55 {{ upvoteCount | shortNum }}
55 {{ upvoteCount | shortNum }}

Professor Brian Cox says No Other Life In The Universe.

by lanfear63
42 replies
  • OFF TOPIC
    • |
Professor Brian Cox says alien life is all but impossible as humanity is 'unique'* | Daily Mail Online

Not just our galaxy, but the entire universe.

A Professor has made an ASUMPTION based entirely on observation of our planet alone.

Well that's alright then.

Bad Science.

I really hope that when they drill a whole in the surface of Europa and go fishing they land a big one!
  • Profile picture of the author Elvis Michael
    Yeah, because we're just soooooooooooo special.


    ....... professor moron.
    Signature
    -- Over 5,000 Blogs that Accept Guest Posts --

    Click to View the Largest List Available Online
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9673738].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Claude Whitacre
    Originally Posted by lanfear63 View Post

    Professor Brian Cox says alien life is all but impossible as humanity is 'unique'* | Daily Mail Online

    Not just our galaxy, but the entire universe.

    A Professor has made an ASUMPTION based entirely on observation of our planet alone.

    Well that's alright then.

    Bad Science.

    I really hope that when they drill a whole in the surface of Europa and go fishing they land a big one!
    Read it again. And it wasn't an assumption based on our planet alone. It was an educated guess based on an intricate knowledge of the processes needed for life to start, and survive.

    And after life starts, the incredibly unlikely chain of millions of things had to happen, in the correct order, before a sentient species emerged... us.

    He did not say that there was no other life. Single celled life may be relatively easy to start. But here on Earth, it was a few billion years before anything beyond one celled life emerged. And of the hundreds of thousands of species, only one has technology.

    The odds of life emerging on any single planet are astronomically small. The environments are simply too harsh and don't have the necessary conditions. And we actually know what they are for a single celled organism to have a chance to be created.

    And the odds of one celled life becoming us, were so incredibly small, the word impossible would apply. But here we are.

    It was actually good science and good math.


    Added later; The whole article was nonsense. A few partial quotes taken out of context. Cox thinks life is rare. But he never said we were the only life in the universe. That statement would be idiotic.
    Signature
    One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr

    What if they're not stars? What if they are holes poked in the top of a container so we can breath?
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9673759].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Kurt
      Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre View Post

      Read it again. And it wasn't an assumption based on our planet alone. It was an educated guess based on an intricate knowledge of the processes needed for life to start, and survive.

      And after life starts, the incredibly unlikely chain of millions of things had to happen, in the correct order, before a sentient species emerged... us.

      He did not say that there was no other life. Single celled life may be relatively easy to start. But here on Earth, it was a few billion years before anything beyond one celled life emerged. Ad of the hundreds of thousands of species, only one has technology.

      The odds of life emerging on and single planet are astronomically small. The environments are simply too harsh and don't have the necessary conditions. And we actually know what they are for a single celled organism to have a chance to be created.

      And the odds of one celled life becoming us, were so incredibly small, the word impossible would apply. But here we are.

      It was actually good science and good math.
      A couple of issues with your argument. One, it assumes humans were the only life capable of evolving into "intelligent" life forms. There was a raptor with a larger brain than any of the mammals at the time of that extinction. It's possible, although unlikely, that it could have evolved into something with advanced intelligence.

      Another issue is that evolution isn't the only possible alternative, at least to the point of creating intelligent life on other planets. If a single other planet evolved intelligent life, it's possible these life forms populated other planets. And over billions of years, these life forms could have evolved into different "species". You really only need one "seed of intelligent life" to spread and not have to depend on multiple instances of evolution from a single cell to the point of intelligent life for every planet with intelligent life.

      It's also possible that other intelligent life forms manipulated the DNA of life on other planets.

      There's simply too many possibilities for us to make any blanket statements. We're all really just guessing.
      Signature
      Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
      Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9673792].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Claude Whitacre
        Kurt in bold ,me not in bold.

        A couple of issues with your argument. One, it assumes humans were the only life capable of evolving into "intelligent" life forms. There was a raptor with a larger brain than any of the mammals at the time of that extinction. It's possible, although unlikely, that it could have evolved into something with advanced intelligence.

        No. It doesn't assume that at all, but I see why it would seem like that. I'm saying that of all the species that ever lived on Earth, only one has complex technology. I didn't really mean it was inevitably us. On the other hand, there were raptors for millions of years without any real change. Why? Because they were comfortable in their niche. For real evolution to happen, there has to be a need to adapt. Most species that need to adapt, simply go extinct. And the different species of dinosaur were doing just fine for millions of years.

        Another issue is that evolution isn't the only possible alternative, at least to the point of creating intelligent life on other planets. If a single other planet evolved intelligent life, it's possible these life forms populated other planets. And over billions of years, these life forms could have evolved into different "species". You really only need one "seed of intelligent life" to spread and not have to depend on multiple instances of evolution from a single cell to the point of intelligent life for every planet with intelligent life.

        It's also possible that other intelligent life forms manipulated the DNA of life on other planets.

        All good arguments. But Cox was talking about life evolving, not life traveling. Two different subjects. And I would say it's a pretty safe bet that transplanting life is something that we could eventually do, on purpose.

        There's simply too many possibilities for us to make any blanket statements. We're all really just guessing.

        Maybe. We aren't discussing facts (except science facts we are basing our guesses on). When we are talking about UFOs, it's mostly guessing, I think. But there is an astronomical difference from having an educated guess, based on real science, and guessing based on the last episode of The Walking Dead or Earth VS The Flying Saucers.

