Talk:Extraterrestrial life/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Unfounded Implications of the Copernican Mediocrity Principle[edit]

I posted this on the discussion page for the "Mediocrity Principle" as well. In this article people are using Copernican Mediocrity as evidence towards verifying extra-terrestrial life. Basically, the Mediocrity Principle states that there is nothing special or "out of the ordinary" about life on Earth or human existence. However, how could the Copernican Mediocrity Principle imply the existence of extra-terrestrial life?

If it implies extra-terrestrial life, wouldn't it also have to maintain continuity by implying that there is life on other planets within our solar system? For example, shouldn't there be life on the planet Saturn? Of course, there isn't life on Saturn, but doesn't this violate the principle of mediocrity? The fact that there isn't life on Saturn means that life on Earth is in fact special, relative to Saturn - as well as Mercury, Venus, and indeed all other planets within our solar system. From this, we have already found a lack of continuity in the Mediocrity Principle - and since the extent of this lack in continuity is unknown, we can not use the Mediocrity Principle as evidence towards implying (or even suggesting) the existence of extra-terrestrial life —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.112.121.215 (talk) 22:35, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Contradiction[edit]

There is a contradiction about the part where it says that Gliese 581 D is just outside of the habitable zone, while this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gliese_581_d tells us it's well within the habitable zone. Which is it? 83.136.195.130 (talk) 10:31, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Misleading Title on the Existance of Extraterrestrial Life[edit]

"There is no credible evidence of extraterrestrial life that has been widely accepted by the scientific community"

..although there is no reason to assume that if extraterrestrial life existed, we would know about it. There are also tens of billions of stars in the (visible) galaxy, although the only star for which we can study the planets in any detal, is our own star (the sun). This should also be made clear. We have knowledge of one star, which represents something like 1/10,000,000,000th of the universe (0.000000001%, or something like that). Saying that there is no evidence is misleading, as it implies that we would have evidence, if there were life.

It's like scooping a few buckets of water out of the ocean, and then declaring that there is no evidence of whales in the ocean, or examining a few square feet of Africa, and if there is no tiger standing on that specific spot, declaring that there is no evidence of tigers in Africa. Without mentioning exactly how MUCH of the Earth was examined, these are extremely misleading statements.

For example, even within our own solar system, planets either currently have or once had various life-supporting elements such as an atmosphere, water, liveable gravity, or areas of liveable temperature. Luckily the Earth has all these elements, or we wouldn't exist to discuss it. Most scientists believe that even Mars once had or currently has some sort of life, albeit primitive. This is all within the 0.000000001% of the galaxy we know about; our own 1 star. There's no way to know exactly what the CHANCE of having all of these elements is, but even if 1 in 100,000 stars had 1 planet with life, that would still be thousands of planets with life. Again, saying that "there is no evidence" is quite misleading, without saying exactly how much of the evidence we have (pretty much as close as you can get to nothing) 74.14.122.167 (talk) 09:38, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree 100%, but even you are not thinking big enough. You said our 1 star is 0.00000007% of the galaxy, True. But also remember that our galaxy is just 1 of billions of galaxies in just the observable Universe. The possibillities have no boundaries--Metalhead94 (talk) 22:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

It is impossible that in more than 50,000,000,000 planets and stars we are the only ones alive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.18.122.18 (talk) 00:26, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Although I understand both of your arguments with the sentence in question, I have to disagree that an explanation of the extent of our exploration of the universe is necessary. Non-negligible amounts of research money goes into the search for extraterrestrial life and, to date, we have indeed found no credible evidence of extraterrestrial life. The argument you made about the likely existence of life is more concisely made with the Drake Equation. However, it is very important in science to not interpret statistical probabilities as concrete evidence. JBcallOnMe (talk) 20:56, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, when we say there is no evidence of Extraterestrial Life in the known universe, it means we haven't found any. SETI is scanning the horizon day and night. Hubbel is too. Granted, these are relitively new, and they would be observing life from a few years to a billion years ago (Depending on the anomoly's orgin), its the best we can do now. Plus, no one has parked the mothership over manhattan and started singing "Hello, how are you, won't you tell me your name" (Doors joke). The universe is too vast for something else not to have formed and started walking out of the primordial goo. Look at us - we're the second string life on this planet. Dinosaurs lived for millions of years before we even left our little holes in the ground (For fear of being lunch). So I'm sure there's something else out there, but science has not found it yet. Who knows, maybe we're a strange experiment for white lab rats. SGT Justin Gregory Blodgett, US Army (talk) 05:29, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Hindu beliefs and ancient greec in Biochemistry subsection?[edit]

The title says it all, the history part seems like an unrelated break in the middle of biochemistry part —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.4.213.152 (talk) 00:33, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

liquid carbon dioxide on Mars[edit]

How can carbon dioxide be liquid, especially if mars has a cooler and less denser atmosphere than earth?

Carbon dioxide is naturally found as a gas at standard temperature and pressure in Earth's atmosphere. If you cool a gas, it has the tendency to turn to a liquid (or even freeze). However, if you lower the pressure surrounding a liquid, it tends to turn to gas. Because these are opposing effects, the only way to determine what state the carbon dioxide would exist in is to look at a Pressure-Temperature graph that shows the stable phase of Carbon Dioxide at the relevant temperature and pressure for Mars. In fact, Mars has conditions that allow for not only liquid Carbon Dioxide, but even Carbon Dioxide ice (e.g. Polar ice caps). JBcallOnMe (talk) 21:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and the Vacume of Space allows for Solid Hydrogen, something we're just managing to create. In fact, 11 years ago, when I was in High School, is hadn't been done yet. Pressure and Temperature are reletive, but only in a controlled enviroment. In a vacume, almost anything is possible. Hydrogen Nebulas or Hydrogen Comets/Asteroids. Of course, I could be getting bad info, my Science Book isn't exactly keen on Astrophysics. SGT Justin Gregory Blodgett, US Army (talk) 05:34, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

There are a few quick comments I wanted to make about your response. When you say "vacuum", that really is a way of saying "very low pressure". So, the beginning of your first sentence would have translated to, "... the very low pressure of space allows for solid Hydrogen..." which is the opposite of true. High pressure tends to turn gasses into liquids and liquids into solids (conversely, low pressure tends to turn things into gasses, not solids). Basically, the harder you push on a set of atoms, the more likely they are to turn into a structured crystal. Similarly, the colder you make a material, the more likely it is to settle into a structured crystal. It turns out that, on average, space is about 3 degrees Kalvin, which is the equivalent of about -270 degrees Celsius (very, very cold). So, if we do see solid hydrogen in space, it would be because of the very, very low temperature, not the low pressure.JBcallOnMe (talk) 03:19, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Extraterrestrial Biological Entities (EBEs)[edit]

OK, I believe the EBE article has been directed here. However, I thought it was up for a vote? Regardless, where is that page for histories sake? Also, the EBE, I'd like the history of that for my own reference, can I have a link to find it?


I have found the user who redirected this and as why as it was set for a vote
but nothing was finalised. In fact, "Keep" was ahread. The link to the user
and my question is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Splash
The redirect page still has the history stored. Please don't try and throw it in here though as people have been trying to keep sci-fact clear of ufo stuff on this page. The AfD on the page you described was closed properly because the Keep's were sockpuppets. Marskell 14:11, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Random comments that nobody bothered to categorize, not even me[edit]

Can someone add a few words about SETI to this article? I know it has its own definition, but I think self evidnetly needed to be explained in brief within this article.


dberliner

Such a discovery would cause problems for worldviews that presume the uniqueness of human beings and the universal importance of human events, especially certain religious viewpoints.

