Firstly I must say that there are many scientists who think that percentage of habitable planets that actually develop life is 100%. Not 1 in 20, not one out of 10 thousand but one out of one.
Which would mean that we could not be sure that even on Mars there wasn' t life once. Simply due to the nature of life that once there are right conditions it developes, and it developes quickly as is was on Earth. As for the fact that Earth developed life, it is a fact. We can not reject the only fact we know (one out of 2 habitable planets we CAN explore developed life) just because we live on it. We know nothing or little about anything outside our Solar System. We can do that only if we think we are unique. And that is a real bias.
Science is never going to have enough evidence to conclude life exists outside of Earth. The problem is that there is no way to know what life is. There is only one data point and will be absent of the information for cross validation. So science is the wrong approach.An analogy is trying to detect that a magic unicorn ant exists inside of the trunk of your car, parked on the other side of the world???How is somebody going to prove to anybody this magic ant is in your car?No way science is going to help. Science does have limitations. We’re more likely to find all the new life forms to ever hope to find on earth. Perhaps realize that some creatures are on Earth and have no known explanation for their origin based on scientific principles. That is where to look. Not far... near. Because there is where there actually is information!
Quote from: adis on 04/29/2018 04:57 pmFirstly I must say that there are many scientists who think that percentage of habitable planets that actually develop life is 100%. Not 1 in 20, not one out of 10 thousand but one out of one.That doesn't really help to establish the probability number with any real confidence. Firstly, why do you only consider the scientists that think the number is 100%? Why do you ignore the other scientists that think it's ~0%? And secondly, as far as I know there are very few to none scientists who claim that they have conclusively proven the probability number. They normally acknowledge that any probability number given should be interpreted as a working hypothesis.Quote Which would mean that we could not be sure that even on Mars there wasn' t life once. Simply due to the nature of life that once there are right conditions it developes, and it developes quickly as is was on Earth. As for the fact that Earth developed life, it is a fact. We can not reject the only fact we know (one out of 2 habitable planets we CAN explore developed life) just because we live on it. We know nothing or little about anything outside our Solar System. We can do that only if we think we are unique. And that is a real bias.The fact that life developed on Earth is not under dispute. The topic of dispute is whether the rate of life development within our own solar system can be generalized to the entire universe. Or to put it in statistical terms: is our sample (the solar system) representative for the population (the universe)? Unfortunately we don't really know whether this is the case, because of inevitable selection bias. The sample that we can observe was always going to contain a planet that developed life, even in case of a universe where the chance of a planet developing life is 1 in 100 billion, because otherwise we wouldn't be able to perform this statistical test due to our non-existence. That is anthropic bias in a nutshell.I'm not arguing that life in the universe must be rare, nor am I arguing that it must be abundant. All I'm saying here is that we don't have enough data (yet) to know for sure which.I would recommend reading the book Anthropic Bias.
Actually in my film I estimated the number at 1/20 exactly to avoid any bias and NOT to push anything to prove my point at any cost.
If you are on a desert island without a food and waves bring you a one day food supply would you say "Oh now i will pass it What's the use of food enough for one day if a don't have continuous daily supply"? I guess You wouldn't reject that.
...there are 2 habitable planets and at one out of these two, life actually developed. That is 50% or 1/2. I could take that 1/2 as the only data we clearly know. I didn't but i used 1/20 as a very conservative estimate...
Firstly I must say that there are many scientists who think that percentage of habitable planets that actually develop life is 100%. Not 1 in 20, not one out of 10 thousand but one out of one. Which would mean that we could not be sure that even on Mars there wasn' t life once. Simply due to the nature of life that once there are right conditions it developes, and it developes quickly as is was on Earth. As for the fact that Earth developed life, it is a fact. We can not reject the only fact we know (one out of 2 habitable planets we CAN explore developed life) just because we live on it. We know nothing or little about anything outside our Solar System. We can do that only if we think we are unique. And that is a real bias.