        And that's what we are seeing on this forum, for the most part.



        Originally Posted by Jack Gordon View Post

        There is an alternative view that life is the default outcome, when a few other elements are in place (distance from a star and water, to name a couple of important ones).
        That may be true. But as I've said before, there is a very long list of conditions that absolutely prevent life from taking hold. And most planets, and all that we have seen so far, outside our solar system, have some of these conditions. I could list a dozen or so, if anyone is interested.

        And on the planets that life can take hold on, there are some conditions that absolutely have to be met before technology can get started. (Not intelligence, but technology)

        We have already created the building blocks of life in labs. So the conditions aren't a mystery.
        Signature
        One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr

        What if they're not stars? What if they are holes poked in the top of a container so we can breath?
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9673820].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Kurt
          Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre View Post

          Kurt in bold ,me not in bold.

          A couple of issues with your argument. One, it assumes humans were the only life capable of evolving into "intelligent" life forms. There was a raptor with a larger brain than any of the mammals at the time of that extinction. It's possible, although unlikely, that it could have evolved into something with advanced intelligence.

          No. It doesn't assume that at all, but I see why it would seem like that. I'm saying that of all the species that ever lived on Earth, only one has complex technology. I didn't really mean it was inevitably us. On the other hand, there were raptors for millions of years without any real change. Why? Because they were comfortable in their niche. For real evolution to happen, there has to be a need to adapt. Most species that need to adapt, simply go extinct. And the different species of dinosaur were doing just fine for millions of years.
          Except velociraptor did evolve and their brains were growing.


          All good arguments. But Cox was talking about life evolving, not life traveling. Two different subjects. And I would say it's a pretty safe bet that transplanting life is something that we could eventually do, on purpose.

          Incorrect. Cox said:
          'There is only one advanced technological civilisation in this galaxy and there has only ever been one - and that's us. We are unique.
          'It's a dizzying thought. There are billions of planets out there, surely there must have been a second genesis?

          'But we must be careful because the story of life on this planet shows that the transition from single-celled life to complex life may not have been inevitable.'
          Cox clearly said "there is only one advanced technilogical civilisation". He based his opinion on how difficult it is to evolve into an advanced civilization. As I pointed out, we only need one other "complex life form" to evolve then to spread out and don't need to depend on single cell to advanced life forum evolution.

          He also assumes that "from single-celled life to complex life" is the only way for advanced civilizations to have devleoped. Again as I said, it only had to happen once, a very long time ago, for there to be (or have been) multiple advanced life forms.

          And while certain "single" events are a long shot, the more times something is "tried", the more likely it becomes. It may be unlikely that any particlular person is struck by lightening. However, if there's enough lighnting strikes and enough people, SOME people will likely be struck by lightening. As a matter of fact, despite how unlikely it is for any one person to be struck, many people are struck by lightening every year.

          Winning the mega lottery is a longshot. But some people win, because enough people play.

          And the more planets and moons capable of supporting life, the more likely it is that some intelligent life forms have developed. Cox assumes that we were lucky that an asteroid hit us. We were. However, that doesn't mean another life form wasn't "unlucky". His reasoning is a total non-sequitor in the context of any advanced life.

          Since Cox has no idea of what life forms there are in all the places of the galaxy, it's impossible for him to even know the "odds". He assumes it's virtually impossible. Maybe there's other places even better for creating advanced life?

          ]
          Maybe. We aren't discussing facts (except science facts we are basing our guesses on). When we are talking about UFOs, it's mostly guessing, I think. But there is an astronomical difference from having an educated guess, based on real science, and guessing based on the last episode of The Walking Dead or Earth VS The Flying Saucers.

          And that's what we are seeing on this forum, for the most part.
          Except you and Cox didn't factor in the fact that there are other possibilities. And until we have a better idea of the number of planets and moons capable of supporting life, we are guessing, as we don't have enough facts to make an "educated" opinion.

          What we know for a fact is, there is advanced life on Earth. To assume it's harder, easier or impossible on every other planet or moon in the Universe is just a guess. But we have proved it is possible.
          Signature
          Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
          Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9673858].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Alexa Smith
            Banned
            Originally Posted by Kurt View Post

            Incorrect. Cox said:
            'There is only one advanced technological civilisation in this galaxy and there has only ever been one - and that's us. We are unique.
            Not so much, maybe, Kurt? I may be wrong, but I think he probably said that (if at all) quoting a "view" which he then discussed, rather than as a statement of his own opinion.

            I've heard him discuss this on other programs, and read what he's written about it elsewhere, too. Granted, he's far from a "Saganist" on this subject, but the statement above really isn't quite representative of any of his views that I've seen before.

            Also, guys, let's not overlook that we're looking at the Daily Mail, here! That has the journalistic accuracy and integrity standards of the National Enquirer, over there (but it's far more xenophobic, and bilious, and disingenuous in the sense that it presents itself as something actually to be taken seriously ).

            There's absolutely no reason to imagine that its portrayal of a program's content is realistic, nor that the views it attributes to anyone actually represent what the person said, let alone whether they were quoting something or "saying it themselves".

            And specifically, don't expect their headline necessarily to have any underlying basis in reality at all.

            As newsprint goes, its primary function is to wrap up tomorrow's fish and chips (and even that's getting questionable, with the cheap ink they use.) And as newsprint goes, it went.