For example? --LMS


For example, Christianity. Christianity (at least in some of its forms) presumes a certain uniqueness for human beings, and that human history is of unique importance in the grand schemes of things: that God became incarnate in a human being is one of its beliefs. I suspect that problems would arise if other life forms existed: why humans? why didn't God become incarnate in any other intelligent lifeforms? Now Christianity (even of the more traditional sort I am referring to here) could no doubt survive the discovery of alien life, but it would make it seem less likely -- that God chose some particular lifeform for events of grand cosmic import seems much more believable when there is only one lifeform for him to choose from. -- Simon J Kissane

Why are you suggesting that God only became incarante once? Wireless99 16:24, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


I was asking for a definite example be added to extraterrestrial life. Frankly, although I'm about as nonreligious as they come, I'm skeptical of the claim. What events of grand cosmic import (as opposed to grand Earthly import) does Christianity allege? If Jesus is divine, why couldn't he be poking around on other planets, spreading the gospel (that would explain why he's been gone for lo these 2,000 years)? See, I just wanted the claim, which strikes me as prejudiced, given some definite proof. Otherwise, it should be stricken. --LMS

Christianity as a whole may not assert these things, but some branches of it do, and I have both talked to people and seen programs which asert that Christianity (meaning their version) does not allow for extraterrestrial life. So, if Christ comes but twice, he can't be off saving people on other worlds, if man is God's image then nothing else could conceivably possess the faculty of reason, and while I'm not sure where the uniqueness of earthly life is argued from I can tell you that it sometimes is. How widespread such conclusions are, though, I do not know.


I don't see it as particularly prejudiced. But since it seems to be controversial, I'm going to delete it anyway. -- Simon J Kissane


"If extraterrestrial life was discovered to exist, it would have profound implications for all human thought, especially if the life was intelligent."

This seems non-encyclopedic. It is a sweeping assertion, and one that I rather doubt. - TS


Thomas Paine argued against Christianity on ET grounds asserting that if other worlds existed than Christ would spend eternity travelling from world to world to die for the sins of that world. Much of the Christian debate over plurality of worlds in 19th century America attempted to resolve this tension. Someone took each of the alternatives, i.e., that this was the only sentiate world, that this was the only one that had fallen, or that Christ's death on this world was universal propitiation for sin. Some, for example Ellen White, the prophetess of the Seventh-day Adventists, argued that extra-terrestrials, as angels, were involved in battles between good and evil on the earth, the last remains of a far broader struggle between good and evil, and that these battles were factors, for example, in the 1906 San Francisco earthquake. Her description of angel/warriors with their "flaming swords" takes on an almost star wars type imagery.ProfButler 23:15, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


Should we mention the Martian meteorite and the Viking experiments? Robert Merkel


It has been theorised that all life on Earth came from space. Evidence to suggest this includes the Cambrian Explosion, where primitive forms of life suddenly appear on the fossil record...

I doubt that anyone at all serious would treat the Cambrian Explosion as evidence for panspermia, given that animals are quite clearly related to other forms of life present in the fossil record long before then. I think we should remove this unless a source can be provided for it. --JG

Removed section:<bt>

It has been theorised that all life on Earth came from space. Evidence to suggest this includes the Cambrian Explosion, where primitive forms of life suddenly appear on the fossil record, and suggestions that comets may contain complex carbon chains, bordering at the level where they may become self-replicating.

This smells a bit fishy to me -- There is a great deal of convincing fossil, genetic and chemical evidence to support the notion that all life on Earth descended from a common ancestor that existed several billion years ago. There is no evidence to support the wild notion that there was a separate beginning for life during the early paleozoic. (this actually reminds me of a scene in the movie Mission to Mars where the holographic Martian yarns a holographic tale about the destruction of their world and how they decided to seed ours just before the Cambrian Explosion -- Remember folks, this stuff is fiction). The Varangian glaciation which preceeded the radiation of animals along with the subsequent over-warming of the Earth provided a great deal of evolutionary pressure. No extraterrestrial connection required.

And the "bordering at the level where they may become self-replicating" statement is pure conjecture. I remember reading about findings that complex carbon molecules were detected in the tails of coments -- but those molecules were PAHs and complex benzene rings -- not crude forms of DNA and protein (or anything that could even conceivably be considered to be on a path toward self-replication). --maveric149

Many movies and fictions are based on valid scientific theories. Being the plot of a movie does not discredit the theory as fiction. I have heard about the meteorite theory from news and documentary programs on Discovery and TLC channel. Can you prove this theory originate from fiction? Even a fiction writer can develop a valid scientific theory. I think it is not right to take it out unless it is proven wrong. --anon
  • In science, a theory is not considered "correct until proven wrong." Instead, it's only considered a good theory when there's a hefty helping of evidence to support it. In the case of the "earth-seeding" theory, the evidence is very limited, and if it's not fully ruled out by existing evidence, it's still got several noted points against it, notably Occam's Razor. In the case of "earth colonization" by anything larger than unicellular life, the available evidence does contradict that hypothesis in a fairly convincing fashion. Ergo, in discussing the scientific knowledge of this subject, it wouldn't be appropriate to include speculations of ET's during the Cambrian period. Stick to panspermia, if even that. -- April
Mega dittos --April. The Discovery Channel and TLC are in the business to entertain and therefore create ad revenue - informing the public about science is just a happy aside that occurs for many of their programs (most certainly not all). BTW I have also seen DSC and TLC programs on Bigfoot, the Lockness Monster, UFOs, ghosts and Angels (but then you probably believe in those too anon) -- these channels are not at all good sources of information about science. Gesh... --maveric149
I am glad you mentioned Angels. I don't believe in angels more than I believe in aliens. Honestly I don't believe either until I see one, but I never rule out the possibility that they might exist. Do you bleieve you know everything? I never believe life on earth are planted by alien civilization (the thoery that you deleted from the article did not say that either). But I think it is possible that the building blocks of life come from space, please explain how you can rule out such possiblity before you remove the statement:
It has been theorised that all life on Earth came from space. Evidence to suggest this includes the Cambrian Explosion, where primitive forms of life suddenly appear on the fossil record, and suggestions that comets may contain complex carbon chains, bordering at the level where they may become self-replicating.
If it was stated as a fact, then I agree you should just take it out. But if it is a theory, it deserves a space here unless it is absolute nonsense. -anon
Read the statements that --April and I have already made. You will then see that the removed section is not at all scientifically valid and is utter nonsense. It is true that many of the most basic building blocks probably did come from space -- the removed section does not say this -- Please read it again. It is furthermore non-scientific to believe in something that does not have evidence to support its existence. Yes it is possible and as a scientist I must admit this -- but then almost anything is possible in an absolute sense. Shall we place all these possibilities in the article as well? How about we stick to the most prevalent and pertinent arguments here. We have already explained why it was removed. --maveric149

I think that there is life outside of Earth; the odds are too high against no life other than on Earth. I also think that the fear of aliens attacking Earth and killing all of us is groundless. If there are any civilizations outside of Earth that are remotely like ours, then they will also have religion, or at least consciences that will not allow them to completely wipe us out. Instead, I think that, if they are ahead of us technologically, then they will take the initiative and contact us first, and vice versa if we discover them first. turtleddd6

That's fine, but irrelevant, the key words there being "I think". Wikipedia is not based on personal beliefs and opinions, but on citable evidence. Yours is a philisophical viewpoint; If you can find a quotable source that shares this opinion, then by all means add it. -- Noclevername 22:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Content that needs to be merged and NPOVed here:

An extra-terrestrial is any creature that possesses intelligence and originated on a celestial body other than earth.

Many people believe in the existence of extra-terrestials. Thousands believe that extra-terrestrials, also known as aliens, have visited earth on several occasions. One of the most popular of these occurences was an incident in Roswell, New Mexico. Conspiracy theories pertaining to this and other suspected occurences are rampant.

