From Zumdahl Chemistry Sixth edition
Gibbs free energy equation in Chemistry indicates whether a chemical reaction will occur spontaneously or not. It is derived out of the second law of thermodynamics and takes the form.
dG = dH - TdS
dG = the change in Gibbs free energy
dH = the change in enthalpy the flow of energy reaction.
T = Temperature
dS = Change in entropy Sfinal state - Sinitial state
For evolution to occur the dS is always going to be negative because the
final state will always have a lower entropy then the initial state.
dH of a dipeptide from amino acids = 5-8 kcal/mole ,(Hutchens, Handbook
of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology.
dh for a macromolecule in a living system = 16.4 cal/gm (Morowitz,
Energy flow in Biology.
Zumdauhl Chemistry sixth edition
When dS is negative and dH is positive the Process is not spontaneous at
any temperature. The reverse process is spontaneous at all temperatures.
The implications are that evolution could not have happen now or in the past. genes could not have been added to the cytoplasm of the cell along with producing any gene's in the first.
Production of information or complexity by any chemical process using a polymer of amino acids is impossible according to the second law of thermodynamics. If any proteins were formed by chance they would immediately break apart.
Evolution Cannot Happen.
Evolution RIP
Moderator: Moderators
-
EarthScienceguy
- Guru
- Posts: 2226
- Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:53 pm
- Has thanked: 33 times
- Been thanked: 44 times
- Contact:
Re: Tsrot
Post #231[Replying to post 229 by EarthScienceguy]
Since you are not willing to engage in debate without mischaracterizing in rather severe ways what others are saying, and avoiding addressing what they actually do say I will bid you good day and end our engagement at this point.
Since you are not willing to engage in debate without mischaracterizing in rather severe ways what others are saying, and avoiding addressing what they actually do say I will bid you good day and end our engagement at this point.
" . . . the line separating good and evil passes, not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either, but right through every human heart . . . ." Alexander Solzhenitsyn
-
EarthScienceguy
- Guru
- Posts: 2226
- Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:53 pm
- Has thanked: 33 times
- Been thanked: 44 times
- Contact:
Re: Tsrot
Post #232[Replying to DrNoGods]
I like the Methuselah joke that is a good one.Maybe if they were all like fictional biblical characters (eg. Methuselah living to 969) we'd have 20 million still around today, but the majority of the females born over the last 100 generations are long dead and gone.
Yes I know your theory. My point was the fact that we do not see one species change to another species because of duplication and mutation.100 generations? That's only about 2,500 years. Do you so little understand evolution that you think 100 generations of humans is even remotely enough to cause significant visible change? The three different human groups who have adapted to high elevation life (yes ... via evolutionary changes) did so in the relatively short time of only 15,000 - 30,000 years (around 600 - 1,200 generations).
-
EarthScienceguy
- Guru
- Posts: 2226
- Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:53 pm
- Has thanked: 33 times
- Been thanked: 44 times
- Contact:
Re: Tsrot
Post #233[Replying to post 231 by micatala]
Thanks for the conversation it was thought provoking.
I actually did address your point. It seems that you did not like my answer to your point. But neverthelessSince you are not willing to engage in debate without mischaracterizing in rather severe ways what others are saying, and avoiding addressing what they actually do say I will bid you good day and end our engagement at this point.
Thanks for the conversation it was thought provoking.
-
Guy Threepwood
- Sage
- Posts: 502
- Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2016 6:00 pm
Re: Tsrot
Post #234[Replying to post 222 by DrNoGods]
If it were not for the delay, we would not be able to detect signals 26k years old would we? as it is we could.
And since the age of the galaxy dwarfs it's size in terms of lag (billions v thousands of years) it's the equivalent of listening to the entire thing over one very recent time slice. So in terms of the probability of scoring a hit it's all the same, and we get nothing but deafening silence. Why do you think that is? that's not rhetorical, I'm curious what your opinion would be on this.
I think it agrees with the math again- there is nobody there. The galaxy, and in fact the universe, would have to be much much larger than we currently understand to make another intelligent life form likely.
You refrain from answering the hypothetical implications of being alone...okay: so how about the opposite:
What would have been the implications regarding theism v materialism- ID v evolution etc.. if SETI had found the universe to be teeming with intelligent life?
The time lag is a wash.Abiogenesis is just one option, panspermia is another, but we have reached almost no ability to investigate the universe or even our own galaxy for life. The "radio bubble" around earth is only about 130 light years (distance the first ever man-made radio signal has traveled since it was first produced). The distance to the center of our own galaxy is about 26 thousand light years, and the distance to the other side could be 100,000 light years beyond that. And of course we've only visited the vicinity of other celestial bodies in our own little solar system.
So there is no "great silence" if all we can do is interrogate with our own signals a measly 130 light years from earth, and as far as incoming signals we have no idea what some other intelligent civilization might produce (and have only had the ability to look at incoming light signals for a similar 130 year period, or less). Also, there could be billions or trillions of planets teaming with life somewhere in the entire universe, but it could be a situation like on earth 10 million years ago (back to 4 billion years before that) where there were no species capable of intelligent communication. We have no idea what forms life might take on another planet, and have no ability to investigate that at the moment, so it is a completely unanswerable question.
Quote:
Tell me, would this give you even the slightest pause for thought? or could you honestly,comfortably, write even this off as yet one more astonishing coincidence?
