• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Atheists Call 9-11 Memorial Cross "Grossly Offensive"

Page 48 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Actually, earth is on the outer edge of the GLZ and the GLZ is a LOT more than 1% wide. We can't get much farther AWAY from the sun, but we have a surprising amount of wiggle room with how close we can get.

It's not 1%.

However, keep in mind that we're still talking billions of miles. 1% is HUUUUUUGE. An AU is 149,597,871 KM so 1% of that is 1.5 million KM. That's a ridiculous amount of room. It's like.... eight times the distance to the moon to reach the outer edge of the GLZ.

Good point. NOTE: I am more than willing discuss this with you if you're willing to drop the crap and unproductive vitriol. We should be able to discuss some things seriously sometimes.

Secondly, 1.5 million KM is like 1 inch on a ruler on a cosmological scale. That's not a huge amount of room.

Thirdly, statistically speaking, we're not even supposed to be here, so it would take more than an EXTREME amount of luck for a planet to replicate ours, let alone for complex and inteliigent life to evolve on it.

I also think Jupiter serves as our cosmic policeman...protecting us from planet-killing astroids. I am not invoking God, but IMO, we're in a special place, on a special planet in this solar system as of now.

We haven't seen others like this yet.
 
Do you think there is only 1 eye in existence? You do realize there are thousands of variations in different stages? There are eyes/sensors, existing right now which work similarly.
There are extant eyes ranging from mere patches of mildly light-sensitive cells to models more advanced than our own. It is however interesting that more advanced eyes require a LOT of substances to be simultaneously synthesized in order to function, mostly substances without other known functions. To believe in unguided evolution requires believing in a mutation that caused all these substances to be synthesized at the proper time and in the proper quantities to jump a level of complexity, but without causing any corresponding and more powerful negative reactions AND while not only not preventing successful interbreeding with the parent organism population, being dominant mutations that get passed on. That requires a pretty big leap of faith.

I haven't seen anything Biblical pointing to life on another planet, so I think it will be wholesale Biblilcal abandonment at that point if intelligent, fully functional beings were ever contacted.

But then what defines "life" -- it can't even be agreed upon now what a life really is, or what is the spark that brings us to life.

You're right, but I think conditions have to be extemely specific (if we're using earth as an example) Being even 1 percent closer to our Sun would spell disaster, and as little as 5 percent further would also freeze us out. I don't think we have hardly any wiggle room for to thrive (as we currently know it), IMO.

I started a thread in the DC sometime ago discussing this very thing -- planets a few thousand lightyears away does seem to be good candidates.
Conditions in the universe have to be amazingly specific, but conditions on Earth not so much. As we've been totally unable to reproduce abiogenises we can't say for sure, but life exists throughout a staggering range of conditions.
 
Good point. NOTE: I am more than willing discuss this with you if you're willing to drop the crap and unproductive vitriol. We should be able to discuss some things seriously sometimes.

Secondly, 1.5 million KM is like 1 inch on a ruler on a cosmological scale. That's not a huge amount of room.

Thirdly, statistically speaking, we're not even supposed to be here, so it would take more than an EXTREME amount of luck for a planet to replicate ours, let alone for complex and inteliigent life to evolve on it.

I also think Jupiter serves as our cosmic policeman...protecting us from planet-killing astroids. I am not invoking God, but IMO, we're in a special place, on a special planet in this solar system as of now.

We haven't seen others like this yet.

I don't disagree with anything you've said.

Remember, however, that earth has had FIVE extinction events and life continually arose after each event.

Destroy life, it grows back with the right materials. Why can't life be just as hearty in similar conditions elsewhere in the galaxy or universe?
 
Last edited:
While I read through and completely agree, I think it would be prudent that we don't assume we are not alone, particularly in the face of having next to zero observable evidence.

I would say this would also create sort of a Firma paradox, and why we haven't been contacted yet, of life is presumably common and intelligent.

The earth, as of now, is extremely atypical -- I honestly don't think we can know unless we can prove that the earth isn't a special planet as it seem.

I find this post funny considering your other views and what you are able to believe or not believe in.
 
While I read through and completely agree, I think it would be prudent that we don't assume we are not alone, particularly in the face of having next to zero observable evidence.

I would say this would also create sort of a Firma paradox, and why we haven't been contacted yet, of life is presumably common and intelligent.

The earth, as of now, is extremely atypical -- I honestly don't think we can know unless we can prove that the earth isn't a special planet as it seem.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9sDtbTsmJcE
 
I don't disagree with anything you've said.