Extra-terrestrials have been the focus of numerous films, books, television shows, and radio shows. One radio show in particular, titled The War of the Worlds, stirred up terror when masses of listeners mistook the fictional show for an actual broadcast.

The Raelians are a group of believers in extra-terrestrial life; they believe that intelligent life on earth was initiated by aliens. Their leader is Rael.


About 3000 BC we humans experienced a quantum leap in our development and skills. We went from mud huts to agriculture, writing and evolved systems of mathematics. Archaeologically speaking, it all occured "overnight" and without explanation[citation needed]. The paradigm (western civilization-cosmology) turns its back on these types of unexplanable[citation needed] events. One glaring unexplanable[citation needed] phenomena is The Great Pyramid. For a good read about extraterrestrial "signatures" found within the dimensions of The Great Pyramid See, [[1]] http://www.templeofsolomon.org/reticulum.htg/reticulum.htm Aside from a believable account of the "first ever" no-hype alien abduction. The link contains information regarding The Great Pyramid and its assocciation with the speed of light and other remarkable phenomena. Some of the "proofs" are unusual but only require elementary arithmetic to prove. John Charles Webb posted July 19th 2005

Although you describe these events as "unexplained", a great many scientists have spent their entire careers explaining just these things, based on available archeological evidence. -- Noclevername 22:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Credentials[edit]

There are many scientists who believe in UFOs and go public with their beliefs, usually because they have witnessed a phenomena that cannot be explained by contemporary science. The internet is a playground for scientific theory. When I see such a remark as this in a post, "As a scientist, I know such and such." It is too suspicious to note your qualification without the qualifying letters attached. The reality of UFO visitation to this planet is a foregone conclusion for all who have witnessed them. A skeptic must be considered as someone who has not had the experience, or someone who is stifled in the arena of university dogma. Polls suggest the great majority of people in the United States believe in UFOs and that they are of extraterrestrial origin. The evidence is concrete to many abduction victims, and all it takes is a cruise through those sites to note the names of and qualifications of scientists that have been doing the research. MJS

You appear to be equating "UFOs" with flying saucers. A most un-scientific assumption. Rhobite 05:05, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)

--- I changed "Some scientists believe that some UFOs are the spacecraft of intelligent extraterrestrials".

Some people believe this, certainly, but since the term scientist is so often used ambiguously, its use here has little meaning. There is no reason for these people to be identified as scientists. Many of them certainly are, but without some link between their interest in science and this belief it is inappropriate to use this wording. ("scientific belief"?)

Could have had either "Some people believe that some UFOs are the spacecraft" or as I wrote "Some scientists suggest that some UFOs may be the spacecraft".

I am aware of no work that through the scientific method justifies this belief. (Many scientists are agnostic in the sense that they would say that the scientific method can never justify belief, but that's a question for philosophy. Here I mean no work that can justify this induction.)

TomViza

I COME IN PEACE

History Of The Idea?[edit]

Does anyone know when people first theorized the existence of life on other planets? It seems like a natural continuation from realising the Earth is a sphere, and that other, presumably similar, spheres can be observed 'out there'. I find it hard to believe that War of the Worlds was the first time the idea was explored or proposed.

---

As far as I know ancient Summerian and Babylonian writings conjecture that life might exist off Earth and indeed that aliens may have visted our planet. Seperating practical theorizing from mythologizing is of course difficult with ancient works. Anyhow, this places the idea of extraterrestrial life 3000 to 4000 yrs before the present day. Whether there were earlier theories I don't know. In other places where astronomy was independently invented (India, China etc.) its probably fair to assume that the idea of aliens must have arisen. Note that the five inner planets (excluding Earth) would all have appeared very unique to any society capable of looking at the stars systematically and would long have appeared good candidates for life.

greys, raelians, pleiadians,etc...[edit]

hello there. i'm not someone who believes in these things personally, but having spent a good amount of time in Marin County (probably the new-age capitol of the world for those of you who don't know) -- and also listening to the Art Bell show -- i can tell you that there are a LOT of people who believe in things such as the "grey" aliens and pleiadians (among many other types) sincerely, all throughout the country. i find the folklore associated with it all to be interesting for its bizarreness, and would like to include a little something about some of these "species" and the most common folklore associated with them. is there any reason to avoid articles about this type of thing? the article on pleiadians, for example, only mentions the band, but the belief in an alien/"extra-dimensional" species by that name seems likely to me to be more widespread than the popularity of the band with the same (apparently derivative) name. if you do a quick google search for the term "pleiadians", for example, you'll find an astounding slew of articles about people who have supposedly had contact with them in one way or another. the main reason that i hesitate has to do with the fact that this article is in the domain of "science" and "scientific speculation", and i don't want to muddy that up with new-age garbage. nonetheless, i think people should be able to find articles on these topics in wikipedia. thoughts? --neutralrobotboy

I would think that such a discussion, if handled appropriately and well-referenced, would be approptiate to this article. However, evetually it would seem to me that this article should be split into articles about extraterrestrial life in general, as in microorganisms and such, the possibility of which, at least, isn't all that controversial to mainstream science, and Extraterrestrial Intelligence, which is much more controversial. MikeDockery 11:07, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Edits in the "Beliefs in Extraterrestrial Life" section...[edit]

I added in some information about a recent scientific journal article, the authors of which present a case for mainstream science to reevaluate its stance on the UFO phenomenon. I tried to edit the information in a way that made it clear that, although this article was published in a mainstream, peer-reviewed journal, the vast majority of mainstream science, for the time being at least, still holds such claims as completely bogus. I cited the journal in a reference section. In the interest of present the most c, I am aware of the danger of making a (very much) minority opinion seem more mainstream than it is. Opinions? MikeDockery 11:13, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

_

It seems fine to me. The UFO thing is considered "completely bogus" not because it's been falsified but because there is no evidence one way or the other--ie. its improbable but it hasn't been disproven which is worth noting. If you've found someone respectable in favour of the idea, all good Marskell.


I thought the idea of Wikipedia was to present a NPOV? If you won't present information without any evidence, then I suggest we remove all references to God, as there is no scientific evidence for his existence either. By yiour own argument, God fits exactly into t he same category - 'no evidence one way or the other--ie. its improbable but it hasn't been disproven which is worth noting'

I think the reluctance to include information regarding aliens is to do with scientific snobbery, not lack of proof. So, in the interests of balance are we including Greys, Pliediens et al, or are we removing God ?

Furthermore, your statement 'If you've found someone respectable in favour of the idea, all good' is similarly rubbish. The 'respectable' (a VERY unscientific criteria) people who propose God are no more or less qualified than the 'respectable' people who propose Greys. The hidden part of your sentence is the implication that anyone who believes in aliens isnt respectable, which is biassed, arrogant and bigoted, and highly objectionable, especially since at least ONE US President believed in aliens. In actual fact , there is NOONE on this planet with any more proof of God than anyone with lack of proof of aliens, and vice versa. A

fter all, there's no scientific difference between the sentence ' Some people claim they have been contacted by God' and 'Some people claim they have been contacted by Aliens', no proof anywhere that makes one more valid, rational and believeable than the other.

You entire bigotry to the subject is appalling, and a disgrace to the NPOV of Wikipedia. I intend to insert a section summarising the proposed types of aliens,.

AS for 'a (very much) minority opinion' i want to see the statistical evidence that it is. In fact, I read recently that at least 40% of americans believe in extraterrestrials, and I think 80 million people is hardly an insignificant figure. A much smaller percentage in the UK believe in God, giving him less claim to be in Wikipedia than Greys. Since the scientific opinion is that life on earth began from interstellar precursors, not some mythical pandimensional superbeing, then God's place in Wikipedia becomes even less desireable, but im willing to put up with the unproven concept 'God' as long as Wikipedia doesnt have an anti-athiest anti-alien bias - after all my view that aliens are more likely to exist than God is perfectly valid.