I think it is far too early to even contemplate that question, because we have no ability to investigate anything beyond just a tiny distance from our own planet. If will be 26,000 years before our first radio signal reaches the galactic center, and 130 light years we have so far only gets to a few thousand stars (or few tens of thousands). But I'm convinced that humans evolved from a great ape ancestor, who evolved from earlier mammals, who evolved from ... all the way back to single-celled organisms. Until something comes along to show that this didn't happen, I'm sticking with ToE as the best explanation we have so far, and the best one that is supported by observation (fossil record, and genetics).
If it were not for the delay, we would not be able to detect signals 26k years old would we? as it is we could.
And since the age of the galaxy dwarfs it's size in terms of lag (billions v thousands of years) it's the equivalent of listening to the entire thing over one very recent time slice. So in terms of the probability of scoring a hit it's all the same, and we get nothing but deafening silence. Why do you think that is? that's not rhetorical, I'm curious what your opinion would be on this.
I think it agrees with the math again- there is nobody there. The galaxy, and in fact the universe, would have to be much much larger than we currently understand to make another intelligent life form likely.
You refrain from answering the hypothetical implications of being alone...okay: so how about the opposite:
What would have been the implications regarding theism v materialism- ID v evolution etc.. if SETI had found the universe to be teeming with intelligent life?
-
DrNoGods
- Prodigy
- Posts: 2719
- Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
- Location: Nevada
- Has thanked: 593 times
- Been thanked: 1645 times
Re: Tsrot
Post #235[Replying to post 234 by Guy Threepwood]
My point was that we've only had a "window" of about 130 years to detect any such electromagnetic communication signals regardless of when or where they originated. So if some civilization that came into existence 500 million years ago and blasted signals towards the earth for 1 million years straight starting at that time, but they were located 498.99987 million light years away (ie. 499 million less 130), we'd have missed the entirety of their signals because the last would have passed earth before we had any ability to see it.
The potential number of intelligent civilizations that might have existed from 13.7 billion years ago until now, that we could potentially see during our tiny 130 year window, would have to be miniscule unless the lifetime of such civilizations was billions of years and they transmitted continuously. And even then the strength of their signals given a 1/R^2 intensity drop would have to have been huge unless they were relatively close to earth. We just haven't been able to detect or work with electromagnetic signals long enough to say there is "radio silence." We can barely detect the Voyager I signals from "only" 0.00228 light years away and its 22.4W transmitter as only about 10^-22 W reaches earch. So another factor to consider in any "radio silence" argument is that anything hundreds or thousands of light years away ... much less millions or billions ... would have to generate a signal that is massively strong to have any chance of reaching earth at a signal strength big enough for the SETI system to detect. This alone would severly limit the number of potential civilizations we could detect.
This isn't correct unless all civilizations were transmitting signals continuously and they never died out. In the above example we would have completely missed that civilization even if they were transmitting for a full 1 million years (or pick any similar set of numbers where the distance away in light years is more than the sum of the length of time they transmitted + the distance from earth in light years (ignoring the tiny 130 light year radio bubble). The probability of "scoring a hit" is tiny unless you assume that every civilization that may have ever existed essentially never went away and transmitted forever, and they had the capability to generate signals of tremendous strength to overcome the 1/R^2 decay. If the single "wow" blip did come from a remote civilization, and was their only transmission (as it was a single event), we'd have never seen it in 1977 (radio bubble about 90 light years at that time) if the source was more than 90 light years away because it would have passed earth before we had the ability to see it.
I expect the universe does contain life in some form or another besides planet earth. The probability of that is just too high given the number of planets that are expect to be out there in a habital zone. But intelligent life, as we'd define it in a human context, I would assume is much less probable. However, it probably does exist if evolution is a general occurence once life of some form does get a foothold. Materialism would be perfect happy with such a thing, and expect it. So I hope we do find evidence for such a thing one day as it would just confirm that humans are not some special creature created in the image of a god on just one planet and one tiny part of a vast universe. Until we do find life on other planets, I expect religious people will continue to think humans are something special, but I still maintain that the "radio silence" argument is not relevant because of our inability to see more than just a tiny section of the universe, over a tiny time interval.
If it were not for the delay, we would not be able to detect signals 26k years old would we? as it is we could.
My point was that we've only had a "window" of about 130 years to detect any such electromagnetic communication signals regardless of when or where they originated. So if some civilization that came into existence 500 million years ago and blasted signals towards the earth for 1 million years straight starting at that time, but they were located 498.99987 million light years away (ie. 499 million less 130), we'd have missed the entirety of their signals because the last would have passed earth before we had any ability to see it.
The potential number of intelligent civilizations that might have existed from 13.7 billion years ago until now, that we could potentially see during our tiny 130 year window, would have to be miniscule unless the lifetime of such civilizations was billions of years and they transmitted continuously. And even then the strength of their signals given a 1/R^2 intensity drop would have to have been huge unless they were relatively close to earth. We just haven't been able to detect or work with electromagnetic signals long enough to say there is "radio silence." We can barely detect the Voyager I signals from "only" 0.00228 light years away and its 22.4W transmitter as only about 10^-22 W reaches earch. So another factor to consider in any "radio silence" argument is that anything hundreds or thousands of light years away ... much less millions or billions ... would have to generate a signal that is massively strong to have any chance of reaching earth at a signal strength big enough for the SETI system to detect. This alone would severly limit the number of potential civilizations we could detect.