            "Just saying" ...

            .
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9673913].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Kurt
              Originally Posted by Alexa Smith View Post

              Not so much, maybe, Kurt? I may be wrong, but I think he probably said that (if at all) quoting a "view" which he then discussed, rather than as a statement of his own opinion.

              I've heard him discuss this on other programs, and read what he's written about it elsewhere, too. The statement above really isn't representative of any of his views that I've seen before.



              .

              It's possible. However, the comments I quoted were in quotation marks in the article and I am not aware of any of his other comments. He could be totally misrepresented in the article and quote. But it's all the info I have to go on, so it's what I went with.

              If his quote is out of context, my points will apply to that context and not to his own opinions.
              Signature
              Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
              Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9673932].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author Alexa Smith
                Banned
                Originally Posted by Kurt View Post

                It's possible. However, the comments I quoted were in quotation marks in the article and I am not aware of any of his other comments. He could be totally misrepresented in the article and quote. But it's all the info I have to go on, so it's what I went with.
                Sure - of course. Understood, completely. I was - literally - "just saying" that it doesn't have to be what it appears to be (to put it mildly).

                .
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9673938].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author Kurt
                  Originally Posted by Alexa Smith View Post

                  Sure - of course. Understood, completely. I was - literally - "just saying" that it doesn't have to be what it appears to be (to put it mildly).

                  .
                  That's OK. Either way, Claude agrees with the "context" and it's really him I have a problem with, not Cox.
                  Signature
                  Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
                  Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9673944].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author positivenegative
                    And then there's "WalkingCarpet".
                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9673992].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author Claude Whitacre
                    Originally Posted by Kurt View Post

                    That's OK. Either way, Claude agrees with the "context" and it's really him I have a problem with, not Cox.
                    Me? You have a problem with...me? Little old me?

                    The initial post quoting Cox was false. He never said it. What I said earlier was partly based on science TV shows he has had. The math shows that life is probably very rare, and that technologically advanced life is probably extremely rare.


                    The show is called; Human Universe with Professor Brian Cox: Are We Alone? Shown Tuesday, October 21 on BBC Two.


                    If you live in Great Britain only, it's available there. The whole episode where he talks about this. I wish I could watch it here in the US. But his shows are very well presented, and scientifically sound. He has a real passion for science, and it shows.



                    Originally Posted by Kurt View Post

                    To assume it's harder, easier or impossible on every other planet or moon in the Universe is just a guess. But we have proved it is possible.
                    First. You are right about Velociraptor. Large brains...cunning. Maybe today there would be a Velociraptor typing this, instead of me...if it hadn't been for that asteroid.

                    We have proven it is possible for life to emerge on another planet exactly like our own. In a solar system..exactly like our own.

                    Once we find primitive life on another planet (or moon) our knowledge will multiply, because we will have two points of reference.
                    Signature
                    One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr

                    What if they're not stars? What if they are holes poked in the top of a container so we can breath?
                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9673993].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author Kurt
                      Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre View Post

                      Me? You have a problem with...me? Little old me?
                      I agree with the "old" part. But "little"? Your head is so big the good folks of Wooster call you the "Human Eclipse". The Mayans held sacrifices every time you passed by...
                      Signature
                      Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
                      Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.
                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9675227].message }}
                      • Profile picture of the author Claude Whitacre
                        Originally Posted by Kurt View Post

                        I agree with the "old" part. But "little"? Your head is so big the good folks of Wooster call you the "Human Eclipse". The Mayans held sacrifices every time you passed by...
                        If they sacrifice people to me, can I choose who?


                        Originally Posted by lgibbon View Post

                        Well I saw the programe and he didn't quite say that.
                        He said, that taking into consideration the length of time this planet has been here,
                        and the minute percentage of that time that we have been here,
                        the chances of life developing at exactly the same time as us is probably impossible.
                        That's a factor I hadn't really considered. Thanks for giving us the heads up. I keep forgetting what an incredible short time we have been on this planet (as fully formed humans) and the infinitesimal amount of time we have had technology.

                        Who knows.

                        But microbial life started soon after the Earth's surface cooled (at least enough that it wasn't molten) maybe 3.5 billion years ago. So he must be taking about intelligent life, capable of technology.
                        Signature
                        One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr

                        What if they're not stars? What if they are holes poked in the top of a container so we can breath?
                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9675484].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author Jack Gordon
                    Originally Posted by Kurt View Post

                    That's OK. Either way, Claude agrees with the "context" and it's really him I have a problem with, not Cox.
                    Have you SEEN Claude lately?

                    He is practically living proof of life "out there"

                    Have you contemplated the possibility that he might just be trying to cover his tracks?

                    Signature
                    Fifteen Lessons I have learned over 15 years and six businesses (or, My 1000th-Post Manifesto)
                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9674004].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author ElGuapo
                      As Alexa pointed out, it IS The Daily Mail...and, not for the first time, an individual has had to clarify themselves in response to a Mail article.

                      Cox on Twitter: 'Ah Daily Mail: subtle differences between Civilisations (rare?) Life (common?) Universe (infinite?) Galaxy (finite) Mail link'

                      And: 'FOR LAST TIME: I think life is common in universe. We MAY be only civ. in Milky Way. There WILL be other civilisations in univ. #shutupnow'

                      He also vouches for this article: http://i100.independent.co.uk/articl...se--x1fAYBCaLg
                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9674013].message }}
                      • Profile picture of the author tagiscom
                        Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre View Post

                        Read it again. And it wasn't an assumption based on our planet alone. It was an educated guess based on an intricate knowledge of the processes needed for life to start, and survive.

