[Congressman Billybob]

Nope, the probability runs differently. Our planet revolves around a relatively new star. We've had three billion years to develop to our present state, with most of the real progress in just the last 4,000 years.

There are billions of suns, many with potentially habitable environments, that are ten billion years old. The odds are in favor of life developing on several of those, and having the time to far outstrip our current state of development.

Unless we are absolutely unique, odds are we have neighbors who are way ahead of us.

Congressman Billybob

Latest column, "Open Judicial Mouth, Insert Foot," discussion thread. IF YOU WANT A FREEPER IN CONGRESS, CLICK HERE.

[aruanan]

Nope, the probability runs differently. Our planet revolves around a relatively new star. We've had three billion years to develop to our present state, with most of the real progress in just the last 4,000 years.

No, this is, indeed, how probability works. The age of our star has nothing to do with it. Besides, given evolutionary history, the easiest part would be going from post-biogenesis to the present. The absolutely gigantic probability roadblock lies in life arising through abiogenesis--this is where the situations on various and sundry planets is most similar and the probabilities the most stringent and forbidding. We probably are all there is--based solely upon an abiogenetic, probabilistic view of life. Poor Carl was deluded.

[boris]

"Unless we are absolutely unique, odds are we have neighbors who are way ahead of us."

And if this is so, they should already be here. We fail to observe them. Hence the premise is flawed: there are no neighbors who are way ahead of us.

--Boris