And since the age of the galaxy dwarfs it's size in terms of lag (billions v thousands of years) it's the equivalent of listening to the entire thing over one very recent time slice. So in terms of the probability of scoring a hit it's all the same, and we get nothing but deafening silence. Why do you think that is? that's not rhetorical, I'm curious what your opinion would be on this.
This isn't correct unless all civilizations were transmitting signals continuously and they never died out. In the above example we would have completely missed that civilization even if they were transmitting for a full 1 million years (or pick any similar set of numbers where the distance away in light years is more than the sum of the length of time they transmitted + the distance from earth in light years (ignoring the tiny 130 light year radio bubble). The probability of "scoring a hit" is tiny unless you assume that every civilization that may have ever existed essentially never went away and transmitted forever, and they had the capability to generate signals of tremendous strength to overcome the 1/R^2 decay. If the single "wow" blip did come from a remote civilization, and was their only transmission (as it was a single event), we'd have never seen it in 1977 (radio bubble about 90 light years at that time) if the source was more than 90 light years away because it would have passed earth before we had the ability to see it.
What would have been the implications regarding theism v materialism- ID v evolution etc.. if SETI had found the universe to be teeming with intelligent life?
I expect the universe does contain life in some form or another besides planet earth. The probability of that is just too high given the number of planets that are expect to be out there in a habital zone. But intelligent life, as we'd define it in a human context, I would assume is much less probable. However, it probably does exist if evolution is a general occurence once life of some form does get a foothold. Materialism would be perfect happy with such a thing, and expect it. So I hope we do find evidence for such a thing one day as it would just confirm that humans are not some special creature created in the image of a god on just one planet and one tiny part of a vast universe. Until we do find life on other planets, I expect religious people will continue to think humans are something special, but I still maintain that the "radio silence" argument is not relevant because of our inability to see more than just a tiny section of the universe, over a tiny time interval.
In human affairs the sources of success are ever to be found in the fountains of quick resolve and swift stroke; and it seems to be a law, inflexible and inexorable, that he who will not risk cannot win.
John Paul Jones, 1779
The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain
John Paul Jones, 1779
The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain
-
DrNoGods
- Prodigy
- Posts: 2719
- Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
- Location: Nevada
- Has thanked: 593 times
- Been thanked: 1645 times
Re: Tsrot
Post #236[Replying to post 234 by Guy Threepwood]
I may not have worded the initial reply correctly as far as the point of "missing" the signal. So let me clarify with an example. Say the "wow" signal was a one-time transmission from a remote civilization that was located 200 light years from earth. Now assume we first had the ability to detect radio signals of the type of the "wow" signal in 1900 just to use a round number. Then if the signal was emitted 201 years prior to 1900 (ie. 1699 in earth time), it would have passed earth in 1699 + 200 = 1899. So we would have missed it.
Now sum up all of the possible combinations like this where the source location in light years is less than the number of years since the last signal was emitted (and take into account the radio bubble in light years for years after 1900), and you can see that we'd miss a gigantic number (majority?) of the potential historical transmitters. Even considering the length of time a civilization may have transmitted, I think you get the point. There is a tremendous amount of information we would have missed due to the short period of time we've been able to detect the signals. Then consider the 1/R^2 signal decay and even more would be far below the detection limit of SETI (or similar) unless these civilizations had managed to learn how to commandeer a quasar for their transmitter and control it (not likely!).
The time lag is a wash.
I may not have worded the initial reply correctly as far as the point of "missing" the signal. So let me clarify with an example. Say the "wow" signal was a one-time transmission from a remote civilization that was located 200 light years from earth. Now assume we first had the ability to detect radio signals of the type of the "wow" signal in 1900 just to use a round number. Then if the signal was emitted 201 years prior to 1900 (ie. 1699 in earth time), it would have passed earth in 1699 + 200 = 1899. So we would have missed it.
Now sum up all of the possible combinations like this where the source location in light years is less than the number of years since the last signal was emitted (and take into account the radio bubble in light years for years after 1900), and you can see that we'd miss a gigantic number (majority?) of the potential historical transmitters. Even considering the length of time a civilization may have transmitted, I think you get the point. There is a tremendous amount of information we would have missed due to the short period of time we've been able to detect the signals. Then consider the 1/R^2 signal decay and even more would be far below the detection limit of SETI (or similar) unless these civilizations had managed to learn how to commandeer a quasar for their transmitter and control it (not likely!).
In human affairs the sources of success are ever to be found in the fountains of quick resolve and swift stroke; and it seems to be a law, inflexible and inexorable, that he who will not risk cannot win.
John Paul Jones, 1779
The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain
John Paul Jones, 1779
The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain
-
Guy Threepwood
- Sage
- Posts: 502
- Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2016 6:00 pm
Re: Tsrot
Post #237[Replying to post 235 by DrNoGods]
So apparently it's not 'too early to ask the question' as long as the implication of the answer supports a certain materialist conclusion.. and by doing so, you DO answer the opposite hypothetical- being alone does NOT support a materialist wold view, it does support humanity being 'special'
I say why not simply allow yourself to consider both hypotheticals openly on an even playing field?
i.e. which does the actual evidence show right now? We literally ARE the only means we know of by which the universe can contemplate it's own existence, out of millions of species and an entire galaxy of stars and planets- I accept that evidence at face value.
why would you say, we find life all over the world? because given billions of years it inevitably found a way to colonize it yes?
