Languish.org

So, with this many habitable planets, why haven't we detected intelligent life?

http://www.nbcnews.com/science/8-8-billion-habitable-earth-size-planets-exist-milky-way-8C11529186

Quote8.8 billion habitable Earth-size planets exist in Milky Way alone
Seth Borenstein The Associated Press

WASHINGTON — Space is vast, but it may not be so lonely after all: A study finds the Milky Way is teeming with billions of planets that are about the size of Earth, orbit stars just like our sun, and exist in the Goldilocks zone — not too hot and not too cold for life.

Astronomers using NASA data have calculated for the first time that in our galaxy alone, there are at least 8.8 billion stars with Earth-size planets in the habitable temperature zone.

The study was published Monday in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

For perspective, that's more Earth-like planets than there are people on Earth.

As for what it says about the odds that there is life somewhere out there, it means "just in our Milky Way galaxy alone, that's 8.8 billion throws of the biological dice," said study co-author Geoff Marcy, a longtime planet hunter from the University of California at Berkeley.

The next step, scientists say, is to look for atmospheres on these planets with powerful space telescopes that have yet to be launched. That would yield further clues to whether any of these planets do, in fact, harbor life.

The findings also raise a blaring question, Marcy said: If we aren't alone, why is "there a deafening silence in our Milky Way galaxy from advanced civilizations?"

In the Milky Way, about 1 in 5 stars that are like our sun in size, color and age have planets that are roughly Earth's size and are in the habitable zone where life-crucial water can be liquid, according to intricate calculations based on four years of observations from NASA's now-crippled Kepler telescope.

If people on Earth could only travel in deep space, "you'd probably see a lot of traffic jams," Bill Borucki, NASA's chief Kepler scientist, joked Monday.

The Kepler telescope peered at 42,000 stars, examining just a tiny slice of our galaxy to see how many planets like Earth are out there. Scientists then extrapolated that figure to the rest of the galaxy, which has hundreds of billions of stars.

For the first time, scientists calculated — not estimated — what percent of stars that are just like our sun have planets similar to Earth: 22 percent, with a margin of error of plus or minus 8 percentage points.

Kepler scientist Natalie Batalha said there is still more data to pore over before this can be considered a final figure.

There are about 200 billion stars in our galaxy, with 40 billion of them like our sun, Marcy said. One of his co-authors put the number of sun-like stars closer to 50 billion, meaning there would be at least 11 billion planets like ours.

Based on the 1-in-5 estimate, the closest Earth-size planet that is in the habitable temperature zone and circles a sun-like star is probably within 70 trillion miles of Earth, Marcy said.

And the 8.8 billion Earth-size planets figure is only a start. That's because scientists were looking only at sun-like stars, which are not the most common stars.

An earlier study found that 15 percent of the more common red dwarf stars have Earth-size planets that are close-in enough to be in the not-too-hot, not-too-cold Goldilocks Zone.

Put those together and that's probably 40 billion right-size, right-place planets, Marcy said.

And that's just our galaxy. There are billions of other galaxies.

Scientists at a Kepler science conference Monday said they have found 833 new candidate planets with the space telescope, bringing the total of planets they've spotted to 3,538, but most aren't candidates for life.

Kepler has identified only 10 planets that are about Earth's size circling sun-like stars and are in the habitable zone, including one called Kepler 69-c.

Because there are probably hundreds of planets missed for every one found, the study did intricate extrapolations to come up with the 22 percent figure — a calculation that outside scientists say is fair.

"Everything they've done looks legitimate," said MIT astronomer Sara Seager.

I don't think there is life on any other planet.

I'd expect that alien civilizations evolve past radio signals relatively quickly, and that intelligent non-self destructive intelligent life is extremely rare.

There are Klingons near Uranus.

I've never understoof why people seem to find this so perplexing.

We simply do not have enough data.

Lets say there are 8 billion planets of the right size and the right distance from their sun such that life is even possible.

So what? That doesn't mean we should or should not expect a lot of life, because there are a shitload of additional variables involved in how life forms, and how it becomes intelligent, and how it becomes advanced enough to be noticeable.

What if we could know all those variables, and find out that once you do the math, the odds are about 1 in 4 billion? Then the silence makes sense.

The fact that there is such a silence certainly suggests something about what those final odds probably are...

For all we know, life itself could be incredibly rare even when the conditions make it nominally possible. Maybe abiogenesis is incredibly unlikely at best.

Maybe life is common, but the development of large brain intelligence is bizarrely unusual. Maybe it tooks some incredibly unlikely circumstances for it to come about on Earth.

Who knows?

It is an interesting question, certainly, but I just don't get the sense of bewilderment that seems to pervade the discussion. We know enough to know how very little we know.

Combination of 2,3, and 5.

Quote from: Berkut on November 04, 2013, 09:38:33 PM
I've never understoof why people seem to find this so perplexing.

We simply do not have enough data.

Lets say there are 8 billion planets of the right size and the right distance from their sun such that life is even possible.

So what? That doesn't mean we should or should not expect a lot of life, because there are a shitload of additional variables involved in how life forms, and how it becomes intelligent, and how it becomes advanced enough to be noticeable.

What if we could know all those variables, and find out that once you do the math, the odds are about 1 in 4 billion? Then the silence makes sense.

The fact that there is such a silence certainly suggests something about what those final odds probably are...

For all we know, life itself could be incredibly rare even when the conditions make it nominally possible. Maybe abiogenesis is incredibly unlikely at best.

Maybe life is common, but the development of large brain intelligence is bizarrely unusual. Maybe it tooks some incredibly unlikely circumstances for it to come about on Earth.

