Quote:
Originally Posted by Superman
Yes, but how many galaxies have we listened to, and how many solar systems would those galaxies collectively represent. I understand we're not taking a cosmic census, but we've been listening for a radio "carrier signal" for a LONG time, and heard nothing.
And again, what I am gleaning from astronomists and biologists is that the combination of cosmic and terrestrial events necessary for life to occur, then develop into intelligent life, may be much more unlikely than we already knew. We do not know how a DNA strand could have spontaneously occurred, which of course would be necessary in order for life to be created. That event is so unlikely (DNA is not a chemically "simple" thing) that we cannot even theorize how it might have happened. But now, some folks are beginning to wonder how likely, given a spontaneously-emerged DNA strand, it will evolve into a mouse, let alone a planet of sentient humans.
I don't know. And it doesn't matter to me. I'm just saying that whereas twenty years ago the folks promoting the idea of life on other planets could sneer down their noses at doubters......today, science is wondering that question anew.
|
We have not listened to any galaxies. We have not been able to push our own radio signals beyond a few million miles. We have no idea what to listen for or just how far our own signals can be detected. And we only started listening in 1959. 52 short years of using less than 1% of radio telescope facilities or resources around the world. You have vastly overestimated our search capabilities and the speed of radio waves; and equally vastly underestimated the size of the known universe and the degregation of radio waves.
BTW, science is not reconsidering the chances of life in a negative (higher) direction. Science is realizing that "life" is possible under far more extreme conditions than thought possible in the past. Nothing points to life being unique or rare. Sentient beings are difficult to exactly describe or define when you only have one example for comparison purposes. But science is learning that many attributes of what was considered as only human traits are shared with many other lifeforms on earth. No peer-reviewed biologist is saying that the development of life is highly improbable. In fact the consensus is the exact opposite.
And the sneering seems to flow both ways. But the misunderstanding of science only seems to flow one way.