It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The New Copernican Revolution - Life on Earth May Not Be Special After All

page: 2
11
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 27 2014 @ 03:01 PM
link   
reply to post by JadeStar
 


Awesome graphs....Just because we do tests with DNA means absolutely nothing again in terms of life out there somewhere else...

Again, I know you are all trying to prove this and I am glad because I want this to be true! It just isn't true at this time....There is nothing to support this theory anywhere...




posted on Feb, 27 2014 @ 03:05 PM
link   

Chrisfishenstein
reply to post by JadeStar
 


Awesome graphs....Just because we do tests with DNA means absolutely nothing again in terms of life out there somewhere else...


Actually it does.

These were not mere tests. Read the information I posted.

We CREATED DNA OUT OF AMINO ACIDS.

We often find it very difficult to do what nature does. DNA is the basis of all life on Earth and the ingredients of it, Amino Acids have been detected throughout the universe. Just as water has.

There are no good reasons anymore, not to assume that life is plentiful.

As I said, the opposite view now has more going against it than a life filled universe.
edit on 27-2-2014 by JadeStar because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 27 2014 @ 03:05 PM
link   
reply to post by JadeStar
 





We're most likely the babies of the Galaxy.... not the elders.


Considering the scale of the Universe, i'd say that is more likely than not.

Which kind of makes the outright denial that we are being visited by species further along the existential time-scale, based simply because we don't understand the physics (yet) required to do so ourselves, therefore other intelligent life cannot possibly have overcome the technological hurdles either, more or less ridiculously akin to petulant childishness.

It's a little like denying the idea or feasibility of a satellite, because a 3-year-old doesn't comprehend the physics and processes needed to envision, design and carry out launching and settling it into a stable orbit...well, like denial of intelligence coming here because we can't go 'there', we have plenty of satellites despite hundreds of thousands of 3 year olds having just about zero concept of a satellite.

My opinion of course, but with each new comprehension (or admission) of our perfectly ordinary and very young place in the grand scheme of things, realisation inches forwards towards a point perhaps in the near to mid-term, where this is going to be beyond deniable based on the technology rhetoric...at least without blushing with embarrassment anyway.

If we're 3 years old, the 90 year olds will have forgotten more than we already know. 



posted on Feb, 27 2014 @ 03:10 PM
link   

AliceBleachWhite

JadeStar

We're most likely the babies of the Galaxy.... not the elders.


From a forward-looking post/transhuman perspective, I see humanity as it is and has been more closely resembling a "larval" form.
We're like greedy, hungry, overly self-involved caterpillars.

Eventually, once we ("we" includes our AI children post-singularity as well as developments in post-biological evolution, perhaps even partnerships with any equiv-tech level civilizations encountered) achieve permanent sustainable residency on an interstellar scale, we could qualify for the "nymph" stage.
We flit, we fly we molt and grow, molt and grow, ever exploring.

As an "adult" civilization, we would find and 'mate' with other "adult" civilizations through assimilation, absorption, exchange, and other mechanisms. Our 'offspring' from such unions could very well equate to new paradigms beyond the former expressions of all the singular civilizations contributing materials for 'offspring' development.

It's fun stuff to consider in looking at humanity, all of humanity in all of its variety, as a star-spanning singular organism similar an amoeba.




edit on 2/27/2014 by AliceBleachWhite because: (no reason given)




Oh Alice! I totally agree! I really dance around the transhumanism stuff in these posts because I realize that for some it is a very hot-button issue. But as you and I (and HumanityPlus.org) know, it's inevitable.

I fear that one of the greatest battles in the coming decades and century to follow will be those who recognize this and neo-luddites who refuse to.

Luckily, there will be plenty of space for both to co-exist, or exist separately if they choose to.



posted on Feb, 27 2014 @ 03:48 PM
link   

JadeStar

Oh Alice! I totally agree! I really dance around the transhumanism stuff in these posts because I realize that for some it is a very hot-button issue. But as you and I (and HumanityPlus.org) know, it's inevitable.

I fear that one of the greatest battles in the coming decades and century to follow will be those who recognize this and neo-luddites who refuse to.

Luckily, there will be plenty of space for both to co-exist, or exist separately if they choose to.


I suspect, eventually, Earth will be left to an "Amish" branch of humanity, the ur-human, or 'natural' humans.
Given the potential variations in 'natural' that may occur in the near and farther future, including gene-engineering, 'natural' human could very well host a wide array of variation that could very well be considered anything but natural according today's perspectives.

Meanwhile, the rest of humanity grows dendrites, clusters, nucleic centers, offshoots, and evolves to such extents we today would be hard pressed to categorize any of it as "human" from our current perspective.

What happens, for instance, when artificial technologies, materials science, and biology all become relatively indistinguishable from each other to casual observation?
... and that could just be the early stages of a diversified humanity.




posted on Feb, 27 2014 @ 05:31 PM
link   
Assuming there is other life in the universe is a lot like assuming that human beings other than yourself have consciousness. There is no proof of it, but it seems to be the way it is nonetheless. Of course, it could be the case that there is only a single example of the phenomenon we call "a life-sustaining planet" in the universe, and you might be the only conscious being in the universe. Who can say for sure?



posted on Feb, 27 2014 @ 05:55 PM
link   

Chrisfishenstein
reply to post by JadeStar
 



For now, basic math and statistical probability are showing us we're likely not alone.


Again, a bunch of probabilities.....Yeah it is more than likely probable that we aren't alone....Show me proof and I will consider the topic at hand that we are the babies of the universe, so to speak in terms of life...

You do have a bunch of numbers and overwhelming number of possible planets with life, although nothing to support the theory that we are not alone.


Everything is only a probability, including all scientific knowledge. There are no certainties, and even that is uncertain.



posted on Feb, 27 2014 @ 09:05 PM
link   

edit on 409pm2838up86 by whatsup86 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 28 2014 @ 09:57 AM
link   

Chrisfishenstein
reply to post by JadeStar
 


Awesome graphs....Just because we do tests with DNA means absolutely nothing again in terms of life out there somewhere else...

Again, I know you are all trying to prove this and I am glad because I want this to be true! It just isn't true at this time....There is nothing to support this theory anywhere...


I get what you are saying -- i.e., that there is no HARD evidence of life elsewhere. Science cannot 100% positively say that life exists elsewhere until that life is actually encountered or contacted in some direct manner.

HOWEVER, I think the circumstantial evidence for life is overwhelming, and I don't think it would be incorrect to say that there is "almost surely" ET life out there (the term "almost surely" or "almost certainly" is used in science to indicate that something is about as true as it could possibly be without having 100% certainty, with that very slight uncertainty being due to limitations in testing, data, and evidence).

The sheer size of the universe seems to make it highly unlikely (extremely highly unlikely) that life on is a unique thing only found in one infinitesimally tiny tiny part of the universe.


edit on 2/28/2014 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 1   >>

log in

join