Similarly, just one single civilization, with tech. little better than our own, has had plenty time to have colonized our entire galaxy many times over by now, but (ancient alien theories not withstanding) this has apparently never happened- why not? aka Fermi paradox
I'll generously grant you Darwinism working as a mechanism for macro evolution, and panspermia seeding every single planet in the universe, that does not automatically overcome any improbability facing sentient life arising, you still have to crunch the numbers, and they don't look good
I see, so while it's way 'too early' to even ask the hypothetical question- about the implication of being alone in the universe.. given the opposite hypothetical, you are more than willing to ponder how nicely this would support the materialist view that humans are an arbitrary product of random mutation and natural selection- you even concede your 'hope' for this to come true one day!Materialism would be perfect happy with such a thing, and expect it. So I hope we do find evidence for such a thing one day as it would just confirm that humans are not some special creature created in the image of a god on just one planet and one tiny part of a vast universe
So apparently it's not 'too early to ask the question' as long as the implication of the answer supports a certain materialist conclusion.. and by doing so, you DO answer the opposite hypothetical- being alone does NOT support a materialist wold view, it does support humanity being 'special'
I say why not simply allow yourself to consider both hypotheticals openly on an even playing field?
i.e. which does the actual evidence show right now? We literally ARE the only means we know of by which the universe can contemplate it's own existence, out of millions of species and an entire galaxy of stars and planets- I accept that evidence at face value.
well quite... and the Wright brothers only got off the ground a little over a century ago- a minuscule period of time.. and yet we already walked on the moon, have probes beyond the solar system, are investigating exo-planets for habitability and are drawing up plans for interstellar travel. Which Stephen Hawking among others considered a destiny of mankind....My point was that we've only had a "window" of about 130 years to detect any such electromagnetic communication
why would you say, we find life all over the world? because given billions of years it inevitably found a way to colonize it yes?
Similarly, just one single civilization, with tech. little better than our own, has had plenty time to have colonized our entire galaxy many times over by now, but (ancient alien theories not withstanding) this has apparently never happened- why not? aka Fermi paradox
I'll generously grant you Darwinism working as a mechanism for macro evolution, and panspermia seeding every single planet in the universe, that does not automatically overcome any improbability facing sentient life arising, you still have to crunch the numbers, and they don't look good
-
DrNoGods
- Prodigy
- Posts: 2719
- Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
- Location: Nevada
- Has thanked: 593 times
- Been thanked: 1645 times
Re: Tsrot
Post #238[Replying to post 237 by Guy Threepwood]
Not quite. It would be surprising if there wasn't "intelligent" life somewhere else in the universe, but if there were life of all kinds that did not cross some arbitrary threshold of "intelligence" that would be fine too (from the materialist viewpoint). We have no idea what forms life might take in another environment, or how it might evolve, so we have no legitimate way to answer the question as to whether or not it might be, or become, "intelligent."
But there is no evidence of this to take at face value outside of our own planet and solar system. That is my point. We have only investigated a tiny area around our own sun, which is a completely negligible volume of just our own galaxy, much less the entire universe. So out of "an entire galaxy of stars and planets", the amount that we have had the ability to investigate for life is nearly zero. You are talking as if we have completed an investigation of the entire galaxy and found nothing, but that isn't even remotely close to the actual situation.
There is hope with the James Webb telescope that we might be able to possibly infer biological activity by looking at the spectra of planetary atmospheres, but we have no way to get to any of these planets. The fastest spacecraft we've ever built would take about 70,000 years just to get to the closest star outside of our solar system (4.2 light years away). It will be a very long time before we have the ability, if we ever do, of investigating exoplanets for life. And if there was intelligent life on one of them and they had developed our own level of technology, we'd have no way to know if they existed unless they were within the tiny window of both time and space that their signals could be detected by us (or ours by them).
Then why haven't WE done this? A "little" better than our own? It would have to be Star Trek times a billion! As mentioned, with our best technology it would take about 1000 human lifetimes just to get to the nearest star, and that is if we could build a spacecraft big enough to house a few humans that could travel at the same speed as the New Horizon's Pluto probe (we can't do that now). And if we could build such a craft and get it moving that fast, all you'd have is some dead humans when it got there. So I don't know how you can even begin to believe that a single civilization with technology just a "little" better than our own could colonize the galaxy many times over. We can't even get to the next star in our own neighborhood and have no feasible way of doing that any time soon.
Come back in another 4 billion years (or even 1 million) and I'm sure we would not even recognize the technology that may exist then, but there is no way to know if any intelligent civilizations existed elsewhere in the distant past, at any location, because we have no ability to investigate that question given the nearly zero coverage we have using EM signals. So postulating that one such civilization may have arisen billions of years ago and had time to colonize the galaxy is pure speculation. All we can say now is that we haven't detected any evidence of such a civilization with our extremely limited abilities and tiny coverage area, representing a negligible portion of our galaxy, and even less for any others.
Why are you distinguishing sentient life from everything else? Why did brain size and intelligence gradually improve from our great ape common ancestor (assuming this was some sort of chimp-like creature as genetics suggests) through to modern humans and did not just appear in Homo sapiens? Where do you draw the line on "intelligence"? Was Homo erectus "intelligent"? How about Homo habilis or Homo Naledi? What is your criteria for defining a creature "intelligent"? Sentient life DID arise on this planet, and we can trace back to "less sentient" creatures that we evolved from. And given that our level of intelligence is clearly the result of a more advanced brain (the primary human evolutionary advantage) it isn't a mystery from a functional standpoint. Are you arguing that mutations and natural selection could not have created a Homo sapien brain from a Homo erectus brain, or a Homo naledi brain? If so, why not?
