (especially in bacteria and other very ancient similar lines) to see a mix of R and S for any given structure.

This points to the start of life and every major landmark after that being just a single event (or possibly 2-3, with only 1 'surviving' each time)  Which all points to life being a very rare occurrence.  Imagine a 1000 sided dice, and for life to start you need to roll 1-1-1-1-1.

PROBLEM 3 + PROBLEM 4

Age of universe = 14 billion years.  
Age at which the universe could conceivably start hosting life because there's finally more complex elements floating around = 7 billion years
But if life needs really specific conditions in a really specific chain of events then it's likely extremely rare.  We are talking popping up once or twice at any given time in a single galactic cluster.  Due to the size of the universe as a whole, these sparks of life would be so extremely far apart that they'd each be dead and long gone by the time any message from one got to another.

CONCLUSION

The universe has 200 Billion galaxies.  These are organized into 'groups' due to relative proximity (2-5 megaparsecs) and vast distances (20-50 megaparsecs). But these groups themselves are joined together in "galactic clusters" (which span 20-30 tetra parsecs, with 100s of tetraparsecs between them)

At any given time, there might be 0-3 sparks of life in a single galactic cluster.  Not all of those sparks of life might even be complex life.  But with such distances, each spark even if it lasts billions of years still likely burns out before their messages can ever carry from one end of the group to the other, let alone across an entire cluster, let alone reaching galaxies in other clusters.

Data schmata.

The reason we see large planets is they make their presence known. Small planets are harder to detect. All planets and stars for that "matter" are born by coalescing from gas and dust, regardless of generation. A few big come from many small.

Back to data, the Webb Telescope should launch around November.

There may also be Life on Venus.

Uncertainties and the questions they raise are a reason to explore, not argue.

The human race on Earth is arrogant enough to think that there is no other.

Based on present science and math, it is possible for there not to be another life form.

Our civilization is giving a lesson, right now, on why there are likely no others out there.

In 1000 years, we won't be here anymore, either.

There are some very interesting photos of things on mars from the rovers.
Link
The sand scrip books in India say we are in the 5th rise of civilization on earth, so 4 others have rose and fell on earth before.

True.

How did you come to that conclusion with only one data point?

The science has not produced one known example of life outside of earth.

Science has not figured out how Chemistry turns into Biology.

Statistics and math do not produce life.

The problem is that humans have been brainwashed with 100 years of science fiction so we are all convinced that there is life elsewhere even though we absolutely no proof.

Maybe one of these days we will get another data point and we can make real science based assumptions but we are not at that point now.

No, you know that there is no evidence. That’s the fact you speak of. There is no evidence, that is a fact.

You do not however know if there is other intelligent life or not, none of us do. Omniscience is not a gift we were bestowed with. They are distinctly different things.

I have already stat
I have stated, numerous times and in other threads, that ET life might exist.  What part of that don't you get?

There is no evidence that ET life exists.  None.  Evidence is all we have to go on regarding this topic.  It either exists, or not.  Right now, there is no evidence.  Not a single scrap.   If there was, you and others would post it.  In fact, so would I.

Nevermind "one known example".  There has been no evidence produced whatsoever that ET life exists.  Not even a smidgin.

But muh Drake!!!!

If you spelled "sanskrit" correctly your argument might be a bit less unbelievable.

The part I “don’t get” is apparently just a failure of your ability to communicate.

“As of now I know for a fact the number is 0 for life elsewhere”

Does NOT mean the same thing as;

“As of now there are 0 known life forms elsewhere, nor is there any evidence of them”

If you unfuck what you are saying and communicate more clearly, you’ll get less people arguing with you. However as of right now, you are contradicting yourself.

As of now, the number of elephants on the moon is zero.  Of course, we don't know if the true number is zero.  There could be a herd of elephants on the moon.  But until an elephant is seen on the moon, it's zero.

Maybe you can unfuck that in your own head before your next post.  Seriously, some people.

There is evidence to support an assumption that there are no elephant herds on the moon. We know the conditions they require to live, and we have visually observed the moon. The argument against such a claim is more than “I ain’t seen it!”

But nice try. Not only have you made an extremely poor argument, you’ve missed the point.

This is correct.  But it really provides no direction that we didn't already have.  ET life exists, or not.  The DE didn't clarify that issue.  In fact, it has lead gullible people who don't understand science or math down the path of believing in something for which there's no proof whatsoever.  Almost like a religion, you could say.  

I believe in God, but I never say He's provable.  That's the difference between physics and metaphysics.  One is subject to proofs, the other is not.  Belief in ET is a metaphysical/religious belief.  Why can't its adherents just admit that?

I agree with this.  Let's explore and keep an open mind.  But let's not kid ourselves into thinking that a mathematical equation with all kinds of assumptions is proof, or even evidence.  It's not.

I have been anxiously waiting for the Webb Telescope to come online ever since I first heard about it.

That said, I'm now hoping that it will be obsolete before it even launches. Starship heavy Booster offers many possibilities. One of which is Frikking enormous space telescopes.

But those moon elephants might not require the same conditions they do on earth.  The point is valid because there is no proof, or even evidence, that the EXACT conditions on earth are duplicated elsewhere.  Or, that even if conditions exist, that the same sequence that allowed life on earth to evolve exists elsewhere.  Or the time required on earth is found elsewhere.  And even if there was, there is still no proof that life exists elsewhere.  Nor is there even a scrap of evidence, so far.

