Why is there absolutely no evidence of extra terrestrial life?
>>18453246My person favorite answer to the Fermi Paradox is simply that humans happen to be really fucking early.If the normal matter in its current form has only existed for about 14 billion years and the Earth itself formed 4.5 billion years ago, and the Universe is expected to continue producing stars for the next 100 TRILLION years, it means we currently exist at the beginning of the universe in cosmic timescales. No other life is out there because no other life has had a chance to form yet. We're just too damn early
>>18453246What kind of evidence would you expect? Interstellar travel is not feasible and our methods of atmospheric analysis of exoplanets is mostly limited to those orbiting red dwarfs which are not suitable for life.
if we get to mars and can't find any evidence of life even after digging and thoroughly searching we need to rethink everything we know about the origins of lifeeverything we know points 100% to there being at least very simple life on mars because it once had waterwe've seen most of the basic minerals- and have found amino acis in asteroids, though not on mars, but life should definitely be thereat least thats what ive been told, maybe someone who's read more about planetary geology and abiogenesis can tell us more
???? Why would you expect there to be evidence of lifeforms from other planets on earth?
>>18453246We don't even know what's going on in the nearest star system Alpha Centauri, we simply lack the tech to detect life on other systems due to distance
>>18453246Darwinism has nothing to say on extraterrestrial life one way or the other. Why would it have any bearing on it's truthfulness?
>>18453246Darwinism is an explanation for how speciation and environmental adaptation occurred in life on this planet. It is not a theory of life in general at a galactic scale. It is based on observations of life here, it has nothing concrete to say about hypothetical life elsewhere. What do you people even think Darwinism is?
>>18453273In recorded human history, has natural selection resulted in an increase in the diversity of life?
>>18453409Yes? We have examples of ongoing biological changes and new species evolving even today. At most you could say that the ongoing human caused extinctions is causing a bottleneck, but that's always happening. Mammals themselves in all their current diversity spring from a few Cynodonts that were the only Synapsids/Therapsids who survived the one-two punch of the PT and TJ extinctions that bookended the Triassic.
>>18453427“New speciation” is not a net increase in the diversity of life. Darwinism sure is a slippery theory!
because it's hard to find, and because people like OP don't vote for candidates who promise to fund research as might disprove OP's preconceptions
>>18453429>people like OP don't vote for candidates who promise to fund research as might disprove OP's preconceptions>t. salty that NASA wants to cut more funding to unmanned meme probes to divert more funding to a super kino Lunar Base
>>18453429>need mo money for dem programs
>>18453428Sure it is, extinct species aren't erased from spacetime. every bottleneck was itself a divergent offshoot. Mammals are the last surviving group of Therapsids, Therapsids are the last surviving group of Synapsids, ad infinitum. A lot of times a group becomes the new latest common ancestor precisely because it was so divergent from the norm, otherwise everything would still be little bacteria floating around.
>>18453443Recorded history is about 6,000 -12,000 years long. During this period, natural selection has resulted in a rather steep decrease in the diversity of life.
>>18453249it gets even more obvious how early we are with the fact that you actually need a third generation star or higher to get life as we know it. we are among the first and the universe is ours to conquer.
It’s really really really really really really far away.
>>18453630>my extra terrestrial gf lives in Canada, you see
>>18453246>Absolutely no evidenceOne could probably argue that the organic molecules we've found on Mars is weak evidence.Regardless, the answer is our limits.We've barely scratched the surface of Mars and our ability to detect possible electromagnetic signals is very limited.It's also not impossible to think that space travel just can't be solved easily, which would mean the ayy lmaos would have hard time coming here.
>>18453246>>18453650There's quite a bit of evidence. None of it is conclusive, though the Mars river delta formations are pretty close.Back in the day, we couldn't prove planets existed outside our own solar system. We knew they had to, but we couldn't prove it and we didn't know anything about the specifics. Did 90% of all star systems have planets? 1%? All yellow stars but no red ones? Were they all ordered like our system, or did they follow different rules?Right now we have a similar situation with extraterrestrial life, where nobody actually thinks we're completely unique in the entire universe but nobody can prove it and we don't know any details. In the case of planets, we eventually started getting better data on this, and now we've got a big catalogue of things we think we know about exoplanets, and a big set of questions and uncertainties. Most likely we're on the brink of a similar revolution with extraterrestrial life, and in the coming decades will have a long list of planets we're pretty sure have something living on them.>>18453446Actually, it's a very mild decrease overall. It's an extremely noticeable decrease because all the dead things are big, but bacteria and beetles are continuing to not give a shit what the titans are up to.
>>18453246>if Darwinism is true...>what about my strawman that has nothing to do with Darwinism???>explain???
>>18453246you need>planet in habitable zone>no excessive gamma rays>water>large moon to stabilize weather>oxygenic photosynthesis>endosymbiosis (eukaryotic organisms)>reasonable tectonic activity (to prevent boring billion to just persist indefinitely)only then you can start with animals.it is just too many variables that must be met in order to start with complex life
Wait a minute, Darwinism is a scientific theory. Why don't you go ask /sci/?
>>18453720Is it though? It only seems to work when there are no humans around to watch it.
This thread was moved to >>>/sci/16967780
