Oxford scientists say: Looks like no other intelligent life in whole universe (but keep looking)

[Vertigo]

Benign environments aren't necessarily good for promoting adaptation. And extra large brain cases and long gestation are not survival stratagems with a lot of predators around. Harsh circumstances with few predators are better for more rapid evolution toward problem solving adaptions.

As I said earlier; you're not going to get periods with a lot of predators or a few predators. The predators are always going to be in balance with the prey. If there are more predators it can only because there are more prey and vice versa. Nothing else can work. The only distinction in the time of the dinosaurs was that most of the predators and prey were very big (and of course the predators tend to me more interesting!)|. But there wouldn't have been an exceptionally large number of predators relative to the prey. That simply wouldn't be sustainable and if there were too many predators pretty quickly (ie within a generation) the predator population would collapse.

And whose to say it's not the apex predators that might generate the intelligence? It's far more a question of whether you being smarter will make you a more effective predator that the huge powerful T Rex (or whatever). Or whether being a bit smarter makes you a more elusive prey than the big dumb other prey around you.

 

[Brian G Turner]

conscious entity?

I don't see why not, though the pic on the left is of the cosmic web. But still it shows a network structure.

 

[Swank]

As I said earlier; you're not going to get periods with a lot of predators or a few predators. The predators are always going to be in balance with the prey. If there are more predators it can only because there are more prey and vice versa. Nothing else can work. The only distinction in the time of the dinosaurs was that most of the predators and prey were very big (and of course the predators tend to me more interesting!)|. But there wouldn't have been an exceptionally large number of predators relative to the prey. That simply wouldn't be sustainable and if there were too many predators pretty quickly (ie within a generation) the predator population would collapse.

And whose to say it's not the apex predators that might generate the intelligence? It's far more a question of whether you being smarter will make you a more effective predator that the huge powerful T Rex (or whatever). Or whether being a bit smarter makes you a more elusive prey than the big dumb other prey around you.

Dinosaurs had a pretty wide spread of body sizes and niches. The problem I'm trying to articulate is that intelligent animals are more vulnerable because of their large brain cases, slow maturation and high caloric requirements. In an environment with a fair number of predators, the easiest prey dies first.

One might consider the American Plains. The apex predator was the wolf, but the bison population became enormous - even with Native American hunters. The bison didn't have enough predators of adequate size to challenge them. But if sheep or baboons had migrated into the area, the wolves would have eaten all of them. The Plains had no place to hide except underground, so medium size prey have nowhere to go.

The fact that deciduous trees came after the dinosaurs might be another factor leading to primates - fruit bearing trees that are easy to live in and afford protection from both land and air predators.


Generally speaking, carnivorous predators are unlikely to develop a lot of intelligence, as they are already highly adapted to a certain kind of hunting that precludes tool use. Omnivores are afforded more opportunities for novel problem solving, rewarding adaptations for communication, tool making and tactics. And avoiding predators.


All of this is in the context of relative intelligence. Portia is incredibly smart - for a spider. Compared to a mouse they are idiots. Mammoths were some very, very smart social mammals with great defenses, but people outsmarted them easily.

 

[Ursa major]

The fact that deciduous trees came after the dinosaurs

I now have an image in my head of dinosaurs fleeing across a plain, pursued by a group (not a stand, obviously) of deciduous trees.

(Deciduous trees seem to have turned over a new leaf since those days.)

 

[Vertigo]

Dinosaurs had a pretty wide spread of body sizes and niches. The problem I'm trying to articulate is that intelligent animals are more vulnerable because of their large brain cases, slow maturation and high caloric requirements. In an environment with a fair number of predators, the easiest prey dies first.

One might consider the American Plains. The apex predator was the wolf, but the bison population became enormous - even with Native American hunters. The bison didn't have enough predators of adequate size to challenge them. But if sheep or baboons had migrated into the area, the wolves would have eaten all of them. The Plains had no place to hide except underground, so medium size prey have nowhere to go.

The fact that deciduous trees came after the dinosaurs might be another factor leading to primates - fruit bearing trees that are easy to live in and afford protection from both land and air predators.


Generally speaking, carnivorous predators are unlikely to develop a lot of intelligence, as they are already highly adapted to a certain kind of hunting that precludes tool use. Omnivores are afforded more opportunities for novel problem solving, rewarding adaptations for communication, tool making and tactics. And avoiding predators.


All of this is in the context of relative intelligence. Portia is incredibly smart - for a spider. Compared to a mouse they are idiots. Mammoths were some very, very smart social mammals with great defenses, but people outsmarted them easily.

But you're still only considering primates as being the only route to intelligence. I thought the whole point of this thread is the chance of any intelligent beings evolving. I if there was no 'hard step' then I struggle to see why they couldn't have evolved earlier. And if they needed some special set of benign environmental conditions then surely that argues against the easy step. I'm no expert I'm just trying to apply my best attempt at logic to this.