Remember, however, that earth has had FIVE extinction events and life continually arose after each event.

Destroy life, it grows back with the right materials. Why can't life be just as hearty in similar conditions elsewhere in the galaxy or universe?

Yes, but livable conditions still remained, though...even after those extictions.

I don't think life "cant" be elsewhere, but we'd need more than just "Goldilocks Zone" conditions, and we still don't know how DNA actually ended up here -- this could be a fluke, one-time occurrence.

Conditions here had to more than just ideal -- I think they had to be darn near perfect for life to evolve the way it has... you know, stuff happening "just at the right place, right time"... as Mike Rowe put it, narrarator of "How the Universe Works".

I don't think "just right" conditions just occur with impunity in the deadly conditions of outer space.
 
There are extant eyes ranging from mere patches of mildly light-sensitive cells to models more advanced than our own. It is however interesting that more advanced eyes require a LOT of substances to be simultaneously synthesized in order to function, mostly substances without other known functions. To believe in unguided evolution requires believing in a mutation that caused all these substances to be synthesized at the proper time and in the proper quantities to jump a level of complexity, but without causing any corresponding and more powerful negative reactions AND while not only not preventing successful interbreeding with the parent organism population, being dominant mutations that get passed on. That requires a pretty big leap of faith.

Conditions in the universe have to be amazingly specific, but conditions on Earth not so much. As we've been totally unable to reproduce abiogenises we can't say for sure, but life exists throughout a staggering range of conditions.

It's best to be thought of as an iterative process and one that is cumulative, versus one that is randomly occurring. Given that we have seen one species split off from another in nature and become a new species, and that we have seen evolution occur in a laboratory, the issue is more one of missing puzzle pieces that are yet to be seen, but the overall puzzle picture is at this point quite clear as far as the steps of evolution which produced humans.

To give an example of something that looks amazingly complex but arises from a simple structure, one has to look no further than fractals. You can take a very simple fractal formula and produce extremely detailed pictures from it, but in the end all you're doing is taking something extremely simple and building upon it.
 
Well, they obviously have, so I'm not sure why you don't believe it. 🙂

The fact that you are here to observe it and postulate self and environment is a very strong indicator or evidence that "just right" conditions can occur without any remnant or evidence of supernatural forces at work.
 
I find this post funny considering your other views and what you are able to believe or not believe in.

Why?

I can't speak on a scientific level when speaking on matters of science, and on a level of faith when discussing religious-geared topics?
 
There are extant eyes ranging from mere patches of mildly light-sensitive cells to models more advanced than our own. It is however interesting that more advanced eyes require a LOT of substances to be simultaneously synthesized in order to function, mostly substances without other known functions. To believe in unguided evolution requires believing in a mutation that caused all these substances to be synthesized at the proper time and in the proper quantities to jump a level of complexity, but without causing any corresponding and more powerful negative reactions AND while not only not preventing successful interbreeding with the parent organism population, being dominant mutations that get passed on. That requires a pretty big leap of faith.


Conditions in the universe have to be amazingly specific, but conditions on Earth not so much. As we've been totally unable to reproduce abiogenises we can't say for sure, but life exists throughout a staggering range of conditions.

Nope. Things don't just pop into existence, they Evolve from previous things in existence. That's why Interbreeding is not an issue, nor is Timing. If those necessary factors didn't exist, those eyes would never have existed
 
Why?

I can't speak on a scientific level when speaking on matters of science, and on a level of faith when discussing religious-geared topics?

Those two categories often involve conflicting methods of deduction.

One category vehemently clings to a thought pattern, a "how to think," we call the scientific method: Search for evidence, examine evidence including 2nd opinions but all under the skeptical frame of mind, draw conclusion, test conclusion, create hypothesis, continue looking for evidence. If new evidence found, combine with old evidence and start the entire process over again.

The whole religious aspect of the other category throws logic, reason, all of that into the wind. The religious aspect says "we have a conclusion and we reject any evidence that does not support our pre-conceived conclusion (even if that leaves us with ZERO evidence)."
 
Well, they obviously have, so I'm not sure why you don't believe it. 🙂

The fact that you are here to observe it and postulate self and environment is a very strong indicator or evidence that "just right" conditions can occur without any remnant or evidence of supernatural forces at work.