                        And after life starts, the incredibly unlikely chain of millions of things had to happen, in the correct order, before a sentient species emerged... us.

                        He did not say that there was no other life. Single celled life may be relatively easy to start. But here on Earth, it was a few billion years before anything beyond one celled life emerged. And of the hundreds of thousands of species, only one has technology.

                        The odds of life emerging on any single planet are astronomically small. The environments are simply too harsh and don't have the necessary conditions. And we actually know what they are for a single celled organism to have a chance to be created.

                        And the odds of one celled life becoming us, were so incredibly small, the word impossible would apply. But here we are.

                        It was actually good science and good math.


                        Added later; The whole article was nonsense. A few partial quotes taken out of context. Cox thinks life is rare. But he never said we were the only life in the universe. That statement would be idiotic.
                        Yeah, l will go back and delete all the Martian artifacts then, since it doesn't support this crackpots theory!


                        Signature
                        Archimedes-The Truth Seekers Forum..
                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9674029].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author Kurt
                      Originally Posted by Jack Gordon View Post

                      Have you SEEN Claude lately?

                      He is practically living proof of life "out there"

                      Have you contemplated the possibility that he might just be trying to cover his tracks?
                      I didn't consider Claude because we've been talking about intelligent life...
                      Signature
                      Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
                      Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.
                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9675218].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author whateverpedia
              Originally Posted by Alexa Smith View Post

              Also, guys, let's not overlook that we're looking at the Daily Mail, here! That has the journalistic accuracy and integrity standards of the National Enquirer, over there (but it's far more xenophobic, and bilious, and disingenuous in the sense that it presents itself as something actually to be taken seriously ).
              The only purpose The Daily Mail serves is to make Murdoch's tabloids look high-brow, or at least higher-brow.
              Signature
              Why do garden gnomes smell so bad?
              So that blind people can hate them as well.
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9674010].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author HeySal
            Originally Posted by Kurt View Post

            Except velociraptor did evolve and their brains were growing.





            Incorrect. Cox said:


            Cox clearly said "there is only one advanced technilogical civilisation". He based his opinion on how difficult it is to evolve into an advanced civilization. As I pointed out, we only need one other "complex life form" to evolve then to spread out and don't need to depend on single cell to advanced life forum evolution.

            He also assumes that "from single-celled life to complex life" is the only way for advanced civilizations to have devleoped. Again as I said, it only had to happen once, a very long time ago, for there to be (or have been) multiple advanced life forms.

            And while certain "single" events are a long shot, the more times something is "tried", the more likely it becomes. It may be unlikely that any particlular person is struck by lightening. However, if there's enough lighnting strikes and enough people, SOME people will likely be struck by lightening. As a matter of fact, despite how unlikely it is for any one person to be struck, many people are struck by lightening every year.

            Winning the mega lottery is a longshot. But some people win, because enough people play.

            And the more planets and moons capable of supporting life, the more likely it is that some intelligent life forms have developed. Cox assumes that we were lucky that an asteroid hit us. We were. However, that doesn't mean another life form wasn't "unlucky". His reasoning is a total non-sequitor in the context of any advanced life.

            Since Cox has no idea of what life forms there are in all the places of the galaxy, it's impossible for him to even know the "odds". He assumes it's virtually impossible. Maybe there's other places even better for creating advanced life?



            Except you and Cox didn't factor in the fact that there are other possibilities. And until we have a better idea of the number of planets and moons capable of supporting life, we are guessing, as we don't have enough facts to make an "educated" opinion.

            What we know for a fact is, there is advanced life on Earth. To assume it's harder, easier or impossible on every other planet or moon in the Universe is just a guess. But we have proved it is possible.

            That was a very well thought out post. Beat the heck out of mine even though our direction and intent was the same. Good job.
            Signature

            Sal
            When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
            Beyond the Path

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9673926].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author lanfear63
      Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre View Post

      Read it again. And it wasn't an assumption based on our planet alone. It was an educated guess based on an intricate knowledge of the processes needed for life to start, and survive.

      And after life starts, the incredibly unlikely chain of millions of things had to happen, in the correct order, before a sentient species emerged... us.

      He did not say that there was no other life. Single celled life may be relatively easy to start. But here on Earth, it was a few billion years before anything beyond one celled life emerged. And of the hundreds of thousands of species, only one has technology.

      The odds of life emerging on any single planet are astronomically small. The environments are simply too harsh and don't have the necessary conditions. And we actually know what they are for a single celled organism to have a chance to be created.

      And the odds of one celled life becoming us, were so incredibly small, the word impossible would apply. But here we are.

      It was actually good science and good math.
      I am Groot

      And I am an intelligent plant creature. Please lay the table.

      Let's see.

      Logical Probability Dictates..

      Solar Systems are formed, Planets in the Habitable Zone are Formed. Planets are sterile blobs of molten rock initially. Planets get water vapor from the masses of comets and bits of debris floating crashing into them. The building blocks of life are floating around in space everywhere. It is in the water from the comets and debris that hits the Earth.

      Eventually it all settles down. the bashing is not so often and the planet is cooled down.

      So I have to stop there. We have a Catalyst that is probably uniform across the universe. How it develops from there is undefined except for what we know of here. but, we still have a Catalyst.

