Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,909 Year: 4,166/9,624 Month: 1,037/974 Week: 364/286 Day: 7/13 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   New life, and new life forms
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1496 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 14 of 59 (580388)
09-08-2010 10:45 PM


I think whatever other intelligent life we find in the universe is going to be roughly bipedal because we're going to make it that way; you know how in a lot of sci-fi settings there's a long-vanished "progenitor" race that leaves behind a bunch of artifacts and may have genetically "guided" other species to sentience?
I think that's going to be us. I think we're the first intelligent race in the galaxy. Maybe in the universe. I think solar history indicates that our sun is probably the second star in this neck of the woods; you couldn't have life until after the first star because you need a dying star to produce elements heavier than helium. So I think we probably evolved about the earliest it was possible for intelligence to evolve.
Just my speculation of course. I think Bluejay is right that other life in the universe is likely to be carbon-based, since (as my organic chemistry textbook reminds me) silicon-based life that tried to respirate would exhale silicon dioxide, which is a solid under Earthlike temperatures and pressures! I think alien life will probably have left-handed amino acids since I think abiogenetic conditions probably favor them (but, I wouldn't rule out maybe one in a hundred planets where some kind of d-amino-based life gets an early foothold.) I think they would have something analogous to DNA, but it wouldn't necessarily have to be DNA - the phosphate-ribose backbone and the specific nucleobases seem kind of arbitrary. It's not hard to imagine something like an erythrose-arsenic backbone with funny bases, like hypoxanthine and inosine. Probably reasons why that's a lot less likely, but a lot of this stuff comes down to whatever arbitrary chemistry outcompeted everything else to become the LUCA. It's like, why did Betamax never catch on?
Codon substitutions would be completely different. The funniest part of Avatar for me was the notion of inserting human genes into na'vi - they'd produce completely different proteins, even assuming the same 20 amino acids (which there's no reason to.)

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Blue Jay, posted 09-08-2010 11:04 PM crashfrog has not replied
 Message 22 by Omnivorous, posted 09-09-2010 12:09 AM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1496 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 23 of 59 (580427)
09-09-2010 12:35 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by Omnivorous
09-09-2010 12:09 AM


If the sun is about 4.7 billion years old, and the most distant observed galaxy is at 12.8 billion light years, it seems there would be plenty of time for many intelligent species to evolve before us.
Well, they have to orbit the second star in their neighborhood too, or else how could they have planets?
I guess what I'm saying is, the full life and death of a star seems to be a prerequisite to forming a life-capable star system, so I don't see how there's much time for any other system to have gotten much of a jump on us. The indication (as I recall) is that the last star, the progenitor of the Sun, formed fairly soon after the formation of the universe, but maybe I'm wrong about that. Given the rate of technological advancement in intelligent species, any intelligence with as much as a million years head-start should be engaging in engineering on a galactic scale by now. We should be able to see their public works projects from here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Omnivorous, posted 09-09-2010 12:09 AM Omnivorous has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by caffeine, posted 09-09-2010 5:25 AM crashfrog has replied
 Message 31 by xongsmith, posted 09-09-2010 3:08 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1496 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 27 of 59 (580484)
09-09-2010 10:41 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by caffeine
09-09-2010 5:25 AM


I don't think there's any reason to assume a particular rate of technological development.
I guess the only assumption I feel I'm making is that, regardless of how fast technology develops it develops instantaneously over geologic time. And if we're talking about a geologic-scale time different between another life-bearing world and ourselves that's going to represent an inconceivably vast gulf between our technology and theirs.
Remember that you're extrapolating from a sample size of one
Well, we're pretty much all going to do that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by caffeine, posted 09-09-2010 5:25 AM caffeine has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by caffeine, posted 09-10-2010 4:17 AM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1496 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 43 of 59 (580659)
09-10-2010 2:28 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by caffeine
09-10-2010 4:17 AM


On the more general question of whether intelligent life would arise everywhere at about the same time, this seems very unlikely to me.
Well, I take your points. Obviously there's substantial room for a diversity of opinion on this stuff, and certainly tantalizing hints of extrasolar civilization (like the "Wow!" signal) indicate against my position.
You know, but weird synchronicities do happen. Newton and Leibniz independently developed calculus almost exactly at the same time. Edison and Swan invented the same lightbulb.
Just sayin'. Like I said I take your points.
Why would we expect to notice evidence of civillisations unimaginably distant from us.
Well, they shouldn't be too distant. The Fermi paradox is that even assuming a relatively low rate of Earth-like planet formation, and even assuming a relatively slow rate of evolution of complex life forms, and even assuming wildly different timescales that intelligent life could evolve on, and even assuming the incredibly narrow span of time we've been able to look, we should still be up to our nutsacks in alien civilizations. Our galaxy should be a very crowded place but it's not. I suspect that's because we're the first ones to arrive at the party.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by caffeine, posted 09-10-2010 4:17 AM caffeine has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024