Who knows?

It is an interesting question, certainly, but I just don't get the sense of bewilderment that seems to pervade the discussion. We know enough to know how very little we know.

For once, I agree fully with you. :hug:

Personally, I do expect there to be lots of life, just less intelligent, high-technological life than in any given franchise beginning with the word "star."  Even if you appeared in any random moment of the history of life on this planet, there's like a 2/3500 chance of running into humans, and a 1/35,000,000 chance of finding yourself in an area where humans actually produce a lot of radio waves.  So the stridence with which the question "WHERE IS EVERYBODY?" is asked does seem a little odd and is premised on the idea that the odds suggest that we should not be the first intelligent, industrial civilization in the galaxy, something that is uncertain to say the least.

I also wouldn't be surprised if there were many non-radiating civilizations.  Nukes and television isn't humanity's default state, living in small groups as hunters and gatherers is.  That such people would be incredibly boring to meet also seems to have failed to cross would-be space explorers' minds.

Answer is "Other".

Computer technology advances faster than space tech, mostly because of the direct economic applications of computing while space tech only profits come from placing comm satellites on orbit. Because of this, a technological civilization is more likely to achieve the Technological Singularity, which entails that a civilization that achieves space exploration technology will not longer be interested in space colonization or mineral exploitation, and will explore only for the sake of knowledge, if it does.

The Technological Singularity is defined as:

"The technological singularity, or simply the singularity, is a theoretical moment in time when artificial intelligence will have progressed to the point of a greater-than-human intelligence that will "radically change human civilization, and perhaps even human nature itself."[1] Since the capabilities of such an intelligence may be difficult for an unaided human mind to comprehend, the technological singularity is often seen as an occurrence (akin to a gravitational singularity) beyond which—from the perspective of the present—the future course of human history is unpredictable or even unfathomable."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity

Some of the possible consequences of this is that nanotech and computing will allow a post-singularity civilization to retire from the physical world as we perceived it. Meaning we cannot detect the aliens even if they are here, and that the aliens will not be interact with us, and only observe our behavior and development.
A post-singularity civilization will be immortal, therefore the will not reproduce and will have no need for territorial expansion. So we will never find their colonies which don't exist.

So, the answer to Fermi's Paradox, in my opinion, is that:

1- Only technological civilizations space travel
2- All technological civilzations reach the Technological Singularity before Hyperdrive Technology
3- All Post-Technological Singularity Civilizations in one form or another retire from our physical plane of existence
4- Therefore all civilizations capable of reaching Earth are undetectable by us.

You're really flogging that singularity shit for all its worth, ain't you.

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 04, 2013, 11:05:41 PM
You're really flogging that singularity shit for all its worth, ain't you.

Its my pet theory for the next 30 days.

Quote from: Ideologue on November 04, 2013, 10:52:38 PM

I also wouldn't be surprised if there were many non-radiating civilizations.  Nukes and television isn't humanity's default state, living in small groups as hunters and gatherers is.  That such people would be incredibly boring to meet also seems to have failed to cross would-be space explorers' minds.

Are you seriously retarded?  :huh:

Meeting an intelligent alien race, even one in a stage of development equivalent to the paleolithic would be the most interesting encounter in the history of humanity.

Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 04, 2013, 11:19:07 PM

Quote from: Ideologue on November 04, 2013, 10:52:38 PM

I also wouldn't be surprised if there were many non-radiating civilizations.  Nukes and television isn't humanity's default state, living in small groups as hunters and gatherers is.  That such people would be incredibly boring to meet also seems to have failed to cross would-be space explorers' minds.

Are you seriously retarded?  :huh:

Meeting an intelligent alien race, even one in a stage of development equivalent to the paleolithic would be the most interesting encounter in the history of humanity.

Indeed.

On the other hand, I'm pretty sure Columbus said the same about that Indians.

Quote from: Siege on November 04, 2013, 11:07:17 PM

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 04, 2013, 11:05:41 PM
You're really flogging that singularity shit for all its worth, ain't you.

Its my pet theory for the next 30 days.

What theories do your pets hold ?

An interesting question would be if an alien civilization can discover hyperdrives without discovering computing.

If that's possible, we are fucked.

No one's voted for the Reapers? :weep:

Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 04, 2013, 11:54:42 PM
No one's voted for the Reapers? :weep:

There Tim, just for you.

Though I was in fact voting for The Eternal Ones from Star Control 3...which is weird since that game had a horrible plot.

It wouldn't have to be a single civilization, or even a very ancient one. The ability to detect intelligent life and launch and target a relativistic projectile as well as an understanding of the advantages of defection in game theory is all it would take.

Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 04, 2013, 11:19:07 PM

Quote from: Ideologue on November 04, 2013, 10:52:38 PM

I also wouldn't be surprised if there were many non-radiating civilizations.  Nukes and television isn't humanity's default state, living in small groups as hunters and gatherers is.  That such people would be incredibly boring to meet also seems to have failed to cross would-be space explorers' minds.

Are you seriously retarded?  :huh:

Meeting an intelligent alien race, even one in a stage of development equivalent to the paleolithic would be the most interesting encounter in the history of humanity.

OK.  Let me restate my thesis: they would be boring to talk to.  "No, thunderbolts aren't evil spirits.  No, I don't want to eat your poisonous indigenous food.  No, I'm not a god."

That's totally and completely absurd.  There'd be millions of man-hours of research in to their language alone.