      If life of any sort develops, either simple or complicated, it tends to cling on and diversify, adapt to conditions and spread out. It is very hardy. That's our experience here.

      What it will become, Reptilian, Mammalian, Plant based or Silicone. and how intelligent it gets, who know.

      Mr Cox is speculating on how the rest of the Universe will turn out based entirely on what happened here. He is making Assumptions. Yes, pretty learned ones, but based on here and assuming it could only happen once
      Show me conclusive proof please Mr Cox
      Signature

      Feel The Power Of The Mark Side

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9673864].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Claude Whitacre
        Originally Posted by lanfear63 View Post

        I am Groot

        And I am an intelligent plant creature. Please lay the table.

        Let's see.

        Logical Probability Dictates..

        Solar Systems are formed, Planets in the Habitable Zone are Formed. Planets are sterile blobs of molten rock initially. Planets get water vapor from the masses of comets and bits of debris floating crashing into them. The building blocks of life are floating around in space everywhere. It is in the water from the comets and debris that hits the Earth.

        Eventually it all settles down. the bashing is not so often and the planet is cooled down.

        So I have to stop there. We have a Catalyst that is probably uniform across the universe. How it develops from there is undefined except for what we know of here. but, we still have a Catalyst.
        My friend;

        The article is a hoax. He never said it. Written well enough to be plausible, it's just another nonsensical attempt to create a headline. Brian Cox isn't too happy about it either. Just google "Brian cox: are we alone?"

        And maybe watch a few other science shows that describe what the other stars we find are really like. Our stable solar system is rare in the extreme. We can't see other planets clearly yet. But their stars? We see them pretty well.
        Signature
        One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr

        What if they're not stars? What if they are holes poked in the top of a container so we can breath?
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9674041].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author lanfear63
          Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre View Post

          My friend;

          The article is a hoax. He never said it. Written well enough to be plausible, it's just another nonsensical attempt to create a headline. Brian Cox isn't too happy about it either. Just google "Brian cox: are we alone?"

          And maybe watch a few other science shows that describe what the other stars we find are really like. Our stable solar system is rare in the extreme. We can't see other planets clearly yet. But their stars? We see them pretty well.
          Whoo! I never expected that coming from the Daily Mail site. Its a bit of a Conservative politics tabloid and we have been taking it for 30 years back in the UK. It had it's political bias stance but was never that inaccurate in reporting news.

          Thanks for the heads up.
          Signature

          Feel The Power Of The Mark Side

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9674097].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Frank Donovan
            Originally Posted by lanfear63 View Post

            Whoo! I never expected that coming from the Daily Mail site. Its a bit of a Conservative politics tabloid and we have been taking it for 30 years back in the UK. It had it's political bias stance but was never that inaccurate in reporting news.
            Expect it. The Mail Online "reporter" apparently thinks the terms galaxy and universe are interchangeable. The article is a piece of trash.

            I watched all five episodes of Brian Cox's Human Universe. I like him as a presenter and have enjoyed much of his work, but as the title might suggest, this series was clearly following an agenda that sought to "big up" humans and our place in the cosmos. He concluded by arguing that increasing the funding for scientific research was our best, if not only, hope for the future of the species.

            The episode in which he talks about the odds of other advanced civilizations existing in our galaxy was meant to highlight the chance nature of our own existence. He didn't discount the possibility out of hand. Rather, I believe he was speculating that it may require the vast number of potentially inhabitable planets in a galaxy our size to arrive at one that goes on to produce a technologically advanced species. In any case, he wasn't putting forward a scientific theory - just his own opinion.

            This series wasn't one of his best, in my view. Good in parts, for sure - he's a passionate scientist and his enthusiasm is infectious - but he started to lose me with his constant references to the uniqueness of the human species; as if all species weren't unique in their own way.


            .
            Signature


            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9674238].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Alexa Smith
            Banned
            Originally Posted by lanfear63 View Post

            Whoo! I never expected that coming from the Daily Mail site.
            No??? That's normal, for the Daily Fail.

            Originally Posted by lanfear63 View Post

            It had it's political bias stance but was never that inaccurate in reporting news.
            This one was actually quite "accurate" for the Fail, I thought. They got the guy's name right, didn't they?

            .
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9675223].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Jack Gordon
    There is an alternative view that life is the default outcome, when a few other elements are in place (distance from a star and water, to name a couple of important ones).

    This theory states that every planet capable of supporting life eventually does, and each one has a unique trajectory and development.

    Those evolving a technologically proficient intelligent species are going to be a tiny fraction of the overall number, but that could still equal millions or billions of worlds.

    There is still too much we don't know about the universe to be attempting answers to these kinds of questions. I think it is much more appropriate to continue developing ideas (like the Drake Equation ) to improve our understanding of the possibilities.
    Signature
    Fifteen Lessons I have learned over 15 years and six businesses (or, My 1000th-Post Manifesto)
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9673817].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author HeySal
      Originally Posted by Jack Gordon View Post

      There is an alternative view that life is the default outcome, when a few other elements are in place (distance from a star and water, to name a couple of important ones).

      This theory states that every planet capable of supporting life eventually does, and each one has a unique trajectory and development.

      Those evolving a technologically proficient intelligent species are going to be a tiny fraction of the overall number, but that could still equal millions or billions of worlds.