...and by doing so, you DO answer the opposite hypothetical- being alone does NOT support a materialist wold view, it does support humanity being 'special'
Not quite. It would be surprising if there wasn't "intelligent" life somewhere else in the universe, but if there were life of all kinds that did not cross some arbitrary threshold of "intelligence" that would be fine too (from the materialist viewpoint). We have no idea what forms life might take in another environment, or how it might evolve, so we have no legitimate way to answer the question as to whether or not it might be, or become, "intelligent."
We literally ARE the only means we know of by which the universe can contemplate it's own existence, out of millions of species and an entire galaxy of stars and planets- I accept that evidence at face value.
But there is no evidence of this to take at face value outside of our own planet and solar system. That is my point. We have only investigated a tiny area around our own sun, which is a completely negligible volume of just our own galaxy, much less the entire universe. So out of "an entire galaxy of stars and planets", the amount that we have had the ability to investigate for life is nearly zero. You are talking as if we have completed an investigation of the entire galaxy and found nothing, but that isn't even remotely close to the actual situation.
There is hope with the James Webb telescope that we might be able to possibly infer biological activity by looking at the spectra of planetary atmospheres, but we have no way to get to any of these planets. The fastest spacecraft we've ever built would take about 70,000 years just to get to the closest star outside of our solar system (4.2 light years away). It will be a very long time before we have the ability, if we ever do, of investigating exoplanets for life. And if there was intelligent life on one of them and they had developed our own level of technology, we'd have no way to know if they existed unless they were within the tiny window of both time and space that their signals could be detected by us (or ours by them).
Similarly, just one single civilization, with tech. little better than our own, has had plenty time to have colonized our entire galaxy many times over by now, but (ancient alien theories not withstanding) this has apparently never happened- why not? aka Fermi paradox
Then why haven't WE done this? A "little" better than our own? It would have to be Star Trek times a billion! As mentioned, with our best technology it would take about 1000 human lifetimes just to get to the nearest star, and that is if we could build a spacecraft big enough to house a few humans that could travel at the same speed as the New Horizon's Pluto probe (we can't do that now). And if we could build such a craft and get it moving that fast, all you'd have is some dead humans when it got there. So I don't know how you can even begin to believe that a single civilization with technology just a "little" better than our own could colonize the galaxy many times over. We can't even get to the next star in our own neighborhood and have no feasible way of doing that any time soon.
Come back in another 4 billion years (or even 1 million) and I'm sure we would not even recognize the technology that may exist then, but there is no way to know if any intelligent civilizations existed elsewhere in the distant past, at any location, because we have no ability to investigate that question given the nearly zero coverage we have using EM signals. So postulating that one such civilization may have arisen billions of years ago and had time to colonize the galaxy is pure speculation. All we can say now is that we haven't detected any evidence of such a civilization with our extremely limited abilities and tiny coverage area, representing a negligible portion of our galaxy, and even less for any others.
I'll generously grant you Darwinism working as a mechanism for macro evolution, and panspermia seeding every single planet in the universe, that does not automatically overcome any improbability facing sentient life arising, you still have to crunch the numbers, and they don't look good
Why are you distinguishing sentient life from everything else? Why did brain size and intelligence gradually improve from our great ape common ancestor (assuming this was some sort of chimp-like creature as genetics suggests) through to modern humans and did not just appear in Homo sapiens? Where do you draw the line on "intelligence"? Was Homo erectus "intelligent"? How about Homo habilis or Homo Naledi? What is your criteria for defining a creature "intelligent"? Sentient life DID arise on this planet, and we can trace back to "less sentient" creatures that we evolved from. And given that our level of intelligence is clearly the result of a more advanced brain (the primary human evolutionary advantage) it isn't a mystery from a functional standpoint. Are you arguing that mutations and natural selection could not have created a Homo sapien brain from a Homo erectus brain, or a Homo naledi brain? If so, why not?
In human affairs the sources of success are ever to be found in the fountains of quick resolve and swift stroke; and it seems to be a law, inflexible and inexorable, that he who will not risk cannot win.
John Paul Jones, 1779
The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain
John Paul Jones, 1779
The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain
-
Guy Threepwood
- Sage
- Posts: 502
- Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2016 6:00 pm
Re: Tsrot
Post #239[Replying to post 238 by DrNoGods]
So you are saying yes? you could? This would not give you the slightest pause to consider any other explanation but ultimately chance?
This is not just based on the complete silence, but math, the more we learn of exo planets, the more finely tuned we appreciate ours to be, the more we learn about biology, the more we appreciate how many ways life might NOT be able to arise and thrive.
Back in the days of Verne & Poe, we pondered what sort of Folks lived on the moon- this was not absurd, we were used to finding people everywhere we looked. Now we would be excited over a fossilized microbe on Mars- there is a trend here, the more we learn, the more we DO appreciate how special we are. My 'bold prediction' is that this trend will not reverse
10% light speed is considered feasible currently, which would be fast enough to get to the nearest star in my lifetime, (with a little luck!) even in our infancy of technology, this is fast enough to cross the galaxy more often than I've driven to the local grocery store- it ain't that far given the time available.