Pinker, Chomsky and the entire MIT Linguistics department would bust entire rivers of cum for the ability to look at development of language in completely unrelated sapient species. Anthropology would change it's name and at least double in size.  It'd be nuts.  Totally and completely nuts.  What are you talking about?

95% of what the MIT Linguistics department does would probably bore a normal person to tears.

So?  I can't really think of a part of the Academy that wouldn't be interested in Stone Age equivalent non-terrestrial Sapient species.  Maybe Physics.  Biology and the Humanities would freak the hell out.  It wouldn't even be the Humanities anymore.

Anthropology has spent the last 70 years freaking out over a few Frenchmen's experiences in the Amazon. This would just upend everything.

I accepted that it would be interesting from a scientific standpoint.  But that's true of any new species, terrestrial or otherwise, intelligent or otherwise.  I'm talking about economic and cultural interchange; in those terms, a paleolithic civilization has little to offer in comparison even to a shitty bronze age society.

My impression is that life probably is fairly common. But it's very hard to say how likely the step from life to intelligent life is. And then there's the step from intelligent life to intelligent life that develops a technologically advanced civilization. One bal-de-sac is intelligent life that lives in the ocean; they are very unlikely to ever develop advanced technology.

Why not, they could manipulate objects with their tentacles.

No fire means no metallurgy.

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 05, 2013, 04:16:09 AM
Why not, they could manipulate objects with their tentacles.

Why is it that whenever you mention marine life everyone just assumes "tentacles"? :rolleyes:

:cthulu:

Best spell ever: Brew Space-Mead

To take these in turn

Evolution of Life is extremely rare - this is not the case, life is a consequence of biology. The three big steps towards making intelligent life on earch (cyanobacteria creating oxygen, whatever resulted in animals in the cambrian explosion and walking apes getting large brains which are capable of abstract thought) are not necessary consequences of biology.


Evolution of Intelligent Life is extremely rare - this one is my pick. Animals on earth are as stupid as they can get away with being. If they could survive with a smaller and less complex brain evolution would result in those animals getting stupider.


Intelligent Life destroys itself soon after it becomes able to do so - well, given our sample size of 1, no. Even the worst case scenarios for nuclear war has a few people surviving. Humanity has survived Toba like near extinction events before. Extinction happens when either some other form of life fills your nische in life, your habitat is destroyed or a new predator predates you too successfully. For an adaptable omnivore capable of making tools none of these are likely. Nuclear war won't kill us off, it might force us to subsist on cockroaches though.

An Ancient space faring civilization destroys new advanced species - in which case I ask fermi's question, where are they?

Interstellar travel and communication are both impossible - well, no, we are already capable of finding dysonspheres on nearby stars and some forms of communications. The universe is big, really really really big, but still, these things are possible.

Quote from: Viking on November 05, 2013, 05:31:54 AM
Intelligent Life destroys itself soon after it becomes able to do so - well, given our sample size of 1, no.

Except that our sample size is 0.

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 05, 2013, 05:38:57 AM

Quote from: Viking on November 05, 2013, 05:31:54 AM
Intelligent Life destroys itself soon after it becomes able to do so - well, given our sample size of 1, no.

Except that our sample size is 0.

We are capable and we haven't.

We are not capable. And even if we were, "soon" hasn't expired. 70 years is a blink of an eye for the universe.

Quote from: Viking on November 05, 2013, 05:31:54 AM
An Ancient space faring civilization destroys new advanced species - in which case I ask fermi's question, where are they?

Maybe we haven't become advanced enough for them to notice yet?

Even if they have noticed us, space is big. They could be on their way and just haven't got here yet.

Put me in the "Evolution of intelligent life is extremely rare" group. 

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 04, 2013, 11:05:41 PM
You're really flogging that singularity shit for all its worth, ain't you.

It is one of the few Wikipedia articles he thinks he can understand.

Logic is to Siege as bicycle is to fish.

Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 04, 2013, 11:19:07 PM

Quote from: Ideologue on November 04, 2013, 10:52:38 PM

I also wouldn't be surprised if there were many non-radiating civilizations.  Nukes and television isn't humanity's default state, living in small groups as hunters and gatherers is.  That such people would be incredibly boring to meet also seems to have failed to cross would-be space explorers' minds.

Are you seriously retarded?  :huh:

Meeting an intelligent alien race, even one in a stage of development equivalent to the paleolithic would be the most interesting encounter in the history of humanity.

Moses' encounter with God may rank higher TIM.

Octopi are fairly intelligent.  Compared to some people I see on blogs very much so.  It would be difficult to judge what constitutes intelligence in something alien from ourselves.

Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on November 05, 2013, 08:30:12 AM
Octopi are fairly intelligent.  Compared to some people I see on blogs very much so.  It would be difficult to judge what constitutes intelligence in something alien from ourselves.

Can they stab you with a pointy stick?

If so, they're probably intelligent.

Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 04, 2013, 08:33:38 PM
So, with this many habitable planets, why haven't we detected intelligent life?

Many reasons:

• We're the most advanced civilization out there, the others are just as the microbial stage of evolution.
  
• We're the most retarded civilization out there, we're too insignificant for them to contact us, like we don't try to communicate with ants.
  
• They are at an evolutionary stage similar to ours, they can't travel in space for long distance, nor send real-time communications to many light-years away.
  
• They actually tried to contact us, but there a vas worldwide governments conspiracy that hides them from us.  Every technological advancement since the 50s is because of the technology they gave us ;)
  
• In most likelyhood, there is possibly life on some of these planets, but we don't have the technology yet to scan the planet's surface and detect them, if they exists.
  

Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on November 05, 2013, 08:30:12 AM
Octopi are fairly intelligent.  Compared to some people I see on blogs very much so.  It would be difficult to judge what constitutes intelligence in something alien from ourselves.

This.

Linguistics would be interesting, but even more fundamental would be the ability to observe an intelligence completely different from our own. For while our best understanding of intelligence is less anthropocentric than Tim's it's likely still very limited.

Even in the above paragraph I have assumed that an intelligence requires language. It is hard to imagine how it could not, but it may be possible.

Maybe the Big bang was started too early and the simulation unbalanced from the beginning, producing timeliness way off what was the intent ? 

God's belated offers of Heaven,Valhalla and so forth are makeshift patches to stop the boat sinking.

Quote from: Viking on November 05, 2013, 05:31:54 AM
Evolution of Intelligent Life is extremely rare - this one is my pick. Animals on earth are as stupid as they can get away with being. If they could survive with a smaller and less complex brain evolution would result in those animals getting stupider.

An evolutionary explanation for the Tea Party? :hmm:

Quote from: Ideologue on November 05, 2013, 02:03:40 AM

Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 04, 2013, 11:19:07 PM

Quote from: Ideologue on November 04, 2013, 10:52:38 PM

I also wouldn't be surprised if there were many non-radiating civilizations.  Nukes and television isn't humanity's default state, living in small groups as hunters and gatherers is.  That such people would be incredibly boring to meet also seems to have failed to cross would-be space explorers' minds.

Are you seriously retarded?  :huh:

Meeting an intelligent alien race, even one in a stage of development equivalent to the paleolithic would be the most interesting encounter in the history of humanity.

OK.  Let me restate my thesis: they would be boring to talk to.  "No, thunderbolts aren't evil spirits.  No, I don't want to eat your poisonous indigenous food.  No, I'm not a god."

If their chicks are hot, I bet quite a few languishtahs would answer differently to those questions.

Quote from: grumbler on November 05, 2013, 08:12:04 AM

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 04, 2013, 11:05:41 PM
You're really flogging that singularity shit for all its worth, ain't you.

It is one of the few Wikipedia articles he thinks he can understand.

Logic is to Siege as bicycle is to fish.

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.blairbikeclub.com%2FRollin%2520fish%2520on%2520bike%21.gif&hash=d39c178ea618c2004b47f74b2b4a7218c87aba04)

Quote from: Viking on November 05, 2013, 05:31:54 AM
To take these in turn

Evolution of Life is extremely rare - this is not the case, life is a consequence of biology. The three big steps towards making intelligent life on earch (cyanobacteria creating oxygen, whatever resulted in animals in the cambrian explosion and walking apes getting large brains which are capable of abstract thought) are not necessary consequences of biology.

I think he means life appearing in the first place.  That's not well understood.

I didn't see if the article mentioned the likelihood of planets having water in liquid form.  To this layman that seems a rare pre-condition for life.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 05, 2013, 05:03:33 PM
I didn't see if the article mentioned the likelihood of planets having water in liquid form.  To this layman that seems a rare pre-condition for life.

They did.

Intelligent species are all either exterminated by the Kohr-Ah or imprisoned on their homeworlds by the Ur-Quan.

Quote from: Viking on November 05, 2013, 05:31:54 AM

Evolution of Intelligent Life is extremely rare - this one is my pick. Animals on earth are as stupid as they can get away with being. If they could survive with a smaller and less complex brain evolution would result in those animals getting stupider.

That's true, but since the development of complex animal life 500 million years ago there seems to have been constant natural selection working in favor of more complex brains. The benefits of such are obvious (more complex senses, better ability to hunt, avoid predation, jockeying for position in social groups, etc) so why would this not be a factor on other worlds.

The costs of such may be more subtle, but they're certainly there.  Sophisticated central nervous systems require serious energy.

Quote from: Ideologue on November 05, 2013, 05:49:41 PM
The costs of such may be more subtle, but they're certainly there.  Sophisticated central nervous systems require serious energy.

Actually, the fact that they cost so much energy, yet were still selected for indicates that the selective pressures favoring intelligence were strong indeed.

How about the possibility that alien civilizations exist and are passively or even actively communicating with us, but for whatever reason we lack the ability to understand them?  Perhaps they use some communications technology that is beyond our comprehension, or maybe they 'speak' so quickly (or slowly) that we cannot distinguish their signals from galactic background noise?

Or that the comm. Equipmentin the pyramids is broken.

Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on November 05, 2013, 07:26:08 PM
Or that the comm. Equipmentin the pyramids is broken.

Apparently so. :(

Timmy I don't know if it's reasonable to think like that.  Pterosaurs had massively complex flocculi and theoretically hyper-sensitive wing membranes, birds still won.

Quote from: Queequeg on November 05, 2013, 11:25:39 PM
Timmy I don't know if it's reasonable to think like that.  Pterosaurs had massively complex flocculi and theoretically hyper-sensitive wing membranes, birds still won.

Birds didn't seem to have much to do with that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pterosaur#Extinction

1,2 and 3.
Though I will add the notes that it depends how you define extremely rare and that with 3 it may just be a case that it evolves into a situation where it can't escape its planet- for instance the planet is too young and hydrocarbon poor or they use it all up before they become spareborne.
I suppose 5 could come into play somewhat with my take on 3 but I wouldn't go as far as impossible.

Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 06, 2013, 12:28:31 AM

Quote from: Queequeg on November 05, 2013, 11:25:39 PM
Timmy I don't know if it's reasonable to think like that.  Pterosaurs had massively complex flocculi and theoretically hyper-sensitive wing membranes, birds still won.