Of course, what I stated is just my opinion, but sure, we DO have evidence of "just right" conditions, but I'd like to insert what Carl Sagan said, and I am paraphrasing:

"In order to believe we were designed, we need to see more of this "design" to believe it" (speaking of the Universe) or something like that.

I took his words to mean that two livable universes would help a case for a designer, but we don't have two.

In short, I am holding science to the same level of verification. If I am to believe that we are a product of coincidences, another planet teeming with life made from the same string of coincidences would be ample evidence, for me anyway.
 
Yes, but livable conditions still remained, though...even after those extictions.

I don't think life "cant" be elsewhere, but we'd need more than just "Goldilocks Zone" conditions, and we still don't know how DNA actually ended up here -- this could be a fluke, one-time occurrence.

Conditions here had to more than just ideal -- I think they had to be darn near perfect for life to evolve the way it has... you know, stuff happening "just at the right place, right time"... as Mike Rowe put it, narrarator of "How the Universe Works".

I don't think "just right" conditions just occur with impunity in the deadly conditions of outer space.

When you are reproducing an item in a lab, creating the "goldilocks condition" is essential though. Let's take for instance growing crystals - you take the right "soup" of elements, put a rock in a bucket, wait a few weeks and you can grow your own crystals. When you see the crystals you might think they look so unique, but then someone else can grab the exact same blend of chemicals and make their own somewhere else.

In the same way, if you took the same basic planetary formation as earth (e.g. the same elemental composition, roughly the same distance from the local sun to be in the same heat zone), then it's not really that radical to think that life could arise in the same fashion there as it did here.

There are common elements found all through the universe, such as hydrogen. When a star forms, then goes supernova, then forms a smaller star, the more dense elements are formed en masse, and these generally collect into nearby planets. So we already have the building block set of steps to form the series of elements that were collected to form earth, and know that it is a common process throughout the universe. From there we only have to find planets similar to our own, and if the conditions are ripe, then life can form.

To think that we are unique in this incredibly vast universe to me seems more of an ego-focused viewpoint; the human brain doesn't really have enough processing power to understand just how big and complex the universe is.

Given that we only just started discovering exoplanets, in terms of discovering what potentially could be other intelligent life, we are basically at the stage of the first ancient astronomer that discovered Mars and Venus weren't stars but planets instead. We've had hundreds of years since then to work on our viewing of planets within our own solar system to discover what they were and how they worked; in terms of exoplanets I view our current progress in the same way, that we have a lot of progress yet to be made.
 
When you are reproducing an item in a lab, creating the "goldilocks condition" is essential though. Let's take for instance growing crystals - you take the right "soup" of elements, put a rock in a bucket, wait a few weeks and you can grow your own crystals. When you see the crystals you might think they look so unique, but then someone else can grab the exact same blend of chemicals and make their own somewhere else.

This is true, but you haven't shown how the conditions got there (NOTE: I am leaving God completely out of this discussion). That's what I am really arguing. It's one thing to have said conditions, another thing to show how they were created, and repeat that to graduate from a hypothesis to a theory.

If you created those condition by firing all of those ingredients from a bazooka and it landed "just right" inside the bucket, now you're getting somewhere. 🙂

NOTE: Sorry, J, but I am at work and can't answer all of your post, but good points.
 
There are common elements found all through the universe, such as hydrogen. When a star forms, then goes supernova, then forms a smaller star, the more dense elements are formed en masse, and these generally collect into nearby planets. So we already have the building block set of steps to form the series of elements that were collected to form earth, and know that it is a common process throughout the universe. From there we only have to find planets similar to our own, and if the conditions are ripe, then life can form.

Not to be jerk, but how can we know with certainty things happened that way, though (is there something I missed)?

You kinda make it sound like all we need is that process, and life should just be. If that is the case, I think we should have been contacted by now, afterall, the Universe is over 13 Billion years old, our planet is about 4 or more, and I am sure there are planets older than ours.

To think that we are unique in this incredibly vast universe to me seems more of an ego-focused viewpoint; the human brain doesn't really have enough processing power to understand just how big and complex the universe is.

I think going off the sheer size, it is kinda silly to think we're alone, but I just wish I could say for sure. Then, it begs the question which is the basis of the Firmas Paradox "why haven't we been contacted"?
 
Saying "I was wrong" is akin to you trying to smell a flower with your ear, huh?

I wasn't wrong. Religion has been constantly changing in response to the increase in knowledge. That's why all Christians used to believe in the Creation and Flood stories, but now only a minority do.

They changed on those 2 and many more positions. They will change again on others.
 