How long did it take bacteria to colonize the globe? based on scales you could make the argument that colonization of the galaxy is a modest task in comparison- how often do Darwinist's use the argument 'given enough time...'
On our own lifespans.. you are also making the assumption that, even though we can perfectly preserve a mammalian brain, and many animals can be frozen and revived after decades of perfect stasis, no alien civilization, given any amount of time, has ever developed this technology much further- even if it was the only way to preserve their own entire race, this somehow eluded them.
For the gambler cheating at cards, or the castaway spelling 'HELP' with rocks on the beach- Both are technically possible by chance, but it's the potential motive for the outcome, that gives us the potential explanatory power of ID, because motive can only exist in a conscious mind, capable of acting according to future events, instead of just reacting to past ones.
much appreciate all your thoughts on this, enjoyable as it is, I must run!
That was my original question, if it turned out that we were the only means by which the entire universe was able to ponder it's own existence and meaning, have discussions like these, could you write this off as just one more coincidence?Not quite. It would be surprising if there wasn't "intelligent" life somewhere else in the universe, but if there were life of all kinds that did not cross some arbitrary threshold of "intelligence" that would be fine too (from the materialist viewpoint). We have no idea what forms life might take in another environment, or how it might evolve, so we have no legitimate way to answer the question as to whether or not it might be, or become, "intelligent.
So you are saying yes? you could? This would not give you the slightest pause to consider any other explanation but ultimately chance?
Any signal strong enough sent at the right time and direction could be detected from across the galaxy, of course we are going to miss the vast majority- turn on your TV and you are missing the vast majority of signals being sent out somewhere! But SETI was not intended to be futile, it's founders recognized what should be a worthwhile shot of getting something- IF intelligence was widepsread-. The conclusion is that it is, at very least, NOT widespread, this is something we have learned that we did not know 50 years ago.But there is no evidence of this to take at face value outside of our own planet and solar system. That is my point. We have only investigated a tiny area around our own sun, which is a completely negligible volume of just our own galaxy, much less the entire universe. So out of "an entire galaxy of stars and planets", the amount that we have had the ability to investigate for life is nearly zero. You are talking as if we have completed an investigation of the entire galaxy and found nothing, but that isn't even remotely close to the actual situation.
This is not just based on the complete silence, but math, the more we learn of exo planets, the more finely tuned we appreciate ours to be, the more we learn about biology, the more we appreciate how many ways life might NOT be able to arise and thrive.
Back in the days of Verne & Poe, we pondered what sort of Folks lived on the moon- this was not absurd, we were used to finding people everywhere we looked. Now we would be excited over a fossilized microbe on Mars- there is a trend here, the more we learn, the more we DO appreciate how special we are. My 'bold prediction' is that this trend will not reverse
True, but we could make a light appear in the night sky of a planet in the Alpha Centauri system, brighter than any other stars they could see in 4 years with a lazer- i.e. we would expect a colonized galaxy to be awash with communication of some kind.There is hope with the James Webb telescope that we might be able to possibly infer biological activity by looking at the spectra of planetary atmospheres, but we have no way to get to any of these planets. The fastest spacecraft we've ever built would take about 70,000 years just to get to the closest star outside of our solar system (4.2 light years away). It will be a very long time before we have the ability, if we ever do, of investigating exoplanets for life. And if there was intelligent life on one of them and they had developed our own level of technology, we'd have no way to know if they existed unless they were within the tiny window of both time and space that their signals could be detected by us (or ours by them).
why haven't we done this.. yet?? we walked on the moon and sent probes out of our solar system within barely a single lifetime after getting of the ground with powered flight. you don't think we'd get much further given another 100? 1000? 10,000? 100,000 years?Then why haven't WE done this? A "little" better than our own? It would have to be Star Trek times a billion! As mentioned, with our best technology it would take about 1000 human lifetimes just to get to the nearest star, and that is if we could build a spacecraft big enough to house a few humans that could travel at the same speed as the New Horizon's Pluto probe (we can't do that now). And if we could build such a craft and get it moving that fast, all you'd have is some dead humans when it got there. So I don't know how you can even begin to believe that a single civilization with technology just a "little" better than our own could colonize the galaxy many times over. We can't even get to the next star in our own neighborhood and have no feasible way of doing that any time soon.
10% light speed is considered feasible currently, which would be fast enough to get to the nearest star in my lifetime, (with a little luck!) even in our infancy of technology, this is fast enough to cross the galaxy more often than I've driven to the local grocery store- it ain't that far given the time available.
How long did it take bacteria to colonize the globe? based on scales you could make the argument that colonization of the galaxy is a modest task in comparison- how often do Darwinist's use the argument 'given enough time...'