Birds didn't seem to have much to do with that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pterosaur#Extinction

Which species exists today, and which had the more complex brain?  Which, if the bigger brain always wins out, should be bumping in to windows today?

I wonder if the change towards a grass-dominated ecosphere radically changed the needs of larger creatures?  Sauropods, in part due to lack of differentiated teeth but also because those conifer trees are a fucking bitch, needed extremely complex stomachs.  You needed to be pretty big just to be able to digest that shit, while most of the ungulates don't have to get that big to eat grasses.  Things become about maximizing survival-rate for medium sized herbivores and carnivores, rather than the Mesozoic race for brawn and armor.  This would not account for the simultaneous development of intelligence among cetaceans, but I think it's pretty likely that there were creatures as clever as the extremely clever New Caledonian Crow in the Mesozoic.

Also I still think the argument is pretty specious on the face of it.  If a Utahraptor population was introduced to the Savannah they would go completely, totally nuts unless dedicated egg-thieves start attacking clutches instantly. 

Well, Pterosaur brains aren't exactly available for study, but since they are considered reptiles I imagine they weren't that bright.

Birds are reptiles.

Quote from: Queequeg on November 06, 2013, 03:03:46 AM

Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 06, 2013, 12:28:31 AM

Quote from: Queequeg on November 05, 2013, 11:25:39 PM
Timmy I don't know if it's reasonable to think like that.  Pterosaurs had massively complex flocculi and theoretically hyper-sensitive wing membranes, birds still won.

Birds didn't seem to have much to do with that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pterosaur#Extinction

Which species exists today, and which had the more complex brain?  Which, if the bigger brain always wins out, should be bumping in to windows today?

I've willing to bet that modern birds have more complex brains than them.

Quote from: Queequeg on November 06, 2013, 03:15:28 AM
Also I still think the argument is pretty specious on the face of it.  If a Utahraptor population was introduced to the Savannah they would go completely, totally nuts unless dedicated egg-thieves start attacking clutches instantly.

Their immune system is 100 million years out of date. Reptile/Birds diseases would devastate them.

As for why Surapods got so big, it all has to do with the advanced avian lungs dinosaurs had.

Quote from: Queequeg on November 05, 2013, 11:25:39 PM
Timmy I don't know if it's reasonable to think like that.  Pterosaurs had massively complex flocculi and theoretically hyper-sensitive wing membranes, birds still won.

Extenuating circumstances.

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F4.bp.blogspot.com%2F-tFuzfrxtrRg%2FUI-IyW_DO3I%2FAAAAAAAAGhM%2FUe87QTsQMiI%2Fs1600%2Farticle-2224798-0198D21D000004B0-949_634x520.jpg&hash=df874031702451151ea38968c71a4c99d85d19a9)

Quote from: Queequeg on November 06, 2013, 03:37:57 AM
Birds are reptiles.

No they aren't!

Quote from: Queequeg on November 06, 2013, 03:37:57 AM
Birds are reptiles.

Also considered dinosaurs.

Quote from: Queequeg on November 06, 2013, 03:37:57 AM
Birds are reptiles.

Birds are as much reptiles as we are, in that we share a common ancestor that we would consider a reptile.  The reptilian classification is a bit of a mess.

Quote from: Razgovory on November 06, 2013, 03:20:22 AM
Well, Pterosaur brains aren't exactly available for study, but since they are considered reptiles I imagine they weren't that bright.

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fe%2Fe5%2FQuetzscale1.png&hash=9f46b2dfe62334901ff593db4294245f07110684)

Quote from: frunk on November 06, 2013, 01:58:09 PM

Quote from: Queequeg on November 06, 2013, 03:37:57 AM
Birds are reptiles.

Birds are as much reptiles as we are, in that we share a common ancestor that we would consider a reptile.  The reptilian classification is a bit of a mess.

That's more or less the point I was making. Pterosaurs are super closely related to dinosaurs, thus saying at some point a species of Dinosaur stops being a reptile raises question of if Pterosaurs were recognizably reptile in the sense Raz meant.

Quote from: Queequeg on November 06, 2013, 02:46:43 PM

Quote from: frunk on November 06, 2013, 01:58:09 PM

Quote from: Queequeg on November 06, 2013, 03:37:57 AM
Birds are reptiles.

Birds are as much reptiles as we are, in that we share a common ancestor that we would consider a reptile.  The reptilian classification is a bit of a mess.

That's more or less the point I was making. Pterosaurs are super closely related to dinosaurs, thus saying at some point a species of Dinosaur stops being a reptile raises question of if Pterosaurs were recognizably reptile in the sense Raz meant.

What are you talking about?  Pterosaurs aren't "super closely related" to do dinosaurs.  They are more closely related then say, Squid or cabbage, but they still aren't dinosaurs or birds.  Yes they evolved from something reptile like, but so did mammals.  Go back far enough and Dinosaurs and humans and reptiles  all share a common ancestor who was a fish, however mammals are not fish.

Same clade. Same sub-clade. Same sub-clade of a sub-clade. If we were able to back to the Triassic no layman would be able to distinguish between the longlegged, fast, semi bipedal reptiles that became pterosaurs and those that became dinosaurs.

Yep, the pterosaur line split off right before the most recent common ancestor of dinosaurs. That's why people who object to calling them 'flying dinosaurs' come off as so goddamn pedantic.

 :rolleyes:

If there are in fact many civilizations out there in the galaxy with technology to interact physically then the galaxy is pretty dangerous. Hiding seems a good strategy. I suggest we relocate to vast underground cities powered by fission.