 

[BAYLOR]

But you're still only considering primates as being the only route to intelligence. I thought the whole point of this thread is the chance of any intelligent beings evolving. I if there was no 'hard step' then I struggle to see why they couldn't have evolved earlier. And if they needed some special set of benign environmental conditions then surely that argues against the easy step. I'm no expert I'm just trying to apply my best attempt at logic to this.

We can't be the only intelligent life in this whole vast universe . There's intelligent life out there . Whether we'll get to meet up with them is another matter.

 

[Vertigo]

We can't be the only intelligent life in this whole vast universe . There's intelligent life out there . Whether we'll get to meet up with them is another matter.

You've just taken this whole discussion back full circle again!

What scientific basis do you have for that statement? As has been said many times; you cannot apply probability to something that so far only has a sample of one. So yes, it is possible we are the only intelligent life. It is possible there is no other intelligent life out there. We simply have no scientific basis to assert either possibility.

 

[Swank]

But you're still only considering primates as being the only route to intelligence. I thought the whole point of this thread is the chance of any intelligent beings evolving. I if there was no 'hard step' then I struggle to see why they couldn't have evolved earlier. And if they needed some special set of benign environmental conditions then surely that argues against the easy step. I'm no expert I'm just trying to apply my best attempt at logic to this.

I'm not sure what you're objecting to. Of course there is going to be some sort of "hard step" if you expect a massive leap in intelligence and the ability to express it in one species due to survival pressures. That doesn't have to be the same hard steps our ancestors went through, but a big brain and hands are weirder solutions than baleen or saber teeth.

 

[Vertigo]

I'm not sure what you're objecting to. Of course there is going to be some sort of "hard step" if you expect a massive leap in intelligence and the ability to express it in one species due to survival pressures. That doesn't have to be the same hard steps our ancestors went through, but a big brain and hands are weirder solutions than baleen or saber teeth.

This current bit of the discussion was generated by piece of research that is arguing just that. That there is no 'hard step' towards intelligence. That it is inevitable as soon as "the conditions are right".

This is the article that was posted a page back:

Does planetary evolution favor human-like life? Study ups odds we're not alone

Humanity may not be extraordinary but rather the natural evolutionary outcome for our planet and likely others, according to a new model for how intelligent life developed on Earth.

phys.org

My argument was that since they are saying it would happen inevitably when conditions are right, that I'm struggling to understand why conditions were not right at any previous time in the last 250 odd million years, to encompass the Mesozoic dinosaur period.

 

[Swank]

This current bit of the discussion was generated by piece of research that is arguing just that. That there is no 'hard step' towards intelligence. That it is inevitable as soon as "the conditions are right".

This is the article that was posted a page back:

Does planetary evolution favor human-like life? Study ups odds we're not alone

Humanity may not be extraordinary but rather the natural evolutionary outcome for our planet and likely others, according to a new model for how intelligent life developed on Earth.

phys.org

I don't think that they are saying anything different than what I am - that intelligence requires something of a great leap in evolution, and that requires an environment that allows for that situation to happen. Their argument seems to be that the natural course of events inevitably lead to such opportunities, and that they shouldn't be viewed as improbable events, but likely given a suitable timeline.

 

[BAYLOR]

You've just taken this whole discussion back full circle again!

What scientific basis do you have for that statement? As has been said many times; you cannot apply probability to something that so far only has a sample of one. So yes, it is possible we are the only intelligent life. It is possible there is no other intelligent life out there. We simply have no scientific basis to assert either possibility.

In the realm of science , my basis for this aptly named full circle statement exists between the the summit of my knowledge and the brim of the top hat of which I pulled this particular fanciful rabbit out of.

Ive no basis whatsoever other then the fact that I read more Science Fiction books then I do actual science books.

 

[Vertigo]

I don't think that they are saying anything different than what I am - that intelligence requires something of a great leap in evolution, and that requires an environment that allows for that situation to happen. Their argument seems to be that the natural course of events inevitably lead to such opportunities, and that they shouldn't be viewed as improbable events, but likely given a suitable timeline.

And mine is that the time it has taken from the first animals appearing frankly makes that unlikely. Claiming that there was no earlier opportunity that would 'inevitably' lead to intelligent life, not necessarily the primate intelligent life that eventually appeared, seems unlikely when, for example, dinosaurs dominated the world for such a long time but apparently never had the right conditions to 'inevitably' develop intelligence. It just seems to me that the amount of time that has passed negates their argument. I can's see what was so special about condition when primates first started getting smart.