Your failure to grasp an argument is not proof of your intelligence, or of ET life.

Again, you’ve missed the entire point.

I’ve taken no side, besides telling you that the words you are typing on the keyboard, do not mean the same thing that you are trying to communicate.

Indeed I hope I live long enough to see it.  I don't care about Mars, I want huge radio and visual telescopes on the far side of the moon.

The entire point is whether ET life exists or not.  If you believe it does, or likely does, congratulations, that's your religion.

I believe it probably doesn't, based on what we know now.

How hard is that to understand?

The elephant example is the mirror image of your argument.

And here you are 100% correct.  

But what do we call belief in things for which there is no proof, or even evidence?  Hint: we call it a religion.  That doesn't make it incorrect.  It just takes it out of the realm of science and puts in into the realm of metaphysics.  So, what you stated is that belief in ET is a religion.  And I agree with that.

My entire post that you quoted is correct, now stop getting butthurt that I called out your poor communication skills. That’s all I was trying to point out.

You asserted something as fact, even if you didn’t intend to, that you absolutely are not in a position to know as a fact. You then pointed out very clearly that you do think it’s possible, contradicting your other statement.


You then brought up elephants for no reason than to apparently “win” an argument instead of taking a single moment to reflect on the fact that half of the people here arguing with you are doing so not because of your position, but your complete failure to properly communicate it.

And I took the opportunity to rephrase my argument, which you either overlooked or chose to ignore.  Note the "As of now..."  

As of now, there is no evidence for ET.  When there is no evidence, it is not science-y to assume that something exists.  In fact, it's science-y to assume it doesn't exist sans evidence.

ET is a religion at this point.  No more, no less.  And that's not a bad thing.  A lot of people believe in worse things.

So, what is your position?  Are you a sceptic, or a religious believer?

sounds great as long as the plumbing fits.

There are too many unknown variables. We don't even know what the odds of life arising in the first place are, because we only know of on instance in which it happened.

Correct.  And consider this: there have been a lot of controlled experiments in labs that attempted to create life in a test tube.  All failed miserably.  None came close.  By comparison, cold fusion in a bottle has been a raging success and we all know how that went.  So, given our scientific abilities, which are considerable, how is it that we can't even create a simple single-celled living organism using the best technology we have, and under ideal conditions?  We can't even create a friggin virus, which by some definitions isn't really a living thing.  We can only alter existing viruses and organisms.  

And the arfcom scientists think that because there are lots of rocks in space, the odds favor the spontaneous creation of life on many of them.  The mind boggles.

Life is a lot harder than it looks, gents.

You’re pretty damn arrogant for someone who has admitted knowingly or unknowingly that they haven’t the foggiest idea how the scientific method works where direct experimentation is not possible...

But you keep going my friend!

Your hypocrisy is pretty bad too my friend

Point out my hypocrisy, for the record.

I made a nice living by following the scientific method probably longer than you've been alive.  But you keep on my friend...

What number did they come up with?

Many, if not most, of those same philosophers said that God exists.   Allow me to name a few, just a few: Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, St. Augustine, Galileo, Newton, Hume, Locke, Burke.  And all the Founding Fathers.  Even Jefferson, perhaps the least religious of the bunch, thought there was a Maker.

So, in your appeal to authority, you would also say that God exists based on no actual data.  Is that correct?  Just trying to get clear on your position.

So you don't believe in any religion either?

This is as arrogant as calling a marathon after the first 10 seconds. We haven't had a chance to explore .000000000001% of our own galaxy, let alone others.

No, it's not.  I'm not "calling" anything.  I have said numerous times that there might be ET, but that there is not one single shred of evidence at this time to support the idea.  Therefore, belief in ET is a religion.  But ET isn't a religion in the sense that's it's unknowable, like a belief in God.

ET is physics, God is metaphysics.  One relies on evidence and proof, one relies on belief without evidence/proof.  Do I have to explain which is which?

Therefore, a belief in ET is completely counterfactual and illogical at this time.  Maybe that will change, maybe not.  My mind is completely open to it, if it should happen.  But if I was to place a bet, it would be on the absence of ET because that's what all the science says up to now.

Yes, I do.  I believe in God, but it's not based on scientific evidence.

We used to think the erf is flat, but that was disproved a while ago.  What seems to us to be magik now usually ends up explainable, over time.  But my mind is open.

Typo.  I meant 6

Attached File

Dude! I spit some good Scotch all over my keyboard! Hell, we're probably very late-comers. The universe is about 14 billion years old and galaxies full of stars have existed for at least 13 billion years. By what feeble methods we have now, we have already found about a dozen planets that are somewhat Earth-like, and we're out in the 'wide open spaces' galaxy-wise. Imagine what it must be like closer to the center, with the night sky having millions more stars and much closer together. I guess there probably have already been about a billion planets with intelligent life in this galaxy already, with more to come. However, we now know that we are at the beginning of the end as far as new stars being made, although there's no reason things won't keep on as they have been for another couple of billion years. By that time the Andromeda galaxy will have collided with ours and anyone here at that time will see a hell of a fireworks show.
So if you really think about how many stars there are and how much time has passed and is still to pass, you have to think the universe is teeming with life.