Quote from: Razgovory on November 06, 2013, 05:15:01 PM
:rolleyes:

The common ancestor of pterosaurs and dinosaurs was lithe, small, fast, bipedal and agile. It wasn't a fucking tuatara. These were active animals well on the way to being completely warmblooded, if not already there.

Quote from: Grinning_Colossus on November 06, 2013, 05:11:07 PM
Yep, the pterosaur line split off right before the most recent common ancestor of dinosaurs. That's why people who object to calling them 'flying dinosaurs' come off as so goddamn pedantic.

flying "dinosaur" is ok, "flying dinosaur" isn't. It's a bit like calling synapsids like gorgonopsids, dimetrodons and lystrosaurus dinosaurs. Colloquially they are, technically they are not.

edit: and spellus is right, which makes us synapsids too, in addition to being apes, monkeys, primates and mammals.

I wouldn't make that argument tbh. Synapsids are way different from dinosaurs.

Quote from: Queequeg on November 06, 2013, 05:48:22 PM
I wouldn't make that argument tbh. Synapsids are way different from dinosaurs.

Dimetrodons were always in my fancy dinosaur books when I was little. Other non-dinosaur creatures like the pterosaurs and ichthyosaurs were not dinosaurs but are colloquially lumped in with them.

I probably would correct someone who called a pterosaur a flying dinosaur but that's because 1) a flying dinosaur is a bird 2) I'mnot comfortable with dinosaur meaning all big aanimals from before 65.5 MYA 3) I'm super pedantic

Quote from: Viking on November 06, 2013, 05:51:21 PM

Quote from: Queequeg on November 06, 2013, 05:48:22 PM
I wouldn't make that argument tbh. Synapsids are way different from dinosaurs.

Dimetrodons were always in my fancy dinosaur books when I was little. Other non-dinosaur creatures like the pterosaurs and ichthyosaurs were not dinosaurs but are colloquially lumped in with them.

I don't think the icthyosaurs were archosaurs so there's a lot of problems there. An alligator is a dinosaur more than an icthyosaur, let a lone a dimetrodon, which doesn't even come close to looking like one.

Quote from: Queequeg on November 06, 2013, 05:42:12 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on November 06, 2013, 05:15:01 PM
:rolleyes:

The common ancestor of pterosaurs and dinosaurs was lithe, small, fast, bipedal and agile. It wasn't a fucking tuatara. These were active animals well on the way to being completely warmblooded, if not already there.

And people and snakes all have a common ancestor in some lobed fish, who was on his way to becoming bipedal, big brained and warmed blooded but people aren't snakes.

A gorgonopsid is a good example. It just doesn't look like a dinosaur. At all. There's maybe some vague resemblance to later pre-Dinosaur Triassic Crocodilomorph predators but one look at it's teeth and you know you're dealing with something different. By comparison the first pterosaurs and dinosaurs probably looked like shrews and bats. Obvious relationship.

Quote from: Viking on November 06, 2013, 05:51:21 PM

Quote from: Queequeg on November 06, 2013, 05:48:22 PM
I wouldn't make that argument tbh. Synapsids are way different from dinosaurs.

Dimetrodons were always in my fancy dinosaur books when I was little. Other non-dinosaur creatures like the pterosaurs and ichthyosaurs were not dinosaurs but are colloquially lumped in with them.

:yes:

Quote from: Queequeg on November 06, 2013, 06:00:39 PM
A gorgonopsid is a good example. It just doesn't look like a dinosaur. At all. There's maybe some vague resemblance to later pre-Dinosaur Triassic Crocodilomorph predators but one look at it's teeth and you know you're dealing with something different. By comparison the first pterosaurs and dinosaurs probably looked like shrews and bats. Obvious relationship.

I'm trying to see what your point is here, but you are missing me here.

Quote from: Razgovory on November 06, 2013, 05:58:00 PM

Quote from: Queequeg on November 06, 2013, 05:42:12 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on November 06, 2013, 05:15:01 PM
:rolleyes:

The common ancestor of pterosaurs and dinosaurs was lithe, small, fast, bipedal and agile. It wasn't a fucking tuatara. These were active animals well on the way to being completely warmblooded, if not already there.

And people and snakes all have a common ancestor in some lobed fish, who was on his way to becoming bipedal, big brained and warmed blooded but people aren't snakes.

I love you Raz but you're completely impervious to reason here. If you were to be transported to the Triassic the moment pterosaurs began to grow wing membranes you would not have the expertise to differentiate between the future Quetzalcoatlus and the future Utahraptor. Maybe one was arboreal and one was terrestrial, but it's the difference between baboons and chimps, not snakes and people. The basal pterosaur form looks like a basal dinosaur with wing flaps.

Simply because something looks like something else doesn't mean it is that thing.  Ichthyologists look like fish, but aren't fish.

Quote from: Razgovory on November 06, 2013, 06:08:05 PM

Quote from: Queequeg on November 06, 2013, 06:00:39 PM
A gorgonopsid is a good example. It just doesn't look like a or an onosaur. At all. There's maybe some vague resemblance to later pre-Dinosaur Triassic Crocodilomorph predators but one look at it's teeth and you know you're dealing with something different. By comparison the first pterosaurs and dinosaurs probably looked like shrews and bats. Obvious relationship.

I'm trying to see what your point is here, but you are missing me here.

Common sense in classification? If a neurologically complex creature had been around in the Triassic he would have called a primitive pterosaur a word related to dinosaur just like in Russian a bat is a flying mouse or an orangutang is a "forest person" in Malay.