(And incidentally the forests that primates first started evolving in were not, as far as I'm aware deciduous)

 

[Swank]

And mine is that the time it has taken from the first animals appearing frankly makes that unlikely. Claiming that there was no earlier opportunity that would 'inevitably' lead to intelligent life, not necessarily the primate intelligent life that eventually appeared, seems unlikely when, for example, dinosaurs dominated the world for such a long time but apparently never had the right conditions to 'inevitably' develop intelligence. It just seems to me that the amount of time that has passed negates their argument. I can's see what was so special about condition when primates first started getting smart.

(And incidentally the forests that primates first started evolving in were not, as far as I'm aware deciduous)

I didn't say that primates needed deciduous forests, but that our evolution and that of the great apes may have.

As far as the amount of time, how much is too much? Based on what metric and how many examples? There may have been many other opportunities that just didn't work out - the fossil record is by no means complete.

 

[Cthulhu.Science]

You've just taken this whole discussion back full circle again!

What scientific basis do you have for that statement? As has been said many times; you cannot apply probability to something that so far only has a sample of one. So yes, it is possible we are the only intelligent life. It is possible there is no other intelligent life out there. We simply have no scientific basis to assert either possibility.

Lets keep the ball rolling then.
And not to speak for what YOU can do.
But, highly qualified astrophysicists certainly have postulated lots of intelligent life out there, many well beyond our technology, called "communicating civilizations."

The Drake Equation looks at a sample of 160 Billion and concludes
Taking the current numbers (or the average of the estimates) and multiplying them, we get N=(1)(0.4)(1)(0.5)(0.5)(0.5)(10,000)—Drake’s L thrown in for good measure—or N=500 communicating civilizations in the galaxy

https://astrosociety.org/file_download/inline/536aba43-f1bc-497f-af7d-06118746d8f1

 

[Vertigo]

I didn't say that primates needed deciduous forests, but that our evolution and that of the great apes may have.

As far as the amount of time, how much is too much? Based on what metric and how many examples? There may have been many other opportunities that just didn't work out - the fossil record is by no means complete.

There may well have been, but again that argues for the hard step. I just think that the evolution of primates (which again were not in deciduous forest - deciduous trees loose their leaves in winter) happened over a period of time that is a drop in the ocean compared to how long 'complex' animals have been around. The first 'true' primates appeared around 55 million years ago. The dinosaurs were around from around 250 million years ago to 65 million years ago. But apparently during that time according to this study 'the global environment [never] reached a "permissive" state' resulting in the 'inevitable' evolution of intelligence. That just seems unlikely to me. Though that report does not really give sufficient detail for me to fully criticise it.

 

[Vertigo]

Lets keep the ball rolling then.
And not to speak for what YOU can do.
But, highly qualified astrophysicists certainly have postulated lots of intelligent life out there, many well beyond our technology, called "communicating civilizations."

The Drake Equation looks at a sample of 160 Billion and concludes
Taking the current numbers (or the average of the estimates) and multiplying them, we get N=(1)(0.4)(1)(0.5)(0.5)(0.5)(10,000)—Drake’s L thrown in for good measure—or N=500 communicating civilizations in the galaxy

https://astrosociety.org/file_download/inline/536aba43-f1bc-497f-af7d-06118746d8f1

View attachment 130179

And as I said before the Drake equation is heavily criticised because many of the values used are based on pure assumption for which there is no evidence.

I'm not denying the existence of "communicating civilisations" but we have no evidence in support of them or against them. That is my point. The Drake equation is not evidence and he never intended it to be. Drake only produced it as a talking point for a conference. And now everyone pushes it forward as some sort of proof of the existence of communicating civilisations.

 

[Venusian Broon]

And as I said before the Drake equation is heavily criticised because many of the values used are based on pure assumption for which there is no evidence.

I'm not denying the existence of "communicating civilisations" but we have no evidence in support of them or against them. That is my point. The Drake equation is not evidence and he never intended it to be. Drake only produced it as a talking point for a conference. And now everyone pushes it forward as some sort of proof of the existence of communicating civilisations.

Yeah, I find this reverence for such an 'Equation' baffling. It's merely a Fermi estimation that very quickly runs into trouble when you have to estimate the percentage of planets where life arises.

At the point we are so far away from getting a sensible answer.

And good luck trying to even build possible models for the variables after that point too!

 

[Starbeast]

Hmm. No Intelligent life in the universe.

Does that statement include us?

 

[Venusian Broon]

Hmm. No Intelligent life in the universe.

Does that statement include us?

I think we're good at pretending to be intelligent.

 

[Swank]

deciduous trees loose their leaves in winter

No they don't.

The first 'true' primates appeared around 55 million years ago

Great apes, not primates.

That just seems unlikely to me

Likelihood? Put a number on that using all your scientific knowledge. What's a likely time frame? Where did you get that number?