Ok, any further comment, anyone , before I begin?

Lincolnshire Poacher

I assume you were addressing me...I made the "very much minority opinion" comment. In the scientific community, the belief in extraterrestrial life visiting Earth is spacecraft is, for better or for worse, held by only a very small minority. Among the general public, you may be right, though I don't have any statistics. Encyclopedia articles should reflect the current opinion of mainstream science, not the general opinion of an uniformed public. 50% of Americans don't believe in Biological Evolution as the source of life on Earth, but that shouldn't be the stance of an encyclopedia article, given the opinon of mainstream scientists. That's what I tried to reflect in my edit. The current scientific opinion is that UFOs are not alien spacecraft. However, I did indicate that there has been at least one article in a mainstream scientific journal that has called for scientists to reevaluate that position. If anything, my edit made the article MORE open toward the belief in Aliens, not LESS. So what are you complaining about? And I don't think I have an anti-alien bias. I'm certainly open to the possibilty, especially after reading the journal articles that I mentioned in my edit. I just wanted the article to reflect the current mainstream scientific opinion, not just my own. --MikeDockery 06:57, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Who are you talking to? There is no one author of this article and nobody has claimed that this article is complete. Your accusatory tone is less than helpful. What you talk about would be appropriate to include in the == Beliefs in extraterrestrial life == section. --mav 14:55, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
First, the articles are expected to have NPOV. The discussion page is an entirely different matter. If I want to come on here and say "aliens are the stupidest idea out there" or "I fervently believe in aliens and wish others did too" I'm quite within my rights. Claiming "(my) entire bigotry to the subject is appalling, and a disgrace to the NPOV of Wikipedia" is a little hysterical to put it mildly. Be careful before swinging your stick: "scientific opinion is that life on earth began from interstellar precursors." Since when? Panspermia is one idea amongst many but is very far from a majority opinion.
Secondly, you seem to think I was critical of posting more info on the idea when the opposite true. Alien visitation HASNT been falsified which IS worth noting. By "respectable" I meant a peer-reviewed article, obviously. I do believe that aliens are 'out there,' incidentally, though I'm much more skeptical regarding visitations.
As for the edition to the article, it should be linked to it's own page and provided appropriate background. No context is given on who believes in these particular aliens and why. Is this an alternate universe from fiction? The views of a particular sect? "JANOSIAN This is allegedly a planet on which human beings live or once lived." Alleged by whom? The edition is cluttered and quite random. I'll leave for two days so someone can move it then delete. Marskell 14:43, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

=[edit]

You see, this is the trouble with wikipedia. Certain people think they 'own' certain pages, and wont tolerate anyone posting anything that they dont like, and this is one of those pages (Human Evolution is another one). That list was compiled by going through all the UFO and Alien websites. im not going to quote any of the websites, it would take too long. The point is, its a list representing the supposed beliefs of the collective mass that beliece. Why they believe requires a page for each entry because it would make the article too big, which means further work is required, lots of pages to create. The speed you deleted it shows you simple wont tolerate anyone messing with 'your' page. I assume in the interests of NPOV, you will also remove all references to 'God' as there is no evidence for him either?

So I will put my list back, and continue to add pages for each entry, and if you delete it again, then we shall take your censorship to arbitration.

AS for your comments:

  • 'scientific opinion is that life on earth began from interstellar precursors' - we'll SOME scientific circles believe it, others believe in other things. Here your personal bias shows up.
  • 'By "respectable" I meant a peer-reviewed article, obviously' - well guess what, not obviously, and most of the pro alien websites are 'peer reviewed', by the same definition. Its a nonsense biassed statement!


Seems to me you're the only one looking for an argument. My comments above were pretty clear and fair: the edition was random and cluttered--add a page and appropriate context. You don't want to link to websites? Then re-consider the post. Honestly, it just read stupid. How about " for supposed types of aliens see the 'Extraterrestrial Types' page (or whatever you like)." You know? No big deal. As the person above me noted, no one person wrote this page and no one thinks they own it. It's not a pro- or anti- anything, it's just a matter of making a readable, cogent article with emphasis in the right places.
At the risk of going in circles, PANSPERMIA IS VERY MUCH A MINORITY OPINION. You have seem to have a lot to say about POV and so forth, well "some people" and "some scientific circles" is as weasley as it gets when it comes to POV. Yes, some scientists believe that Earth-life originated off Earth (or at least acknowledge the possibility) but the majority don't and it isn't my bias in pointing that out. As for your repeated arguments about God, again you sound a touch a hysterical so I think I'll leave it...Marskell 22:38, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Fear of Alien Invasion[edit]

I think that there is life outside of Earth; the odds are too high against no life other than on Earth. I also think that the fear of aliens attacking Earth and killing all of us is groundless. If there are any civilizations outside of Earth that are remotely like ours, then they will also have religion, or at least consciences that will not allow them to completely wipe us out. Instead, I think that, if they are ahead of us technologically, then they will take the initiative and contact us first, and vice versa if we discover them first.

I don't see an automatic reason for first contact. It may be harmful to both Earth and said extraterrestrial civilization. At the least, there could be some sort of bureacratic decision process distributed over many light years. Incidentally, there is a fair amount of science fiction on "first contacts" that went wrong (eg, The Day the Earth Stood Still, The Mote in God's Eye,The Madness Season). Probably a wee bit too specialized to warrant a place in Wikipedia. - KarlHallowell 01:42, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
I'll be adding some things into the alternative biochemistry article that when you think about rule out alien invasion, unless panspermia is common chances are any extraterrestrial being would be very biochemical different from use even if they use organic chemistry, meaning that a alien on earth would not likely be able eat anything on earth (as it can't metabolize it) at the very least. It would also reduce the chance of bacterial infection to the alien as most microorganism could equally so not be able to metabolize the organics of the alien. Some bacteria can work with very basic organics and a wide range of inputs and could pose a infection problem for the alien, and of course the aliens immune system would not likely be able to defend it self. Aliens would likely have the wipe out ALL life on earth down to sterilizing the soil and the oceans if they wanted to take our planet as their own!--BerserkerBen 06:24, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
I tend to think that its just as possible for an alien race to be "peaceful" as it to be "murderous". Given that we have no idea how or why another intelligent life form would react to us; its not too much to assume there's a strong chance it would try to destroy or enslave us. Not that I endorse a "turtle" mentality, or that on first contact we should bring guns, but I don't hold to the idea that a highly advanced civilization would not resort to violence for the endless reasons humans have produced, or the countless unimaginable things an alien mind might concieve. But as the saying goes, "Whoever gets to the other guy's planet first, will probably win." So if we do get contacted by an agressive species... humanity is highly likely to be screwed.

Hmmm....Lets see.Alien invasion?I think it could be likely,but it depends on what you think is an invasion.A worldwide attack on the human species in an attempt to wipe us out,or is simply landing without permission an excuse to call it an invasion,and nuke thier green skin all the way back into orbit?Personally,I think its highly unlikely that they would find reason to attck us at first glance.Thats just a bit concieted.Also,the most life that scientists think could be found,is bacterial life on some of Jupiters moons.If it is possible that theres other intelligent life,they either have not enough intelligence to think of this,and are about as smart as animals on our earth,or theyre so smart,that their ways of civilization cant even begin to be imagined by humans.Who says we're worth their time?To them,we may just be about as smart as dolphins are to us.Now that the thirteen year old is done with her rant,you can continue.Just thought I'd put in my two-cents worth.