Quote from: Razgovory on November 06, 2013, 06:10:07 PM
Simply because something looks like something else doesn't mean it is that thing.  Ichthyologists look like fish, but aren't fish.

People had this argument in the 90s and agreed that Pterosaurs are extremely closely related to last common ancestor of dinosaurs, NOT just can Archosaur that evolved along similar lines.

Quote from: Razgovory on November 06, 2013, 06:10:07 PM
Ichthyologists look like fish, but aren't fish.

I suspect they look more like people.

Quote from: Queequeg on November 06, 2013, 06:11:57 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on November 06, 2013, 06:08:05 PM

Quote from: Queequeg on November 06, 2013, 06:00:39 PM
A gorgonopsid is a good example. It just doesn't look like a or an onosaur. At all. There's maybe some vague resemblance to later pre-Dinosaur Triassic Crocodilomorph predators but one look at it's teeth and you know you're dealing with something different. By comparison the first pterosaurs and dinosaurs probably looked like shrews and bats. Obvious relationship.

I'm trying to see what your point is here, but you are missing me here.

Common sense in classification? If a neurologically complex creature had been around in the Triassic he would have called a primitive pterosaur a word related to dinosaur just like in Russian a bat is a flying mouse or an orangutang is a "forest person" in Malay.

You are basing this on the colloquial names per-industrial people have given to various animals?

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 06, 2013, 06:16:49 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on November 06, 2013, 06:10:07 PM
Ichthyologists look like fish, but aren't fish.

I suspect they look more like people.

:XD:  I should have looked at that spell check a bit more carefully.

Quote from: Viking on November 06, 2013, 05:47:12 PM

Quote from: Grinning_Colossus on November 06, 2013, 05:11:07 PM
Yep, the pterosaur line split off right before the most recent common ancestor of dinosaurs. That's why people who object to calling them 'flying dinosaurs' come off as so goddamn pedantic.

flying "dinosaur" is ok, "flying dinosaur" isn't. It's a bit like calling synapsids like gorgonopsids, dimetrodons and lystrosaurus dinosaurs. Colloquially they are, technically they are not.

edit: and spellus is right, which makes us synapsids too, in addition to being apes, monkeys, primates and mammals.

I was fairly certain that neither humans nor any other apes are considered monkeys. However taxonomy can change and you have made this claim before so I assume you have something to back it up. I would be interested in seeing it.

Quote from: Razgovory on November 06, 2013, 06:20:08 PM

Quote from: Queequeg on November 06, 2013, 06:11:57 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on November 06, 2013, 06:08:05 PM

Quote from: Queequeg on November 06, 2013, 06:00:39 PM
A gorgonopsid is a good example. It just doesn't look like a or an onosaur. At all. There's maybe some vague resemblance to later pre-Dinosaur Triassic Crocodilomorph predators but one look at it's teeth and you know you're dealing with something different. By comparison the first pterosaurs and dinosaurs probably looked like shrews and bats. Obvious relationship.

I'm trying to see what your point is here, but you are missing me here.

Common sense in classification? If a neurologically complex creature had been around in the Triassic he would have called a primitive pterosaur a word related to dinosaur just like in Russian a bat is a flying mouse or an orangutang is a "forest person" in Malay.

You are basing this on the colloquial names per-industrial people have given to various animals?

It's just common sense that these animals are related. On, like, a dozen levels that would have been completely, totally obvious to a hunter-gatherer plumped down in the Mid-Triassic. Let alone an Early Modern Naturalist. Anyone who could not discern more similarities between a protopterosaur and a protodinosaur than either with a squid is neurologically impaired. If one isn't a stupid, slow lizard like reptile with a tiny brain, the other isn't.

A lot of colloquial names for animals are inaccurate, such as "blackfish" for killer whales or "ant lion" which is not closely related to lions, a sea cucumber which isn't even a vegetable.

 :frusty:

Quote from: Queequeg on November 06, 2013, 06:42:42 PM
:frusty:

Yeah, well I really don't understand this "common sense" approach to classification of extinct animals.

Quote from: Queequeg on November 06, 2013, 06:42:42 PM
:frusty:

All roads with Raz lead to this destination.  I'd have thought you would have learned that by now.

Quote from: Razgovory on November 06, 2013, 06:48:15 PM

Quote from: Queequeg on November 06, 2013, 06:42:42 PM
:frusty:

Yeah, well I really don't understand this "common sense" approach to classification of extinct animals.

If it walks like a protodinosaur, looks like a protodinosaur and acted like a protodinosaur the odds are that it's at least a kissing cousin of a protodinosaur, and not some scaley stupid bat thing as closely related to a member of Anapsidia like a tortoise, as was your initial argument.

Quote from: Queequeg on November 06, 2013, 06:51:52 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on November 06, 2013, 06:48:15 PM

Quote from: Queequeg on November 06, 2013, 06:42:42 PM
:frusty:

Yeah, well I really don't understand this "common sense" approach to classification of extinct animals.

If it walks like a protodinosaur, looks like a protodinosaur and acted like a protodinosaur the odds are that it's at least a kissing cousin of a protodinosaur, and not some scaley stupid bat thing as closely related to a member of Anapsidia like a tortoise, as was your initial argument.

My initial argument was that birds weren't reptiles and that reptiles aren't very bright.  They still aren't reptiles and reptiles still are pretty dumb.  Komodo dragons are suppose to be fairly smart though...

I don't think reptile is a useful word. It's paraphyletic and in common parlance synonymous with lizard (squamates) which leads to bullshit like what you are arguing.