On our own lifespans.. you are also making the assumption that, even though we can perfectly preserve a mammalian brain, and many animals can be frozen and revived after decades of perfect stasis, no alien civilization, given any amount of time, has ever developed this technology much further- even if it was the only way to preserve their own entire race, this somehow eluded them.
if it had ever happened, we might at least expect to see some evidence of it.. we know enough to know that Earth would have made for some very attractive vacant real estate for millions of years, apparently it never did, why?So postulating that one such civilization may have arisen billions of years ago and had time to colonize the galaxy is pure speculation
it gets full circle to the poker hand, the significance of the outcome, being able to be aware of creation, deduce a creator, give thanks for it..Why are you distinguishing sentient life from everything else? Why did brain size and intelligence gradually improve from our great ape common ancestor (assuming this was some sort of chimp-like creature as genetics suggests) through to modern humans and did not just appear in Homo sapiens? Where do you draw the line on "intelligence"? Was Homo erectus "intelligent"? How about Homo habilis or Homo Naledi? What is your criteria for defining a creature "intelligent"? Sentient life DID arise on this planet, and we can trace back to "less sentient" creatures that we evolved from. And given that our level of intelligence is clearly the result of a more advanced brain (the primary human evolutionary advantage) it isn't a mystery from a functional standpoint. Are you arguing that mutations and natural selection could not have created a Homo sapien brain from a Homo erectus brain, or a Homo naledi brain? If so, why not?
For the gambler cheating at cards, or the castaway spelling 'HELP' with rocks on the beach- Both are technically possible by chance, but it's the potential motive for the outcome, that gives us the potential explanatory power of ID, because motive can only exist in a conscious mind, capable of acting according to future events, instead of just reacting to past ones.
much appreciate all your thoughts on this, enjoyable as it is, I must run!
-
DrNoGods
- Prodigy
- Posts: 2719
- Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
- Location: Nevada
- Has thanked: 593 times
- Been thanked: 1645 times
Re: Tsrot
Post #240[Replying to post 239 by Guy Threepwood]
I think it is way too early to even begin to answer that question, given the limited volume of the entire universe that we have been able to explore. But if it ever were possible to answer it and we turned out to be the only intelligent beings, then I would appreciate that it was a singularly rare event. If we found life in many forms on many different planets but no "intelligent" versions (whatever that actually means), then I would be surprised, but would not think it any more than just an unusual evolutionary event.
Right, but SETI only looks at a small part of the EM spectrum. What if some intelligent civilization developed a powerful UV laser and decided to use that instead. We'd miss it even if they pointed it directly at earth (and why would they do that with trillions of other possible targets?).
We have no ability at the present time to make a laser at any wavelength powerful enough to illuminate the night sky of a planet around Alpha Centauri with any measurable intensity there. Divergence over 25 trillion miles would completely kill any chance of that. ILE in Japan made a laser (LFEX) that could output 2 petawatts (2000 trillion watts) over 1 picosecond (pulse length). The beam size was 30 x 30 cm at a wavelength of 1053 nm (1.053 microns). If the aliens on this hypothetical planet were like us their eyeballs wouldn't see this, but imagine they could and we transmitted it from space just above earth (this wavelength wouldn't make it out of our atmosphere).
The divergence of a laser beam is proportional to the wavelength, and inversely proportional to the beam diameter, so you'd want the largest beam diameter possible to send it a long distance. A low divergence value for a single-mode laser (which LFEX is not) is about 0.5 mrad. Using LFEX's 30 x 30 cm beam size and assuming a circular beam instead of 30 cm diameter leaving earth, and a divergence angle (full angle) of 0.5 mrad, the beam diameter at alpha-centauri would be equal to:
diameter = a * tan(theta)
where a is the distance to the planet, and theta is the full-angle divergence. Plugging in a = 25 trillion miles and a divergence of 0.5 mrad (0.0005 radians), the beam diameter would be 1.25 x 10^10 miles = 12.5 billion miles in diameter (area of 3.18 x 10^30 cm^2) at the planet. Even with a 2 Petawatt continuous (CW) beam (the LFEX beam is only 1 picosecond in duration so a single pulse could not be seen by a human even if it were in the visible range), the energy density would be only 6.3 x 10^-16 watts/cm^2 ... not nearly enough to see with an eyeball, but could be seen with a big enough receiver and sufficiently sensitive detector. So we cannot make a light appear in the night sky in the Alpha Centauri system using any laser we could build now on earth, but the point of this was to illustrate how beam divergence plays into things even if using a directed laser. Unless one of these civilizations built a gigantic laser with super low divergence and large diameter, it is unlikely we'd see it here on earth, especially given the pointing requirement which would also have to be perfect and pointed directly at us. For a generic source with 1/R^2 divergence, the situation would be orders of magnitude worse.
For a spacecraft or other "probe"? The speed of light is about 671 million miles per hour. So 10% of that is 67 million MPH. That is 1675 times as fast as the New Horizon probe which wasn't nearly big enough to carry even 1-2 humans. The Parker probe to the sun will be, by far, the fastest spacecraft humans have made to date at 430,000 MPH at its peak. That is only 0.000641 the speed of light, or 0.064% ... 156 times less than you are claiming. And again, not big enough to carry even 1 human with some supplies. Even at that speed, 430,000 MPH, it would take 6,632 years to get just to Alpha Centauri. I don't know how many times you've driven to the local grocery store, but to cross our 100,000 light year wide galaxy just once, at 430,000 MPH (much faster than an actual spacecraft big enough to carry a human or two), would take 154 million years. And there are no grocery stores along the way to pick up food and supplies ... you'd need a Starship Enterprise with warp speed capabilities, and food growing compartments, etc., Spock and his tricorder, etc.
WE know that, but who else would without a visit first? And who's to say that some alien civilization would breathe O2 or have lungs and a blood system like ours? They may be more suitable to a hot, CO2 atmosphere like Venus, or a low pressure and cold CO2 atmosphere like Mars, or neither. Just because present life on earth favors the atmosphere and environment we have (naturally, since all this life evolved here in the first place ... go talk to the bacteria that were alive prior to the great oxygenation event and see how happy they would be in today's world) doesn't mean some random alien civilization would find our little piece of real estate attractive, or even livable.