~Ditto

I beleive that we should worry more about ANAL PROBING than about an alien attack, infact, we should have a special section about this subject.

If we ever see other civilizations in the universe its likely that they would be hostile. A natural selection sort of thing, if one alien race dedicated its entire society to warfare, then every other race would have to do the same in order to survive. (I say "if" not because they don't exist, but the limits of the speed of light effectively prevent us from ever visiting another galaxy. That is unless a way by which to travel faster than C is discovered.) Broken Pharoah (talk) 23:58, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Probability of existence of extraterrestrial life[edit]

  • Maybe page about extraterrestrial life shoud contain some estimation of probability of existence of another life in our galaxy, in our univesrse, etc?

Maybe we should concider that out of all the millions of different life forms plant and animal that has come and gone on this planet that Earth is a perfect place for life to evoulve. So why are we, (MAN KIND)the only speicies on Earth to have intelligent thought? If intelligent life is common in the galaxy why aren't we at least having intelligent conversation with some other life form on this planet other than man?


    • If we use Earth as an example, Life is common in the Universe, Intelligent Life is uncommon in the Universe. WritersCramp 20:17, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

yes i whould have to say that UNitelligent life is common, if that rock they found proves that there was life on mars, then two worlds next to each other shows good odds. but if Intelligent Life is common, we whould of hear from them by nowJoeyjojo 02:51, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, there is a problem with using the Earth as an example - it's a sample size of 1. May be representative, but then it may not be. Anyway, looking at the question species by species strikes me as unhelpful; sure, any given species is unlikely to evolve into intelligent life...in fact, any given species is unlikely to survive period. The vast, vast majority of species ever to exist on the planet all went extinct. But, then, where do you want to draw the line? Because all species have a common ancestor, and the lineage of that single ancestor DID evolve intelligence. By that logic, of the 1 common ancestor to all species, 1 evolved intelligence, making the chance of intelligence 100% given life on any planet. Sure, it's cooking the stats, but no more so than saying billions of species never evolved intelligence, therefore there's a 1 in a billion chance of intelligence. The point is, a sample size of 1 doesn't really give you much to work with.

As for the question of why we haven't been contacted by alien civilizations, one answer may be that the laws of physics simply make contact impractical. Even the most powerful radio telescope in the world couldn't pick up signals from our most powerful transmitters at stellar distances. SETI assumes that more advanced civilizations will develop vastly more powerful radio transmitters, but maybe not. After all, radio waves travel at the speed of light, no matter how powerful the transmitter, so our current transmitters (which work ok for us inside our solar system) may be just fine, thank you very much. Without vast interstellar colonies, there may be no need for massive radio transmissions, and so no alien culture ever builds any.

The J. Deardorff et. al. journal paper cited on the article page gives some other, related, ideas. Basically, they might just not be that interested. Sure, we assume we would be an interesting species to talk to, the life of the universal party, so to speak. But maybe we're not. It may be that there are billions of intelligent species at our level of cultural development, and so we're old news to the aliens that are advanced enough to investigate such things. Just another one of those primitive planets. Another way to look at it, we may be at a stage of our evolution that makes us something like ants to them. How many times have you tried to make contact with an ant colony? Another theory is what I like to call the "Prime Directive" theory. Alien civilizations may avoid contact until a planet has reached a certain level of technology, to avoid interferring with their natural development. The point really is, it isn't a closed question one way or another. I personally would be surprised if we were the only intelligent beings in the universe, but, after all, some planet HAS to be first to develop intelligent life, so it is possible that we're simply first, as shocking as it may be to some of us. MikeDockery 03:43, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Be aware that our own galaxy, which is thousands of light years across, and thousands of light years thick, is just one of billions of galaxies in what is just the observable Universe. We have not even stepped beyond of the heliopause of our own Solar System yet, which constitues less than 1% of the Milky Way Galaxy, which in turn constitutes less than 0.000001% of all galaxies in the observable Universe. By saying that just because we have not had any contact is evidence that life does not exist in this vast cosmic superocean, is very ridiclulously arrogant. By saying this, no matter what kind of illogical rebuttal you can come up with, the fact is very clear, you are up against impossible, yes, impossible, odds.--Metalhead94 (talk) 23:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe what the original poster was looking for here would be some reference to the Drake Equation which is a mathematical look at the probablity of intelligent life.
Bagheera (talk) 06:19, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

slanty eyed picture of aliens[edit]

We need a visual section here, with pictures of what people have described aliens to be. Something like this MPS 14:45, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

As I understand it, there is tremendous variation not just in aliens (though that type is pretty common in the literature) but in classification of what kind of alien that is supposed to be. It may be extremely difficult to settle on a good summary of hypothetical alien forms. KarlHallowell 17:40, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Want to see more ? Go to Malevolent Alien Abduction Research Homepage: Click on alien Species or Races and go to UFO Casebook Homepage: Click on "Search", input "Alien Types". Enjoy. Martial Law 09:07, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

The reason there are no pcitures of Aliens on this page, is that they are not REAL PICTURES. Since there are no Credible alien visitor / abduction stories, its safe to say that if they know about us, they don't want us to know about them. If we found another race as brutal, aggressive and Warlike as us, I'm pretty sure we'd watch from a distance too. Ever see Battlefield Earth or Independance Day? No agressor is unstopable (Yes, I know they're fictional, just using them as an example). Thats the number one rule of War. Always think of the unthinkable. Sure, they might have superior technology, but maybe we can think of something they didn't. Arrogance destroys more armies than lack of supplies. Just look at the Axis Powers. The US went from 10 Divisions to over 100 in the span of a year. We fought against two veteranized militaries at the same time. Of course, we can't forget our allies, but that is for another page.

SGT Justin Gregory Blodgett, US Army (talk) 05:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Beliefs Expanded[edit]

Just re-worked the beliefs section and I think it gives a great overview now. The only thing that occured to me is that it follows the basic Mesopotamia-Greek-Europe history-telling trajectory. I'm sure beliefs in ETs developed independently amongst Chinese, Arab astronomers etc. If anyone could add something in this regard that would finalize the section nicely. Marskell 11:52, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

If you ever have read Ezekiel, the heavens open up a wheel within a wheel, and in the verses where Mosses followed a pillar of fire by Night and a cloud by Day. We cannot say Alien life does not exist. They have come here in the past, and they will visit us in the future. to our Ancestors they called them god, but in reality they are beings form other worlds, waiting for us to grow up, and live peacefully together with no war.

look at Ancient Hieroglyphics there are symbols that look like Alien Craft, don't take my word for it Check it out yourselves, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.209.67.117 (talk) 14:09, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Eyes above nose above mouth a random arrangement?[edit]

It seems to me that eyes above the mouth is a probable layout. Eyes above mouth allows an animal to eat from the ground/bottom and still be able to look for predators. While its all a guessing game at this point in the game, this is a rather logical layout.

The location of a sensory organ of smell is more problematic, as well as an orafice for respiration (not necessarily the same organ).

Anon, if you don't mind, make comments at the bottom as people scroll there first. I was indeed thinking of removing that example as eyes near (if not above mouth) is an adaptation that might be usefully repeated elsewhere. The nose is much more arbitrary. Why not near the hands or feet (sniff and pick!)? I do think it is a good example insofar as the animal face is almost always taken as a given in fiction in exactly the same way it appears on Earth. The alien in Alien seems creative but really the top half is broadly just a humanoid with lots of teeth. Accepting, for instance, eyes near mouth, why not directly attached to the stomach? It would save metabolic time and energy. Anyhow, change if you have a better example. Marskell 23:02, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

I believe they DO EXIST.

         *High Five*


Ive never read about anything from the chinese,or Arabs about ETs.But then again,I'm more interested in mythology,and the explanation of.I havent come across any from those areas.It sounds interesting though.Id appreciate if you mentioned where you found it,so I could take a look.