I don't think it's commonly synonymous with lizards, as crocodiles and snakes are also well known to be reptiles.

Yeah, but when people say reptile they think cold blooded and stupid. I don't think the common ancestor of dinosaurs and pterosaurs were either.

One of the interesting things is that Pterosaurs had a fairly large brain in ratio to it's body compared to birds.  I suspect that's because birds more efficient structure then pterosaurs did and pterosaurs had to increase the sheer mass of the brain just so they could fly.

These were foxes, not komodo dragons or monitor lizards. Relatively clever, capable of complex social behaviors and aggressive. They wouldn't wait around for prey and ambush them. The word reptile has no helpful meaning here.

Quote from: Razgovory on November 06, 2013, 07:17:53 PM
One of the interesting things is that Pterosaurs had a fairly large brain in ratio to it's body compared to birds.  I suspect that's because birds more efficient structure then pterosaurs did and pterosaurs had to increase the sheer mass of the brain just so they could fly.

......and we're back to where we started.

They still aren't birds.

This started with me telling Timmy that his teleological view of increasing neurological complexity was complicated by birds triumphing over pterosaurs, though tbh just because pterosaur wings made massively complex, huge flocculi possible doesn't mean they were as smart as a New Caledonian crow or Alex the Parrot.

Also IDK if them surviving KPG extinction event was cause of "superior" build. Could have been Pterosaur eggs were less able to deal with pollution. They were amazing animals and we don't understand them that well.

Weren't they already in decline before the KT?

Most evidence these days paints a mixed picture, and even then there was a lot of weird climactic stuff going on, and the mammals were stealing eggs like crazy. Also, I don't believe birds are superior at all things cause in 100,000,000 years of birds there's nothing like the massive pterosaurs.

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/aug/11/pterosaurs-fossils-research-mark-witton
Naish :wub:

Quote from: Queequeg on November 06, 2013, 10:10:01 PM
Most evidence these days paints a mixed picture, and even then there was a lot of weird climactic stuff going on, and the mammals were stealing eggs like crazy. Also, I don't believe birds are superior at all things cause in 100,000,000 years of birds there's nothing like the massive pterosaurs.

There's no evidence of that.

 :rolleyes:

Okay.  Egg-thieving by various animals substantially complicated the reproductive strategies of just about every large archosaur, especially when due to ecological factors their eggs weren't forming correctly anyway meaning every egg one of our ancestors caught meant one fewer egg that didn't even have the chance to fuck up during development. 

Quote from: Queequeg on November 06, 2013, 06:00:39 PM
A gorgonopsid is a good example. It just doesn't look like a dinosaur. At all. There's maybe some vague resemblance to later pre-Dinosaur Triassic Crocodilomorph predators but one look at it's teeth and you know you're dealing with something different. By comparison the first pterosaurs and dinosaurs probably looked like shrews and bats. Obvious relationship.

Just so this is clear,spellus, you are right. They are not dinosaurs and I do correct people to because, I too, am a pedant. It's just that the ignorant masses classify all large non-hairy non-scaly animals of more than 65 million years ago as dinosaurs... except, apparently, the crocodiles.

This fucking frog debate makes me sick inside.

This have to be one of the most successful highjacks I've seen in a while.
Who gets the credit for highjacking this thread with dinosaurs?

Hijacking a thread about evolution with dinosaurs? The nerve!

This thread started out interesting. :(

Unfortunately it was started by Tim who has a boner about LOL DINOSORES too, so he lacked the requisite outrage in order to get it back on track.  :sleep:

Anyway, re: Fermi Paradox:  What if all intelligent civilizations eventually develop their own version of 'the Matrix' and that's why we don't hear them?  Maybe they're all living in a virtual universe and have no interest in the real universe?

Yeah, like totally, dude.

I haven't read a science book since 8th grade. I remember when Jupiter had 9 moons, you whippersnappers!

Quote from: Ed Anger on November 11, 2013, 08:27:19 PM
I haven't read a science book since 8th grade. I remember when Jupiter had 9 moons, you whippersnappers!

I think that would make you the oldest member of our board since 10th moon was discovered in the 1930's.

Quote from: Razgovory on November 11, 2013, 08:55:06 PM

Quote from: Ed Anger on November 11, 2013, 08:27:19 PM
I haven't read a science book since 8th grade. I remember when Jupiter had 9 moons, you whippersnappers!

I think that would make you the oldest member of our board since 10th moon was discovered in the 1930's.

MAH MEMORY

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fphotos1.blogger.com%2Fblogger%2F5522%2F3070%2F1600%2FWorld_Reverse.jpg&hash=e04b34181ef92e0b8883cfc0d9a60914cdd550cd)

Okay. :)

somebody found the "edit picture" function!

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.fjcdn.com%2Fpictures%2FReverse%2BWorld_ec0a0d_4005021.png&hash=4ca9392f9f630b40d05786e0981c61e30b4ef69e)

FFS Timmay has hacked siege's account.

Siege, shouldn't these be in the "I'm drunk on Miller Lite" thread?

I randomly had a case of miller lite in my fridge. Never got more than a polite buzz. :(

Hopefully Siege does write a book based on his own experiences.  Then he can sell the rights to Hollywood, with Will Smith cast as Siege.  Then Siegy can do the circuit convention and meet losers who cosplay as him.

Quote from: garbon on November 11, 2013, 09:10:18 PM
I randomly had a case of miller lite in my fridge. Never got more than a polite buzz. :(

Well he said he had 18 of them in a sitting. Sounds pretty excessive to me.