An analogy is trying to detect that a magic unicorn ant exists inside of the trunk of your car, parked on the other side of the world???How is somebody going to prove to anybody this magic ant is in your car?
Quote from: Mr. Scott on 04/30/2018 04:34 amAn analogy is trying to detect that a magic unicorn ant exists inside of the trunk of your car, parked on the other side of the world???How is somebody going to prove to anybody this magic ant is in your car?Uhhh, couldn't you simply take a plane to said other side of the world, open the trunk of the car and then record a bunch of photos/videos of the little creature?
Quote from: adis on 04/29/2018 04:57 pmFirstly I must say that there are many scientists who think that percentage of habitable planets that actually develop life is 100%. Not 1 in 20, not one out of 10 thousand but one out of one. Which would mean that we could not be sure that even on Mars there wasn' t life once. Simply due to the nature of life that once there are right conditions it developes, and it developes quickly as is was on Earth. As for the fact that Earth developed life, it is a fact. We can not reject the only fact we know (one out of 2 habitable planets we CAN explore developed life) just because we live on it. We know nothing or little about anything outside our Solar System. We can do that only if we think we are unique. And that is a real bias.The big flaw in your video is that you are assuming that all planets with life will eventually develop intelligent life forms. In the first place, it's very uncertain that "advanced life" must necessarily develop on habitable planets. There could be trillions of planets out there with bacteria or virus types of life, but just a few develop more complex forms of life. In like wise, it's very uncertain that such complex life must necessarily eventually develop some level of intelligence, or if it does, that such intelligence comes in a form suited to developing technology capable of sending interstellar signals. Dolphins, for example, are quite smart creatures, but are entirely unsuited to making a radio. Indeed, even smelting metals would be an entirely alien concept to them.
Because I consider that obvious.
It seems to me that I am in the wrong forum.
I don't even remember that I mentioned in my video that all planets with life will eventually develop intelligent life forms. Because I consider that obvious.
Quote from: Mondagun on 04/30/2018 06:23 pmQuote from: Mr. Scott on 04/30/2018 04:34 amAn analogy is trying to detect that a magic unicorn ant exists inside of the trunk of your car, parked on the other side of the world???How is somebody going to prove to anybody this magic ant is in your car?Uhhh, couldn't you simply take a plane to said other side of the world, open the trunk of the car and then record a bunch of photos/videos of the little creature?So if I asked somebody to go out to the car in the driveway to see what is in it, would that be called science?
Very likely you’d give me a weird look and say no.
Science gets the role for what cannot be done or explained.
That is 50% or 1/2. I could take that 1/2 as the only data we clearly know. I didn't but i used 1/20 as a very conservative estimate, but based on that. It seems that recently many scientists tend to favour idea that EVERY habitable planet develops life once.
So if I asked somebody to go out to the car in the driveway to see what is in it, would that be called science?
Quote from: whitelancer64 on 04/30/2018 06:02 pmQuote from: adis on 04/29/2018 04:57 pmFirstly I must say that there are many scientists who think that percentage of habitable planets that actually develop life is 100%. Not 1 in 20, not one out of 10 thousand but one out of one. Which would mean that we could not be sure that even on Mars there wasn' t life once. Simply due to the nature of life that once there are right conditions it developes, and it developes quickly as is was on Earth. As for the fact that Earth developed life, it is a fact. We can not reject the only fact we know (one out of 2 habitable planets we CAN explore developed life) just because we live on it. We know nothing or little about anything outside our Solar System. We can do that only if we think we are unique. And that is a real bias.The big flaw in your video is that you are assuming that all planets with life will eventually develop intelligent life forms. In the first place, it's very uncertain that "advanced life" must necessarily develop on habitable planets. There could be trillions of planets out there with bacteria or virus types of life, but just a few develop more complex forms of life. In like wise, it's very uncertain that such complex life must necessarily eventually develop some level of intelligence, or if it does, that such intelligence comes in a form suited to developing technology capable of sending interstellar signals. Dolphins, for example, are quite smart creatures, but are entirely unsuited to making a radio. Indeed, even smelting metals would be an entirely alien concept to them.I don't even remember that I mentioned in my video that all planets with life will eventually develop intelligent life forms. Because I consider that obvious. Obvious for anyone who knows anything about evolution and Charles Darwin? Sure there are trillions of planets out there with bacteria (as well as in any other stage of development) but it won't stay that way forever. As on Earth. lower forms will always evolve into more complex forms simply to be more effective. Evolution. And for dolphins, they are certainly smarter than they used to be, say 20 million years ago, and they will be smarter in 20 million years then they are now, and who said they won't be suitable to make a radio then? Million years ago man wasn't able to make a shoe, so you would probably draw a conclusion that he would be unable to make a radio then in the same way you claim that for dolphins. It seems to me that I am in the wrong forum.