      There is still too much we don't know about the universe to be attempting answers to these kinds of questions. I think it is much more appropriate to continue developing ideas (like the Drake Equation ) to improve our understanding of the possibilities.
      My thanks button seems severely limited - but this really deserved one....so - thanks.
      Signature

      Sal
      When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
      Beyond the Path

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9673842].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author HeySal
    Science also says DNA and water are not originated on earth - both necessary for life. We're finding water all over the place (or ice on colder planets). Where did the DNA come in from? It's not a terrestrial manifestation. So where'd it come from? Maybe it came in with the water. Okay. From where? Water means very possible plate tectonics so that puts a lot of planets in the running for being able to sustain life right there - tectonics means renewable atmosphere.


    There are billions of planets situated around their suns to give them viable temperatures for life (as we know it). They have the same possibility of water that earth had. They have the same possibility of DNA as earth had.

    We have beings here that have complex cognitive functioning (even though humans still place themselves above them). Some, such as the dolphin may even out-think us at the core level. All humans have over these animals is that we evolved opposable thumbs and extremely flexible vocal chords. We are, in other words, able to alter our environment. Animals use tools, they just don't have the physical evolution to actually alter their environment. Conversely - our ability might have cost us extinction in the long run.

    This scientist isn't running science, he's running his personal belief system.
    Signature

    Sal
    When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
    Beyond the Path

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9673839].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author seasoned
      Originally Posted by HeySal View Post

      Science also says DNA and water are not originated on earth - both necessary for life. We're finding water all over the place (or ice on colder planets). Where did the DNA come in from? It's not a terrestrial manifestation. So where'd it come from? Maybe it came in with the water. Okay. From where? Water means very possible plate tectonics so that puts a lot of planets in the running for being able to sustain life right there - tectonics means renewable atmosphere.
      Well,they CLAIMED long ago that they figured out how DNA came to be, but the whole theory is based on the right sequence of unlikely events, and they say that can happen because SUPPOSEDLY the planet is so many BILLIONS of years old. Supposedly, the original environment had more ammonia, for example. And ammonia IS surprisingly common. It is why Amino acids are named that, and why urine has ammonia in it.(Metabolizing amino acids "deaminates" them, and creates ammonia) WATER can be *********EASILY********** explained. If the right conditions exist to contain it, which ***********HAVE*********** to be TERRESTRIAL, and obviously ARE on earth! And you have HYDROGEN(the simplest of ALL atoms) and OXYGEN(Not much more complicated) ALL you need is a catalyst! Hydrogen reacts easily, and LOVES oxygen! That catalyst can be as simple as LIGHTNING! Heat and fire can also work. So WHAT didn't "originate" on earth? I quote originate, because NOBODY has truly ever explained where the atoms came from in the first place.

      BESIDES, DNA is a lot like protein in a way. One could say that protein is even MORE complicated. I mean human protein is made up of as many as like 20 amino acids, and DNA is only made up of 4 chemicals. So if one is to say DNA couldn't originate here, then where did protein come from?

      There are billions of planets situated around their suns to give them viable temperatures for life (as we know it). They have the same possibility of water that earth had. They have the same possibility of DNA as earth had.
      Life as we know it requires the right gas, pressure, water, food, light, etc... and that is just EXTERNAL stuff. If I recall right, they only found a couple planets they THINK might be close.

      We have beings here that have complex cognitive functioning (even though humans still place themselves above them). Some, such as the dolphin may even out-think us at the core level. All humans have over these animals is that we evolved opposable thumbs and extremely flexible vocal chords. We are, in other words, able to alter our environment. Animals use tools, they just don't have the physical evolution to actually alter their environment. Conversely - our ability might have cost us extinction in the long run.
      Well, it IS on the same planet.

      This scientist isn't running science, he's running his personal belief system.
      Well, at this point, I think that could be said for EVERYONE! As for science, NOBODY has done this according to science. When they can use EXISTING technology with basic elements, to recreate life, maybe you are starting to approximate science in explaining evolution. They still haven't done that.

      GEE, they recreated FLIES using basic observation and a seemingly crazy theory. It was REPEATED again and again and again! SOUNDS pretty AIR TIGHT, HUH? I mean they came up with a theory, tried it out, and it WORKED!!!!!! They forgot ONE little thing! They were on EARTH!!!!!!!! One day, a person made a minor change to the test, to allow for being on earth, tried the test, and it FAILED!!!!!!!! TO THIS DAY, the old test often works, and the new one generally fails, and what was once FACT is now a childish JOKE!

      Spontaneous generation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

      Steve
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9674354].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author lgibbon
    Banned
    Originally Posted by lanfear63 View Post

    Professor Brian Cox says alien life is all but impossible as humanity is 'unique'* | Daily Mail Online

    Not just our galaxy, but the entire universe.

    A Professor has made an ASUMPTION based entirely on observation of our planet alone.

    Well that's alright then.

    Bad Science.

    I really hope that when they drill a whole in the surface of Europa and go fishing they land a big one!
    Well I saw the programe and he didn't quite say that.
    He said, that taking into consideration the length of time this planet has been here,
    and the minute percentage of that time that we have been here,
    the chances of life developing at exactly the same time as us is probably impossible.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9674845].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author MikeAmbrosio
    Ok, for all you "nay-sayers" out there, I have just one thing to say:

    Star Trek!

    'nuff said.

    Signature

    Are you protecting your on line business? If you have a website, blog, ecommerce store you NEED to back it up regularly. Your webhost will only protect you so much. Check out Quirkel. Protect yourself.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9675501].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Alexa Smith
      Banned
      Originally Posted by MikeAmbrosio View Post

      Ok, for all you "nay-sayers" out there, I have just one thing to say:

      Star Trek!
      Now you're talking my kind of language.