~Ditto

Well be realistic, Earth is in the perfect distance away from the sun, if we were even less than 5% further or closer to the sun we would die eventually from extream heat or intense cold. Furthermore who are we to say that there are other suns in other galaxies, i find it extreamly hard to believe that the other galixies are cloned to that of the structure of the milky way; also the milky way is basically a round shape like our solar system, and the others have many different shapes and sizes. And also the idea of there being some strange creatures with big heads and slit eyes sound luticrise to me, plus who are we to say that they would me advanced beyond imagination. Also if there WERE extraterrestrial life forms out there that are so advanced with there technology, don't you think they would also wonder about other life? Therefore I think that they would have tried to contact us through means other than trieing to land on earth? Like seding us messages or having millions come at once. Also if they have tried to land on earth before but the government captured them and are denying the possibilities of their existance then dont you think more would come in search of their missing commrades? I know what you people are thinking, "Yes they HAVE tried to come here but it all ended in Failure" ok i see your point but then dont you think that they would be angered by this and attacked? That is, if they WERE real, i don't believe a word of all this " Extraterrestrial" nonsense. OH and about the whole eyes above mouth thing, well DUH! other wise they wouldnt be able to eat! Again, im not agreeing with the possibilities of their exsistance, i was just saying that out of spite. Normally im only into the Anime part here and give info reguarding that, but the idiocy of this idea made me come here and put common sense into your childish minds. If others want tp contridict my theory then please feel free to send me a message Via E-mail, or just reply to me under my massage.- Akumi Katsuya

Play MAXIS' Spore. You'll love it. SGT Justin Gregory Blodgett, US Army (talk) 05:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Links[edit]

Aliens, with a few exceptions like abortion or religion etc., probably have more potential links than most any other topic. The external links section could, really, expand indefinitely but I don't think it should. So: name one or two websites you think belong and why (if you're all still watching)... Marskell 00:56, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Rebellion[edit]

Some people believe that, should there be alien contact, the people all over the planet will revolt, some, due to religious reasons, such as percieving aliens to be demons, Satan, other evil entities, some, due to the campaign of ridicule allegedly initiated to prevent people from reporting aliens, alien activities. This explains the addition of Rebellion to this article. Anyone out there agree? Anyone out there disagree ?Martial Law 22:23, 27 October 2005 (UTC) :)

I had heard this argument,worse as I travel the US as a prospector,Meteal Detecting enthusiast.Martial Law 22:23, 27 October 2005 (UTC) :)

Hi Martial. Your arguments may be considered correct. However, I just removed the interwiki link to Rebellion (see also section) as it is too broad. If you can find a very close related topic, it would be great. Cheers -- Svest 22:30, 27 October 2005 (UTC)  Wiki me up&#153;
This can't be conjecture. People may react, and probably will react, in unimgainable ways should it actually occur. But this is about cogent possibilities, not assumed reactions. Marskell 23:14, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
Definetely! What is important is that if there are references from aknowledged sources than the material has to be posted, otherwise, it would remain as a people believe statement and therefore that would not be encyclopaedic. After all, I don't believe any academic source believe in that as it is part of fiction coming out from our imaginative minds. Cheers -- Svest 23:45, 27 October 2005 (UTC)  Wiki me up&#153;
To agree with the agreement and further unpack: I have gone to some pains to make sure "science fact" and "science fiction" are seperated in categories. I like this page. I've worked on it extensively. And if I may humbly state, it should not be overloaded with Ufology, Star Trek cruft, 'what if they arrive' speculation, etc. etc.. We have here a good overview of the putative ET, the history of the idea of ET, and the present search for ET. Improve? Yes! But don't kill what's been established. Marskell 23:53, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
Total agreement. I've been probably facing this same scenario at Atlantis and Atlantis in fiction before I had to split the stuff into 2 articles or otherwise we had to end up with a 90% fictional article about stargates and al, as in this example [2]. Cheers -- Svest 00:03, 28 October 2005 (UTC)  Wiki me up&#153;

Here is why people may revolt, should there be alien contact: Robertson Panel Protocol says that people who has had seen UFOs/ has had alien related experiences are to be ridiculed, all to "reduce", even eliminate interest in UFOs and the like. It was initiated by the CIA to curtail interest after Washington, D.C. was involved in a major UFO incident in 1952. It is this and religious reasons that explain why the people will revolt should there be alien contact. The Robertson Panel is still in effect. I have contacts in Law Enforcement, and some of these were in the "Alphabet Agencies", and/or have been in the military. Martial Law 09:28, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Here is a link that may explain why people will revolt due to religious reasons. Tapes sold are RUFO Hypothesis and books sold are Lights in the Sky & Little Green Men. The three Christian scholars are Hugh Ross,Ph.D., who is a Astronomer and Physicist, Kenneth Samples, M.A., who is a Theologian and a Philosopher, Mark Clark, who is a National Security Expert & a Political Science Advisor. Martial Law 08:20, 2 March 2006 (UTC) :)

Life as the reversal of the Second Law of Thermodynamics[edit]

I'm reading a book written by William James Sidis (1898-1944), who was a child prodigy with an IQ estimated between 250-300. In it, he deduces the requirement for the reversal of the 2nd law of thermodynamics, and proposes that life is such a process. Since, according to him, the tendency toward reversal should roughly equal the tendancy toward greater entropy, he proposes that life in the Universe should actually be quite common. In the preface, he quotes Lord Kelvin as supporting this proposal, but I'm not sure how much attention has been paid to the book since it was first published in 1925. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-11-7 18:09

The second law has actually been used by people arguing for a creator, if I'm not mistaken: ie., if life stands in opposition to it, life's existence must have required extraordinary intervention. My understanding is that this has been debunked but I have no background there whatsoever. Perhaps hit the second law page and see what you find.
Oh, and an IQ of 250-300 is thirty to fifty points greater than any historical record I've ever heard of :). Marskell 14:26, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
A local and temporary reversal of the Law was intended, needless to say. Broadly speaking, though Life organizes, Entropy still rules. The point had nothing to do with a Goddess or whatever. --Wetman 00:42, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I must be more alive than most people, because in my apartment, there is a lot of entropy generated (you can't even see the floor in my bedroom, due to the entropic arrangment of dirty clothes and magazines)!

128.138.173.243 23:48, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Photo[edit]

The current main photo doesn't load.

Ancient and Early Modern[edit]

the history of this idea is part of adult discourse on this subject. The section is being vandalized by someone who may never have heard of any of those people and isn't interested. Please add to the section and keep a watch for further blanking. --Wetman 00:37, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed the above when I posted a moment ago. Please Wetman, assume good faith and do not accuse other editors of vandalism. My edit summaries clear on this and I have removed the full quotes again. First, Wikipedia is written summary style (or news style, but the point holds in either case). I shouldn't come across a group of paragraphs and feel they were culled from a dissertation. The quotes throw off due emphasis in the section and are altogether too long. They may be better suited to Extraterrestrial life in popular culture which is short and could use a history section. Marskell 07:26, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
The history of ideas is the last kind of history the neophyte comes to understand. Deletion of sourced material that has been set in context is part of the definition of vandalism. --Wetman 21:24, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the pedagogic wisdom. That material is sourced does not mean that it necessarily belongs. The problem here was length and undue weight. I did not delete the post—I abbreviated it and I explained why above. Please remember that unfounded accusations of vandalism are personal attacks. Marskell 09:19, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Quoted from above: "Does anyone know when people first theorized the existence of life on other planets? It seems like a natural continuation from realising the Earth is a sphere, and that other, presumably similar, spheres can be observed 'out there'. I find it hard to believe that War of the Worlds was the first time the idea was explored or proposed." It seems that others are equally in the dark on the history of this idea, though perhaps not equally imbued with unfounded self-confidence. --Wetman 06:39, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