Quote from: adis on 04/30/2018 07:02 pmQuote from: whitelancer64 on 04/30/2018 06:02 pmQuote from: adis on 04/29/2018 04:57 pmFirstly I must say that there are many scientists who think that percentage of habitable planets that actually develop life is 100%. Not 1 in 20, not one out of 10 thousand but one out of one. Which would mean that we could not be sure that even on Mars there wasn' t life once. Simply due to the nature of life that once there are right conditions it developes, and it developes quickly as is was on Earth. As for the fact that Earth developed life, it is a fact. We can not reject the only fact we know (one out of 2 habitable planets we CAN explore developed life) just because we live on it. We know nothing or little about anything outside our Solar System. We can do that only if we think we are unique. And that is a real bias.The big flaw in your video is that you are assuming that all planets with life will eventually develop intelligent life forms. In the first place, it's very uncertain that "advanced life" must necessarily develop on habitable planets. There could be trillions of planets out there with bacteria or virus types of life, but just a few develop more complex forms of life. In like wise, it's very uncertain that such complex life must necessarily eventually develop some level of intelligence, or if it does, that such intelligence comes in a form suited to developing technology capable of sending interstellar signals. Dolphins, for example, are quite smart creatures, but are entirely unsuited to making a radio. Indeed, even smelting metals would be an entirely alien concept to them.I don't even remember that I mentioned in my video that all planets with life will eventually develop intelligent life forms. Because I consider that obvious. Obvious for anyone who knows anything about evolution and Charles Darwin? Sure there are trillions of planets out there with bacteria (as well as in any other stage of development) but it won't stay that way forever. As on Earth. lower forms will always evolve into more complex forms simply to be more effective. Evolution. And for dolphins, they are certainly smarter than they used to be, say 20 million years ago, and they will be smarter in 20 million years then they are now, and who said they won't be suitable to make a radio then? Million years ago man wasn't able to make a shoe, so you would probably draw a conclusion that he would be unable to make a radio then in the same way you claim that for dolphins. It seems to me that I am in the wrong forum.Nowhere does the theory of evolution through natural selection suggest that increasing complexity is inevitable. Natural selection increases survival fitness in the current environment, complexity is better described as another trait that can increase or decrease, with either direction leading to an increase in survival fitness based on whether the current environment rewards or punishes complexity. Complex organisms pay a price for complexity of energy expenditure maintaining that complexity against the outside environment, if the environment is too harsh then complex organisms will be selected against and simple organisms will bloom. This can be seen on Earth in when environments become chemically or thermally extreme, eg. a pond heated and acidified will see fish, plants, and insects struggle to reproduce effectively, but bacteria and protists often thrive in these conditions as it is easier to maintain their simpler internal environment against the harsh outside conditions. I’m not aware of any chemically or thermally extreme environments that host complex life but not simple life.The claim for increasing intelligence suffers similarly, intelligence requires the use of huge amounts of energy that can be repurposed to other things (running fast, hitting hard, etc.) and is only selected for in environments where it is reproductively rewarded more than these other choices for energy use. Though it is not as clear cut as the complexity claim, it is very likely that there are many environments that do not select for intelligence over other traits (I’d be interested if you could provide a source for the claim that dolphins have increased in intelligence).