I wasn't wrong. Religion has been constantly changing in response to the increase in knowledge. That's why all Christians used to believe in the Creation and Flood stories, but now only a minority do.

They changed on those 2 and many more positions. They will change again on others.

Negative.
 
Not to be jerk, but how can we know with certainty things happened that way, though (is there something I missed)?

You kinda make it sound like all we need is that process, and life should just be. If that is the case, I think we should have been contacted by now, afterall, the Universe is over 13 Billion years old, our planet is about 4 or more, and I am sure there are planets older than ours.

If the process is there, and all the right ingredients, then the chance for life to form is there. That doesn't mean it will necessarily form, but only that all the ingredients are there for it to form. In the case of crystals in a bucket, the way they form is completely unique each time you perform the experiment, but each time the crystals themselves share a similar pattern and eventually things start to happen if you wait long enough. Let's say the chance of life forming was only one in ten thousand, given the perfect planetary conditions, and that the chance of a planet having the right conditions is one in ten thousand; you have a one in a hundred million chance for something to happen.

When you consider that there are over a hundred billion planets in our galaxy alone, and hundreds of billions of galaxies, then that means that there would still be an incredibly large amount of life out there.

I think going off the sheer size, it is kinda silly to think we're alone, but I just wish I could say for sure. Then, it begs the question which is the basis of the Firmas Paradox "why haven't we been contacted"?

My response to that has several parts:

A) If other intelligent life moves to a hive mind system for optical use of resources, then we wouldn't be worth contacting until we develop a hive mind system ourselves. Our planet has yet to awaken in terms of a meta-being. We have the internet, wireless communications, vast cities and technology, so the pulse of a mass sentience may be starting to form, but we're a ways off yet. In the instance of the cell analogy, a single being on earth trying to contact another planet that has a hive mind existence, is like a cell trying to talk to a human. You don't even perceive it. If other planets out there are "awake" as meta-life forms, then humans are only the equivalent of cells on earth in the analogy above.

Other planets might not want to communicate with ours until after we achieve a technological singularity and our planet itself begins to have a life pulse of it's own; a planetary-level consciousness.

B) For other planets that haven't reached a planetary level consciousness yet, they may still view Earth as a "zoo". Think of how bad news travels fast on the internet; as soon as Obama takes a dump you have right wingers on this forum blasting him for wiping his ass the wrong way. In the same fashion, given the type of people on this planet, advanced civilizations may be watching us with a warning sign around us saying "do not enter" or "look but don't touch".

Given that there are problems with parts of General Relativity, such as how things are processed inside of a black hole (the idea of a singularity doesn't "jive" with quantum physics, and Stephen Hawking noted that black holes will eventually evaporate over the course of billions of years, the more likely idea being that quanta will stack into the core of a black hole instead of being a singularity), then it's entirely possible that there are forms of communication that are faster than light.

We see the effects of dark matter but can't perceive it, for instance, so what if it's possible for non-baryon based matter or energy to be lighter than a photon and thus travel faster than light? There are other possibilities, such as warping space itself to travel faster than light. In any case, it's entirely possible that there are billions of life forms with a giant universe-level internet-equivalent that we're just not able to tap into because we can't even begin to perceive it yet.

It's as if you had someone in the 18th century trying to tap into microwave communication - they don't know it's there because it's invisible to them. If you can warp space to travel faster than light, then that implies that it may even be possible to communicate outside of the dimensional brane in which we reside, even that there may be entirely separate universes out there besides our own.

The primitive species won't have the ability to shine dark energy across the universe at us, or may go through a period of trying to communicate using primitive radio waves which require exponentially more power the further it needs to travel for the brief period that they are at our stage of evolution, and the chance of that reaching us are slim to none. When you look at the universe in terms of time, it's key to remember that things have been happening for billions of years and will continue to happen for billions of years. Humans have only been civilized for about 12,000 years, give or take a few thousand years, and we only invented more advanced means of communication in the last 100 years. In terms of time of various planets, suns, star systems, etc., 100 years is almost nothing.

We might be sending out a signal now that isn't responded to for ten thousand years, for example, given how slow radio waves propagate. So I think it's premature to say that there is nothing else out there when we've barely given it any time in the grand scheme of things.

In terms of other answers to Fermi's paradox, this io9 article has some good answers, include the "zoo" hypothesis:
http://io9.com/11-of-the-weirdest-solutions-to-the-fermi-paradox-456850746
 
Last edited:
Back
Top