Reference to Giordano Bruno[edit]

The statement that Giordano Bruno was executed in part for his ideas about extrasolar planets and life is incorrect. As even the Wikipedia entry on Bruno states, the charges against him were based instead on his theological ideas. I'm going to edit that line. Given that change, I also question the relevance to this article of mentioning that he was burned at the stake, but will leave it for now. --Varenius 23:36, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Numerous pop-sci works on the topic begin with a dramatization of of the execution or at least a nod to Bruno. Calling his pluralism "unrelated" to his theology strikes me as incorrect in spirit even if correct in terms of the letter of the Church's decision. Bruno was a Copernican (even if he didn't understand the science of it properly) and that obviously had some bearing on his execution as well as to the paragraph we're discussing now. Marskell 09:59, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree with dropping "unrelated" -- it made the sentence too ungainly, and strictly speaking could be misinterpreted as you point out. However, after looking at the paragraph again, I'd argue it still needs revision. The preceding sentence implies that Bruno's fate is an example of how arguing for alien life was "dangerous", but since it was not the cause of his execution, that is misleading & should be changed accordingly. This would also require a revision of the first sentence of the following paragraph to preserve continuity. I will wait for further comments before making changes. --Varenius 04:17, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Actually the sentence should probably be merged with the paragraph following. We introduce Bruno and then the Copernican revolution rather than the other way around. If you have a better suggested wording suggest it here or be bold. Marskell 03:49, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I've finally made the promised revisions to the section. --Varenius 22:56, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

What to do with conjecture?[edit]

Create a section of the article for conjecture. Title it "conjecture" and use a certain amount of editorial discrimination to only put reasonable conjecture in this section (a few shades past strong scientific suspicion, but well short of wild conjecture).

Then create a sub-section in this area for 'wilder theories' but don't give these detailed mention, only list them as interesting tidbits with very breif sketches:

    • Part of any story about an unproven phenomenon is the actual speculation itself, so it's OK (as well as interesting and relevant to the topic) to mention it as speculation.
    • Although don't go into great depth with wilder theories- reserve much greater space for those theories which have the science community's current interest. And title each area differently to draw a strong line between areas of active scientific speculation and areas of more theoretical speculation.


Sean7phil 00:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


I don't want to step on erstwhile toes, but I have removed the following:

:A likly place to find an ammonia-based life form would be in the atmosphere of a gas giant, for all four known gas giants in our solar system contain high concentrations of ammonia. Some scientists propose acids may act as solvents on planets such as Venus. Such life forms such as a plasma-based life form have been proposed, and given considerable anounts of research. Mircea Sanduloviciu and his colleagues at Cuza University in Romania conducted a study on plasma, passing an electric current through argon gas, producing a plasma. A large number of small spheres measuring in size from a few micrometers to up to three centemeters were created. They behaved like cells, and showed rudementary signs of life. These life forms would live on or in stars and use heat to sustain life. They would have the ability to communicate using magnetic induction, and they could reproduce using binary fission. Another proposed form of life would exist as a molecular cloud in space, moving using radiation pressure, and thinking by taking advantage of a molecular cloud's extreme low temperatures to create a quantum superposition of atoms. This quantum superposition would act as a kind of gaseous quantum computer. It entire organism would hold itself together very losely by using its meager gravity.

Main concern: anyone who's read around this topic knows there are a thousand and one conjectural scenarios we could dump on this page. We need to briefly list the possibilities, generally. There could be silicon life. There could be gas giant cloud top life. OK. But the details of one hypothetical study cannot take up three or four hundred words of one of the sections. Marskell 21:30, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Probability of Life[edit]

How about a section dealing with the probability that extraterrestrial life exists at all. Including topics such as DNA synthesis, etc. 62.249.242.232 12:36, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Sounds a very good idea. Give it a start. Cheers. -- Szvest 12:40, 12 April 2006 (UTC) Wiki me up&#153;
Well... Drake equation, Fermi Paradox, and Planetary habitability all exist. I actually think we cover probability as much as it can be covered. Marskell 12:44, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

But none of the above deal with the molecular/biochemical basis for extraterrestrial life. Admittedly this is more within the remit of the Origins of Life article, however greater reference could be made to the subject in this article. The Origin of Life article is not, itself, comprehensive enough in my opinion. However, I am not qualified to know about the chances of DNA synthesis, etc. The following is an interesting link, although it does not seem very reliable; I am not sure about any of the unverified "facts" that are presented in 'The First Self Replicator'. http://www.365deals.co.uk/extracts/did/did_extract.html 62.249.242.232 22:35, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Aliens in the law?[edit]

What is the legal status of extraterrestrial aliens? Are they entitled to the same kind of legal protections on US soil as foreigner humans? I can imagine some gun-happy texan first shooting any saucer humanoids landing in sight and then claiming federal murder statues only apply to humans, not any intelligent life. Also, there was some US federal law that banned federal employees from making contact with cosmic lifeforms. That was meant to gag Apollo lunar astronauts and the law was enacted in secret and never disclosed until 1997 with a scandal. All this should go into the article. 195.70.32.136 10:37, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Any aliens that could travel here from other star systems would be far more powerful than the human race and so the real question would be, "Do their laws protect us?"

Sean7phil 00:50, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

It's a great question, and much would depend on circumstance. Technically speaking, some jurisdictions simply mention "human beings" or another term that would seem to clearly mean "a member of the human species," but the law of other jurisdictions (such as the Louisiana Civil Code) refers to "persons," and defines a "person" in terms of a being capable of having rights, which could easily extend to intelligent extraterrestrials. It's worth remembering that what the law means by "human being" or "person" continues to come under scrutiny for issues such as abortion, injury/death of a fetus against the will of the mother, and recognized rights for certain intelligent non-human animals, such as cetaceans and hominids. - Raphite --72.150.43.231 (talk) 04:14, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

When the aliens come, the law relating to persons will be redefined (consider the history of the electoral franchise) - especially if it involves paying taxes. Jackiespeel (talk) 15:10, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

The Hidden Truth[edit]

Well as some of you may believe that there is extraterrestial life out there and some of you may think that it's all just a waste of time. The truth is we will never know because of our overprotective son of a bitch government.

Plese sig your statements, if possible. Martial Law 21:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Alternatives to Carbon?[edit]

"Nor can the possibility be completely rejected that a completely new substance may be found that may react in a similar way to carbon."

I think this line should be removed. It seems to imply that new elements may be discovered that will possess characteristics suitable for life that are on par with those of carbon. Any elements that still remain to be discovered will be produced synthetically in research labs and exist for extraordinarily small periods of time. The possibility that a rival to carbon will be discovered is all but impossible. I therefore think that the above line should be removed from the article because it is not based in scientific fact and does not contribute to understanding the subject. Thoughts? Matt 20:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Try silicon. Martial Law 21:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Martial Law, did you read the quote that I excerpted? It clearly reads: "...a completely new substance." That is extraordinarily unambiguous. Silicon is hardly unknown and I challenge you to find a chemist or biologist that would characterize this second-most abundant element on earth as "completely new." I'm not trying to be catty, but it seems that you didn't even read or consider my objection. Mrestko 03:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


Existence of Other Life In Our Universe[edit]

I firmly believe there is other intelligent life in the universe. This is only one galaxy in this vast expanse of space. There are countless other stars that could have planets revolving around them that support life. It is collecively egocentric for someone to say we are the only intelligent life in the universe if we are just sitting on a relatively small planet suspended in black space that could possibly be infinite and there could be another Earth-like planet out there that supports life. This life doesn't neccessarily have to be humanoid, beacause it probably doesn't have the same needs us humans do, but it is other life.Wolfranger 15:29, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

