[AntonioLao]

Originally Posted by Marko

that this is probably the only way to humans

If I'm not mistaken, all life forms share the same base pairs of DNA molecules but not the way they combined or the number of molecules involved in the combinations.

[Marko]

Originally Posted by AntonioLao

If I'm not mistaken, all life forms share the same base pairs of DNA molecules but not the way they combined or the number of molecules involved in the combinations.

Yes, they share the same base pairs; combinations are the one that give rise to the species we see today.
That is like this on Earth, but my speculation is that on "primordial Earth" there could have been other reactions that were not so successful, and perhaps other building blocks were there. But by accidents, these building blocks we see today were probably most stable and successful, and we are here today to discuss this topic. What I wanted to say is that our particular evolution is with 4 bases, but there could be other "evolutions" based on different building blocks and chemistry on other planets.
Regards!

[AntonioLao]

Originally Posted by Marko

But there could be other "evolutions" based on different building blocks and chemistry on other planets

Any combination that waste energy, that is to say it does not minimize the usage of energy will, I think, become instinct by difficulty adapting to the ecosystem. But as stated by Darwin evolution is really survival of the fittest, the strongest. By trial and error, this can be achieved through the process of mutation. Therefore, the gene that survived is necessarily the strongest gene. For the Earth environment not necessarily in other planetary environment but I doubt the optimization objective function varies widely.

[Marko]

Originally Posted by AntonioLao

Any combination that waste energy, that is to say it does not minimize the usage of energy will, I think, become instinct by difficulty adapting to the ecosystem.

Probably it will, this is what I am trying to say. These combinations probably can appear, but they are "short lived".

But as stated by Darwin evolution is really survival of the fittest, the strongest. By trial and error, this can be achieved through the process of mutation. Therefore, the gene that survived are necessarily the strongest gene. For the Earth environment not necessarily in other planetary environment but I doubt the optimization objective function varies widely.

That is all truth; all this happened on Earth, but these mutations are very interesting. For example, if there were a near - supernova explosion, radiation might be so intense, that mutations would be really horrible, and maybe none of them would be useful.
What I really want to say is that our evolution has gone all the way from amino acids to the humans. But in most cases, I think this cant happen - environment is either too stable or too disturbing, the planets moon is to small so it cant make planets rotation stable - climatic changes are drastic, it hasn’t got any gas giants (like Jupiter) in the outer regions of the system, so planet is exposed to the asteroids impacts...etc. This could all lead to the blind roads of evolution, but since these roads are blind, there will never be a "observer" in this evolution, to witness it. By witness I mean humans.

Our evolution is too perfect to me; I believe there are other possibilities.
Like the Multi-verse theory proposes almost unlimited number of potential "constants of the universe" I think that it may be plausible to think there are other evolutions possible. Note that I am implying these evolutions toward other planets, not on Earth.

What do you think?

[AntonioLao]

Originally Posted by Marko

What do you think?

I think if I understood completely the cosmological anthropic principle the weak, strong, and final version then I, at the least, could give a better answer. But the fact that SETI mission is still considered as a failure I would say that nobody out there wants to communicate with earthlings. Or they considered us as lowly life forms compared to their advanced intelligence.

[baudrunner]

Antonio, the real problem is all this stuff out there that serves as this kind of halo of detritus-of-some-sort around the solar system that interferes with the transmission of signals from "intelligent" sources (like neutrinos really have it together you know?), not to mention the colossal distances involved. We'd need a really highly advanced signaling system which probably none of the locals around this star cluster has yet developed (like there is anybody else within four thousand light years of here). I propose an extremely ultra-high speed signal packet burst from some type of portable tokamak that creates the fusion energy for the split second that it requires to send it in order for us to communicate with our own interstellar explorers to know what's going on with them, let alone try to read some alien version of their transmission style in the radio frequency range. Who is SETI kidding anyway? What a stupid idea.

[Marko]

Originally Posted by AntonioLao

I think if I understood completely the cosmological anthropic principle the weak, strong, and final version then I, at the least, could give a better answer. But the fact that SETI mission is still considered as a failure I would say that nobody out there wants to communicate with earthlings. Or they considered us as lowly life forms compared to their advanced intelligence.

Well, I think that this other evolutions are worse then ours (I mentioned this in my earlier posts), probably without the complex life forms and finally without humans. Moreover, I don’t expect any results from SETI. We could be the only civilization in the universe, from my point of view. There are so many conditions for stars formation, planet formation, habitable zones, proteins synthesis...etc. My vision is that by pure probability and randomness, there must be a lot of primordial earth replicas in the universe. It is almost impossible that this is the only planet with the proper distance from the star, proper moon, proper Jupiter. Even if we are only civilization, there must be some planets with some simple life - but due to the environment, evolution was different, not as good as ours. Also, this implies even more planets with some form of amino acids – even more at proper distance from the parent star but without any biological activity - more planetary systems (but in some of them gas giants are too close to the parent star, orbits are too unstable, too eccentrical....etc


Maybe this “next generation of telescopes” can do something?!?

[AntonioLao]

Originally Posted by Marko

Maybe this “next generation of telescopes” can do something?!?

Thanks. I am not aware of these new advanced technologies? Please, keep me inform.

[Marko]

Originally Posted by AntonioLao

Thanks. I am not aware of these new advanced technologies? Please, keep me inform.

Well, according to the NASA, these new telescopes might be able to detect earth-like planets around other stars. Moreover, they might be able to "see" the chemistry of these planets. Also, if these telescopes will be so powerful, we might see how rare/often solar-like systems are. They said this will be in 10-15 years, but I am a pessimist so I think 30 - 40 years is more realistic.

What do you think about the "multi-evolution theory" in general?
Does it contradict some laws of nature?
I see you are an expert in physic, I am looking forward to your answer, and I expect further discussion!
Regards!
Marko

[baudrunner]

The point that I was making is that, listen - we have totally lost contact with veeger, I mean Voyager, and it is only a little ways into the solar system's halo and moving only a little farther away every century. Let's be realistic. Look up at the night sky during a new moon. There are literally billions of suns out there and their combined light cannot even light up the night sky enough for us to see without car headlights and flashlights or campfires or floodlights. We all know how much energy is generated by a sun. How is one tiny little power plant going to provide enough energy to transmit radio waves that we can demodulate into coherent information even if it were only as close to us as the next star over, four light years away? I can tell you now that there is no nearby intelligent life, that we are probably the only civilised planet within our own star cluster and that we couldn't possibly receive intelligent transmission of information from any of them even if there were. Get it? Of course there is other intelligent life out there, we are out there. But forget trying to communicate with it over those kinds of distances.