That was my original question, if it turned out that we were the only means by which the entire universe was able to ponder it's own existence and meaning, have discussions like these, could you write this off as just one more coincidence?
I think it is way too early to even begin to answer that question, given the limited volume of the entire universe that we have been able to explore. But if it ever were possible to answer it and we turned out to be the only intelligent beings, then I would appreciate that it was a singularly rare event. If we found life in many forms on many different planets but no "intelligent" versions (whatever that actually means), then I would be surprised, but would not think it any more than just an unusual evolutionary event.
But SETI was not intended to be futile, it's founders recognized what should be a worthwhile shot of getting something- IF intelligence was widepsread-. The conclusion is that it is, at very least, NOT widespread, this is something we have learned that we did not know 50 years ago.
Right, but SETI only looks at a small part of the EM spectrum. What if some intelligent civilization developed a powerful UV laser and decided to use that instead. We'd miss it even if they pointed it directly at earth (and why would they do that with trillions of other possible targets?).
True, but we could make a light appear in the night sky of a planet in the Alpha Centauri system, brighter than any other stars they could see in 4 years with a lazer- i.e. we would expect a colonized galaxy to be awash with communication of some kind.
We have no ability at the present time to make a laser at any wavelength powerful enough to illuminate the night sky of a planet around Alpha Centauri with any measurable intensity there. Divergence over 25 trillion miles would completely kill any chance of that. ILE in Japan made a laser (LFEX) that could output 2 petawatts (2000 trillion watts) over 1 picosecond (pulse length). The beam size was 30 x 30 cm at a wavelength of 1053 nm (1.053 microns). If the aliens on this hypothetical planet were like us their eyeballs wouldn't see this, but imagine they could and we transmitted it from space just above earth (this wavelength wouldn't make it out of our atmosphere).
The divergence of a laser beam is proportional to the wavelength, and inversely proportional to the beam diameter, so you'd want the largest beam diameter possible to send it a long distance. A low divergence value for a single-mode laser (which LFEX is not) is about 0.5 mrad. Using LFEX's 30 x 30 cm beam size and assuming a circular beam instead of 30 cm diameter leaving earth, and a divergence angle (full angle) of 0.5 mrad, the beam diameter at alpha-centauri would be equal to:
diameter = a * tan(theta)
where a is the distance to the planet, and theta is the full-angle divergence. Plugging in a = 25 trillion miles and a divergence of 0.5 mrad (0.0005 radians), the beam diameter would be 1.25 x 10^10 miles = 12.5 billion miles in diameter (area of 3.18 x 10^30 cm^2) at the planet. Even with a 2 Petawatt continuous (CW) beam (the LFEX beam is only 1 picosecond in duration so a single pulse could not be seen by a human even if it were in the visible range), the energy density would be only 6.3 x 10^-16 watts/cm^2 ... not nearly enough to see with an eyeball, but could be seen with a big enough receiver and sufficiently sensitive detector. So we cannot make a light appear in the night sky in the Alpha Centauri system using any laser we could build now on earth, but the point of this was to illustrate how beam divergence plays into things even if using a directed laser. Unless one of these civilizations built a gigantic laser with super low divergence and large diameter, it is unlikely we'd see it here on earth, especially given the pointing requirement which would also have to be perfect and pointed directly at us. For a generic source with 1/R^2 divergence, the situation would be orders of magnitude worse.
10% light speed is considered feasible currently
For a spacecraft or other "probe"? The speed of light is about 671 million miles per hour. So 10% of that is 67 million MPH. That is 1675 times as fast as the New Horizon probe which wasn't nearly big enough to carry even 1-2 humans. The Parker probe to the sun will be, by far, the fastest spacecraft humans have made to date at 430,000 MPH at its peak. That is only 0.000641 the speed of light, or 0.064% ... 156 times less than you are claiming. And again, not big enough to carry even 1 human with some supplies. Even at that speed, 430,000 MPH, it would take 6,632 years to get just to Alpha Centauri. I don't know how many times you've driven to the local grocery store, but to cross our 100,000 light year wide galaxy just once, at 430,000 MPH (much faster than an actual spacecraft big enough to carry a human or two), would take 154 million years. And there are no grocery stores along the way to pick up food and supplies ... you'd need a Starship Enterprise with warp speed capabilities, and food growing compartments, etc., Spock and his tricorder, etc.
we know enough to know that Earth would have made for some very attractive vacant real estate for millions of years, apparently it never did, why?
WE know that, but who else would without a visit first? And who's to say that some alien civilization would breathe O2 or have lungs and a blood system like ours? They may be more suitable to a hot, CO2 atmosphere like Venus, or a low pressure and cold CO2 atmosphere like Mars, or neither. Just because present life on earth favors the atmosphere and environment we have (naturally, since all this life evolved here in the first place ... go talk to the bacteria that were alive prior to the great oxygenation event and see how happy they would be in today's world) doesn't mean some random alien civilization would find our little piece of real estate attractive, or even livable.
In human affairs the sources of success are ever to be found in the fountains of quick resolve and swift stroke; and it seems to be a law, inflexible and inexorable, that he who will not risk cannot win.
John Paul Jones, 1779
The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain
John Paul Jones, 1779
The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain
