Does the lack of an extraterrestrial presence disprove evolution?

Question

Does the lack of an extraterrestrial presence disprove evolution?

Answer 1

The thing is that evolution only covers changes in *existing* life. It doesn't address where life came from in the first place - it would have proceeded the same if the first life had come about chemically (which is what the evidence points to), if it had been engineered by aliens, or if it had been created directly by God (or deity of your choice).



So what you're pointing out here is a possible flaw in abiogenesis, which is the idea that life came about naturally from the chemicals on the early earth. Abiogenesis is still considered a hypothesis, since we have lots of evidence that it happened, but we still haven't quite figured out exactly *how* it happened.



Still, I don't think the fact that we haven't discovered extraterrestrial life is a good argument against abiogenesis. There are are simply too many variables to make a call at this point. The only planet that we've sent probes to that are actually designed to look for signs of life is Mars. It's always possible that there could be some sort of extremophile life on Venus or Titan, and we just didn't perform the proper tests with the probes we sent. It's also possible that life could exist elsewhere in the solar system where we just haven't looked yet.



The lack of alien radio signals is also not really unexpected. Radio signals disperse as they travel, so anything other than a tight beam transmission wouldn't be detectable from a distant solar system. Technically speaking, our early radio transmissions are still hurtling towards other stars, but by the time they get there, they'll be too faint that they'll be drowned out by the background noise of the universe. To compound matters even more, radio transmissions tend to become less powerful as technology advances - blasting radio waves into space is a tremendous waste of energy, so there's a trend towards smaller transmitters, better receivers, and more focused broadcasts. That means that a planet about 50 light years away would be receiving faint radio waves from earth, but even those faint radio waves will taper off over the next few decades until there's nothing left but the background hiss of the universe.



It's also important to understand that evolution is not directed, and it's not necessarily a progression towards intelligence. We humans have just happened to specialize in intelligence, but it's no more or less advanced than any other trait. It could be that our ability to use tools, reason abstractly, and build radio transmitters is a fluke that happens extremely rarely. Or, it could be common, but that intelligent species have a penchant for wiping themselves out by over-exploiting their environment or building ever more powerful weapons (the history of life is full of examples of species evolving down dead ends or failing to reach equilibrium with their environment).



In the end, what we have here is absence of evidence that life has evolved elsewhere, which is not necessarily evidence itself that life has not evolved elsewhere. It's also irrelevant to evolution as a whole - regardless of what's going on elsewhere in the universe, we can see what's happening here on earth.

Answer 2

It's some thing that I find both sides are responsible of. It can be conveniently that people are entrenched in their opinions and as a result the opinions or views of the opposing sides are perceived in simplistic and as caricatures. I don't consider it's an attempt to deceive, however is effectively persons arguing about matters they are unaware of. Examples from both sides that I've seen on R&S: - there's certainly no proof for evolution (despite the fact that real to a point, i.E. That there's no singular piece of evidence that proves it, there's a significant physique of supporting proof) - faith is the rationale of all wars/extra wars than some thing else/extra struggling than some thing else. - faith prevents scientific discovery - Islam is a violent religion - Medieval Christians were ignorant illiterate men and women who believed the sector used to be flat - idea X disproves evolution... And many others and so on and many others. It will get particularly boring after a whilst, considering the fact that it's obvious that almost all folks make claims and counter-claims with none inspiration or study and are just parrotting usually-held but inaccurate homilies.

Answer 3

No,



The chance of life existing on a planet is not that big, but since there are so many planets in the universe, there is a good chance we aren't alone, but that doesn't have to mean there is other life close to earth.



It took a billion years before there was life on earth, then 3 billion years before there were animals, 400 million years later there were mammals, and humans have only existed for 200,000 years (180 millions years after the mammals, and we haven't been sending radio signals for a hundred years or so. This means that even if there is life close by, there is a big chance that life isn't intelligent enough to send any kind of signal. There is even a big chance they are only very primitive cells.

Maybe the life on the other planet is not life as we know it, and it doesn't have DNA and evolution doesn't apply.



You are not an idiot, you just don't understand evolution.

Evolution isn't responsible for the creation of life, evolution is when life that is already there evolves, and evolution doesn't take place everywhere, only where there is life.

Answer 4

No.

Biological evolution addresses changes in already existing populations of life forms and is not related to the origin of life.

---------------

Allan Hills 84001 (commonly abbreviated ALH 84001) is a meteorite that was found in Allan Hills, Antarctica on December 27, 1984 by a team of U.S. meteorite hunters from the ANSMET project.



Scientists announced that it contained evidence for microscopic fossils of Martian bacteria. On August 7, 1996, U.S. President Bill Clinton made a formal televised announcement to mark the event.



Due to public outcry, the ANSMET scientists retracted their announcement.



. .

Answer 5

No. Our limited ability to explore the universe is like going to the beach and extracting a glass of sea water and determining there are no whales in the ocean.

Answer 6

Your genes must be really scrambled for you to have no logic evident in this post.



Idiot!

Answer 7

Good question, and one which is universally both answerable and irrelevant.

As I will explain:

To refer to evolution as something evolving overtime is only relevant to us on earth, because of the fact that being the ever inquisitive and theoretical beings we are allows us to speculate that time is non existent in space as space has an intimate space and mass. However, as there are and infinite number of galaxies we haven't even thought of searching for, implies that there could, in theory, be an infinite number of 'universes' within the infinite space of our universe, which firstly is making the name 'uni'verse obsolete, and secondly giving rise the the theory of there being many other 'verses' of space. This is all quite confusing, and is only one view among a sea of thousands, but as this is my answer, screw them. My theory is that as space is infinite, and the theory of 'blackholes' being viable, it, space that is, cannot be defined as being a specific area, and that the multitude of 'verses' can exist within what we call our own ' uni'(outdated name)verse, with the most simple of explanations being as always something from nature, the humble orange, which is segmented, which as you see contradicts some of what I've just said, but states that the 'multiverses', the segments, can exist within one 'universe' the skin around the segments.

Sorry a little off topic, but this is the background to my answer which is, taking into account everything which has been said previously, that, maybe, just maybe, there's not only 'extraterestrial life' out in our universe but that there is also an infinite number of extraterrestrial variations across the infinite number of multiple verses, each possibly being more advanced than the later. Which could explain how we haven't found any close by in our 'verse'. But that's just a 'conspiracy' or 'blow your mind deep thinking' theory which personally I don't care for, partly because the technology needed for "interverse" travel is immensely out of our reach, and a very sci-fi approach to philosophy, which is border-lining naive and stupid, in my opinion that is.

As I said before this is just one of my own ideas, which could also be an indication that I have too much free time, and it is just one of the many thousands of other very interesting and respectably thought out theories made by those who are a lot more knowledgable, and indefinitely better paid for this than I am.

Good luck in finding the 'ultimate' answer to this question.

Answer 8

It's simply because the conditions for life to occur in the first place in the whole universe were extremely, extremely low.

And I mean against all odds low, somewhere in the 1/10000000 or something minuscule like that.

Steven Hawkings also said that for the conditions that actually occurred to allow life to exist and what actually happened in the past billion years ago, the probability was even lower than that.

The whole concept of us living today at all was as low as winning the lottery a thousand times- live occurred in only one outcome; total destruction and collapse of the universe after the Big Bang occurred in all the other outcomes.



(This frightening thought is what inspires people to argue the whole Intelligent Design theory, since life is so against the odds.)



The thing about evolution is that you need life in the first place.

Life as in animate molecules had to have occurred sometime on Earth FROM inanimate objects.

It is assumed that at some time 4 billion years ago some reproducing molecules became the basic units that could be defined as "alive".



That sole possibility of this transition from non-alive stuff into something that was truly alive was already, yet again, against all odds.

Furthermore, this transition had to have been passed down and stabilized, and it had to have occurred on a planet with the specific conditions that supported life, such as pH, temperature, pressure, an atmosphere, etc, etc.



There may have been chances of whole other universes forming and maybe even life forming but all not being successful- billions and trillions of those occurrences, but only our planet Earth being the only one that has succeeded against all odds- the lottery ticket.

Answer 9

Extraterrestrials, Ghost, Goblins, Bigfoot...They are all a lie. Yes a higher power outside our plane does exist and so does the evil that was laid upon our planet. That evil is the one that tricks us into thinking Aliens and Evolution are real and God and the Devil are nowhere to be found yet we are the only planet with life and Humans are the only species that can do what we do.

Answer 10

There was not one life supporting planet we called mother earth... there were millions of life supporting planets like mother earth all over cosmos! Human form is the highest manifest stage on mother earth. Suppose form of Cobra was the highest manifest stage in a distant star system. Then if aliens from this planet visited us... how would we distinguish aliens form locally infesting breed. As ordained by God Almighty... life from one life supporting planet was not permitted to contact beings from other life supporting planet!



Ever since big bang occurred... entire cosmos was still expanding. Because of this expansion... we are getting farther and farther away from other life supporting planets. Everything on mother earth was self-contained... self rotating! From first manifestation as an amoeba (single cell formation) to stage of human beings (the highest manifest stage in cosmic life cycle)... everything moved with clockwork precision. Nothing in cosmic system was disorganized, disordered as stipulated by Stephen Hawking in his favor book, "a brief history of time".



Our inability to understand cosmic system does not mean the cosmic system created by God Almighty was at fault. The ultimate goal of life on mother earth always remains... human beings reaching stage of enlightenment (kaivalya jnana) forever. Every single human being on mother earth had the inherent ability to become a man god like Mahavira, Gautama Buddha, Jesus Christ or Prophet Mohammed. The sacred Bhagavad Gita of Hinduism, foremost of all sacred scriptures existing on mother earth was absolutely clear on this point.



If we desire understanding crux of human life, if we truly wanted to understand entire cosmic system made by God Almighty... our undertaking spiritual journey was mandated by God Almighty. Nothing relating to cosmic system of God Almighty could ever be understood via path of religion (path of rituals). God can only be reached via path of spirituality as detailed in sacred Bhagavad Gita of Hinduism.



Scientists’ world over till date pondered about the singularity at the time of big bang in the beginning of cosmos. As per Bhagavad Gita of Hinduism, the sermon given to mankind by Lord Krishna above 3600 years before now... the present cosmos came into being when God Almighty exploded self with a big bang. The size of God Almighty at the time of big bang was the size of half a thumb. In Hinduism God Almighty is termed Brahman. Life in cosmos started moment life supporting planets like mother earth evolved in cosmic system.



Nothing in cosmic system happens by chance. Everything results from preprogrammed laws of nature. What more can we say that normal human beings used their brain one percent. Enlightened ones used their brain hundred percent. Albert Einstein was the only scientist in world who used his brain 4%. The last stage of evolution was reached moment human beings started using their brain hundred percent. Evolution was as much part of life as karma. It is through complex process of karma and evolution... life moved ahead in cosmic life cycle! More here- http://www.bhagavadgitasummary.com