      Speaking of which, Dax actually posted here earlier today, but the moderators saw fit to censor that input.

      .
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9675936].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Jack Gordon
      Originally Posted by MikeAmbrosio View Post

      Ok, for all you "nay-sayers" out there, I have just one thing to say:

      Star Trek!

      'nuff said.
      Nothing against Star Trek. I am a Trekkie.

      But... for a much, much more realistic approach on how the rest of the universe is populated, I actually suggest Farscape.
      Signature
      Fifteen Lessons I have learned over 15 years and six businesses (or, My 1000th-Post Manifesto)
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9676031].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author seasoned
        Originally Posted by Jack Gordon View Post

        Nothing against Star Trek. I am a Trekkie.

        But... for a much, much more realistic approach on how the rest of the universe is populated, I actually suggest Farscape.
        OK, so we have MUPPETS in space, and space ships that are creatures that must be paired with muppets!



        Actually, for a sentient race, that is capable of such far travel, a humanoid type format seems the most logical. Claws would be just SILLY, though they could have claws AS WELL. Having multiple pairs of legs would be problematic, though I guess possible. You would need at LEAST two eyes, and at least 2 ears would be good ALSO. It would be best if the brain were encased in some way and it would just logically best be near the eyes and ears. The way the legs, and arms, are on humans would also be preferable in most cases.

        So that gives a LOT of potential variation. The skin could be different. The head could be a bit different, but something capable of adjusting the position of the eyes and ears would be a good idea. The ears could look different. The eyes could be different. The hands and feet could be different. But STILL, I basically identified a humanoid! I could think of some silly variants, like antennas for whatever reason, stalks for eyes and/or ears, maybe some weirder kind of neck, though the stalks could conceivably negatethe need, etc... But one wonders WHY? Then again, some creatures HERE have odd variants, includingthe kind I mentioned, I nobody knows why. But some of the WIERD things on the ST and farscape franchises are just INCREDIBLY unlikely. The fish that navigate ships in ST enterprise, for example.

        Steve
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9676413].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Jack Gordon
          Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

          OK, so we have MUPPETS in space, and space ships that are creatures that must be paired with muppets!

          Only a couple of muppets... the rest are quite humanoid.

          You touched, though, on one of my biggest frustrations with ST over the various incarnations... the horrible lack of creativity in alien design. Actually, Farscape is better on that count, but not by much.

          I find it highly UNlikely that any other race has evolved so similarly to us, at least superficially. Even your "requirement" of two eyes and two ears is guilty of some degree of provincialism.

          Why wouldn't another race evolve completely different ways of experiencing the senses? Dogs have a sense of smell exponentially better than that of humans, and they evolved right alongside us. What if instead of a big nose, an alien race could just take in aromatic particles through their pores? Or, what if they had to make a conscious effort to take in the smell, similar to us reaching out and touching something? Maybe that is a self-preservation mechanism on their world, where bad smells are more lethal than they are here.

          That is one teeny, tiny speculative endeavor that would allow me to create an alien inherently more interesting than 99% of the attempts at alien design we see in our "entertainment" options.

          The crazy part, though, is that anyone we manage to find out there is likely to be far less like us than we could possibly imagine. The gaps in our understanding of how to understand each other would likely be too wide to overcome. Probably the only safe assumption to make is that they will not look anything like we expected them to.
          Signature
          Fifteen Lessons I have learned over 15 years and six businesses (or, My 1000th-Post Manifesto)
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9676502].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author seasoned
            Originally Posted by Jack Gordon View Post

            Only a couple of muppets... the rest are quite humanoid.

            You touched, though, on one of my biggest frustrations with ST over the various incarnations... the horrible lack of creativity in alien design. Actually, Farscape is better on that count, but not by much.
            Did you hear about how the transporter was developed? They WANTED to have SHUTTLES, but they weren't in the budget! Some simple visual effects led to the transporter, that allowed things to go on with NO shuttles! That may be a reason for the simple alien designs as well.

            I find it highly UNlikely that any other race has evolved so similarly to us, at least superficially. Even your "requirement" of two eyes and two ears is guilty of some degree of provincialism.
            I simply said it would be kind of necessary to allow them to design, build, and fly such vehicles.

            Why wouldn't another race evolve completely different ways of experiencing the senses? Dogs have a sense of smell exponentially better than that of humans, and they evolved right alongside us. What if instead of a big nose, an alien race could just take in aromatic particles through their pores? Or, what if they had to make a conscious effort to take in the smell, similar to us reaching out and touching something? Maybe that is a self-preservation mechanism on their world, where bad smells are more lethal than they are here.
            Bad smells can be VERY lethal here! But SURE! I didn't say they had to even be able to smell! And you will note that almost every animal on earth has a similar concept. DOGS, for example have equal size limbs with almost useless feet(for building), and may have different specs, but they STILL have 2 eyes, 2 ears, on their head, with a neck.

            That is one teeny, tiny speculative endeavor that would allow me to create an alien inherently more interesting than 99% of the attempts at alien design we see in our "entertainment" options.
            CERTAINLY! HECK, they could have gills, no nose, scales, fins, feet with flippers, no toes, and live in water.

            The crazy part, though, is that anyone we manage to find out there is likely to be far less like us than we could possibly imagine. The gaps in our understanding of how to understand each other would likely be too wide to overcome. Probably the only safe assumption to make is that they will not look anything like we expected them to.
            Yeah, it is possible that they have an entirely different way of communicating that would prevent them from speaking most early languages, and may have ears that wouldn't discern what WE are saying.

            Steve
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9677191].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Jack Gordon
              Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

              Did you hear about how the transporter was developed? They WANTED to have SHUTTLES, but they weren't in the budget! Some simple visual effects led to the transporter, that allowed things to go on with NO shuttles! That may be a reason for the simple alien designs as well.
              Ah, the Gorn... I give TOS a pass on this one. Nothing since then.

              Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

              I simply said it would be kind of necessary to allow them to design, build, and fly such vehicles.
              Necessary? Not necessarily. Think hard... is there ANY other way that beings may have evolved the ability to work with tools, other than by having the same equipment as us?

              Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

              And you will note that almost every animal on earth has a similar concept. DOGS, for example have equal size limbs with almost useless feet(for building), and may have different specs, but they STILL have 2 eyes, 2 ears, on their head, with a neck.
              But every animal on earth evolved from the same genetic line. Create a new line, get a new trajectory that evolves uniquely and in response to new stimuli.
              Signature
              Fifteen Lessons I have learned over 15 years and six businesses (or, My 1000th-Post Manifesto)
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9677871].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author bizgrower
    Is the Daily Mail good for starting fires in fireplaces? That's all a lot of them are for.

    Sorry, Mike, Star Trek, TNG for me. LOL

    After reading the thread, I did not read the posted article and have not studied Cox at all.
    But from Sagan's popular and much parodied "billions and billions", maybe it's hundreds or
    tens or a handful of intelligent life developing elsewhere because of the complexities involved.
    And the different timelines.

    And, because of what we broadcast, maybe we'll never get visited.

    It could also be that we will not get visited again for a long time because we were studied enough
    in the past and that civilization won't come back because they don't see the need, or they have
    died off. And it will be a long time for another civilization to develop the ability to visit.

    Waiting for Shane's Claudiraptor.

    Dan
    Signature

    "If you think you're the smartest person in the room, then you're probably in the wrong room."

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9675603].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Claude Whitacre
      Originally Posted by bizgrower View Post

      Is the Daily Mail good for starting fires in fireplaces? That's all a lot of them are for.

      Sorry, Mike, Star Trek, TNG for me. LOL

      After reading the thread, I did not read the posted article and have not studied Cox at all.
      But from Sagan's popular and much parodied "billions and billions", maybe it's hundreds or
      tens or a handful of intelligent life developing elsewhere because of the complexities involved.
      And the different timelines.
      When Carl Sagan was alive we didn't have the capability to see other stars as up close. Our understanding of what other stars really look like has multiplied since then.

      Exciting times.
      Signature
      One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr

      What if they're not stars? What if they are holes poked in the top of a container so we can breath?
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9675636].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author seasoned
      Originally Posted by bizgrower View Post

      Is the Daily Mail good for starting fires in fireplaces? That's all a lot of them are for.

      Sorry, Mike, Star Trek, TNG for me. LOL

      After reading the thread, I did not read the posted article and have not studied Cox at all.
      But from Sagan's popular and much parodied "billions and billions", maybe it's hundreds or
      tens or a handful of intelligent life developing elsewhere because of the complexities involved.
      And the different timelines.

      And, because of what we broadcast, maybe we'll never get visited.

      It could also be that we will not get visited again for a long time because we were studied enough
      in the past and that civilization won't come back because they don't see the need, or they have
      died off. And it will be a long time for another civilization to develop the ability to visit.

      Waiting for Shane's Claudiraptor.

      Dan
      That's ANOTHER thing! EVERYTHING we broadcast is ENCODED. So even if they DID use EMR(A VERY inefficient way to transfer information over more than say 1 light ******DAY******), they would STILL have to separate the information properly, and convert it to audio properly. And THIS assumes that they hear as we do, have the same way of expressing emotion, and understand the language! As for TV? FORGET IT! Once you do the above, you have to THEN understand how TVs work, and the specs! Even COMPUTER files have such concerns. So DON'T think they will just stumble upon it, etc.... BESIDES, SETI has run for a long time, and found no sign of life. THEY are only looking for non natural patterns, so it is different from something like on star trek.

      ABOUT star trek! Remember that person that used a telescope type device to watch the earth? It was like the 24th, or is it 28th?, century, and he seemed to think it was like the 15th century! If his planet were like 1000 light years away, the enterprise could get there in about 5 days, if they almost red lined it, and HE would still be watching things from 1000 years ago. Radiowaves would take about as long. So you can see how a space ship that can go so fast can NOT use light, EMR, etc....

      Steve
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9675802].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author peterj
    In the words of the famous physisillynilihist, Ivor Abraonce

    There is no-one out there or anyone here as far as the I can see.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9675772].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author yukon
    Banned
    On a lighter note the Kardashians never defeated the Klingons.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9675808].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author MikeAmbrosio
      Originally Posted by yukon View Post

      On a lighter note the Kardashians never defeated the Klingons.
      Not yet, but apparently, Kim's hind quarters are making inroads...

      Signature

      Are you protecting your on line business? If you have a website, blog, ecommerce store you NEED to back it up regularly. Your webhost will only protect you so much. Check out Quirkel. Protect yourself.

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9675927].message }}

Trending Topics