While I definitely agree with you, and concur with the statement on humanoids (an evolutionary snowball in hell), this is to discuss the article, its factual accuracy, POV, etcetera, and not ones opinion of its subject. Lord Patrick 09:34, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


Lord Patrick, Wolfranger has really discussed the article. I know they are other planets that have life on them, other forms of existence(I mean by this spirits that you can't see with bear eyes) or the same form as humans. In the XXI century the majority of people know already that they are 7 dimensions in the universe,you can see the first 3 only, but you can feel the other dimensions,you can measure them,and if you evolve spiritually,you can see after a while the other dimensions too. Soon science will discover this reality of 7 dimensions and life on other planets, but now some groups are highly interested in keeping the humans eye closed,keepeing humans blind. Our guverns know about this truth but they aren't interested in sharing it with us. Yes, other lifes visit us for simple curiosity. Movies show you that "aliens are bad,they want to kill humans" but this is a LIE. They want you to be afraid of aliens,and run if you see them,because if you come in contact with them,you might learn from them that they are harmless and curious and intelligent, and that there is life everywhere in the universe. EVERYTHING LIVES,the planets,the sun, the solar system just like us humans and animals and plants. Sorry for my poor english. spirit —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.225.141.234 (talk) 01:05, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Red Cells section[edit]

The single sentence: "Recently, scientists have discovered mysterious red cells in India unlike any cells on Earth; this may be the first confirmed case of alien life. [8] 2006" appears to be based on a superficial report from CNN that doesn't address any of the (rather substantial) controversy about the claim for an extra-terrestrial origin.

Any suggestions on addressing that beyond simple deletion? It's conjecture at best, pure hype at worst.

--Bagheera 22:22, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


I made an addition with counterpoints to the red rain issue, rather than simply deleting it. There really isn't much evidence to support an ET origin.
--Bagheera 21:01, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
While I think the extraterrestrial origin claim is far fetched, I have yet to see a thorough debunking of it. So far, all I've seen are one-liner dismissals that don't address the body of the Kumar papers, which go into rather elaborate detail. They claim to have sucessfully cultured the cells under ridiculously high temperatures and pressures and have worked out a complex life cycle. In the absence of similarly developed down-to-earth explanations, shouldn't that make it worth citing it as an outstanding claim of extraterrestrial life? Has anybody read any detailed conventional explanations? --Aelffin 20:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


The block was removed, which I'm also good with. While it was interesting, it was anything but difinitive, so I've no problem with it's removal. I should have included this deeper link that goes into more detail on problems with the Kumar paper. You can find it HERE. --Bagheera 22:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the link! It looks like a good explanation of the sporadic nature of the red rains, though it doesn't discount Kumar's life cycle claims. One is left to wonder: "Are these just the imaginations of the researchers?" I did, however, find the greatest quote in the history of EVER.... "a better causal explanation for a thunderous sound and flash of light during a storm is thunder." (my emphasis) .... Thanks! --Nathan (Aelffin 02:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC))

The Red Cells block returned with the heavy 'alien life' slant. I've tried to make it a little more neutral without deleting it entirely. The evidence seems fairly overwhelming that the "mysterious red cells" are not only of Terrestrial origin, but are a well known life form.

--Bagheera 18:50, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion the section seems very questionable to me as well. The Red Rain of Kerala is referred to in the Panspermia article in the Disputed section. The Red rain in Kerala has its own article where the Extraterrestrial orgin is explained. It may deserve short mention in this article, but I'm not sure it belongs in the Direct Search section. It would seem more appropriate to do a quick mention of it under the Extraterrestrial Life in the Solar System where it mentions microbial life.
--Benwildeboer 19:17, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree. The section was removed entirely once before, shortly after I commented above and added the link to other explanations (see my link above). The section was re-added by an IP-Only user who retained my reference to a controversy, but omited the link.
I wonder if something along the lines of "There is ongoing research into possible examples of extra-terrestrial life being brought to earth via comet or meteoric impact events" and then linking as you suggest would be appropriate? The Martian Meterorite found in antarctica was a good example of that research.
--Bagheera 22:53, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
I definitely feel that research into the possibility of microbial life being brought to Earth by impactors should be mentioned. However, the more I look into it and think about how to add information about Red rain in Kerala or Mars meteorite, the more I feel that these instances are fully covered in their own articles or in the Panspermia article, and mention outside the See Also section in this article might be unnecessary.
--Benwildeboer 23:11, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree. If there's no objections, I'll remove that whole section on the red cells.
--Bagheera 17:19, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


Fine with me. I added links to Red rain in Kerala and ALH84001 to the See Also section. Does anybody else have anything to say on the topic?
--Benwildeboer 18:04, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Objective reality / Functional Sanity / Empirical Truth[edit]

Just one question I have for everyone. Does there exist any hard and objective evidence concerning extra biological entities and space ships and green men. Are there any photographs unblurred and not grainy from the 1950's and the 1960's. Are there really any sane and credible and intelligent people who have ever come forward and to press the point. That the object they seen in the sky was objectively real to them. How do you support the existence and the beleif in the existence of UFO's any more than you do to debunk and strip it away from being cloaked and vague and ambivalent. Can any one sane and credible person provide any foundation for any kind of evidence to support the contention for UFO's and for E.B.E's. If contact were ever made with life outside of earth. What procedures might go into place. Nothing much over the course of history has ever seemed to push UFO's from speculation and hearsay and imagination. Into concrete and hard and focused and scientific and objective reality. What would a means of travelling across the expanse of space look like if it came to earth. Does anyone really beleive that a alien civilization would go out of it's way to hide itself from everyone. I am sure there are some lunatics spouting crazy and unsupportale ideas out there. And I am sure there are religous figure heads who hold fast and who pray to the invisible and the silent man in the sky. www.geocities.com/berniethomas68 04:53, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Nope, it's totally speculative and it doesn't have much to do with little green men or UFOs. Did you read the article? --Aelffin 20:07, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


Objective reality v Putting your head in the sand[edit]

They are out there, somewhere, we aren't that important, all this just for us! Please do me a favour and read and think.

fermi paradox

Don't you ever wonder where everybody is?

We live in a time and place which are ordinary in every way. If we exist, there should exist other civilizations, and we should not be the first; some should be older and much more technically advanced than we are. If space travel is possible, then some of them should have visited us by now. As we shall see, it should only take a few million years for an advanced civilization to explore our whole galaxy. With potentially thousands of such civilizations (see Drake equation), we should be swimming in extraterrestrials!

But, why not?

I concluded that some assumptions must be wrong; either

1 There is nobody else.

2 We're rare and other rare civilizations just like us are very far apart.

3 Interstellar travel is impossible.

4 Technological civilization lifetimes are too short.

Or a combination of these assumptions in varing degrees.


Number one is a very scary thought for me to ponder on, I think I'd become religous. Although I would all ways wonder what was around the next gas nebular. Number two is very possible indeed, time will tell. Just so long as goverments spend money and time on SETI type projects and take them more seriously. Number three I'm begining to belive is true, I don't like it anymore than you. Throw your star trek dvds in the bin. But unless some new wormhole/interdimentional travel is possible, and I doubt it very much. It would take far too long and cost far too much in energy. Number four, Well from the way that we're going at the moment, it would'nt surprise me if this we're true. If lets say for the sake of argument they're thousands of civilizations spring up in our galaxy (see Drake equation). Then I bet a lot of them destroy themselfs in one way or an other, or keep knocking themselfs back to the stoneage every several thousand years or so. This for us, for humankind, at any rate, is our biggest challenge. It (nuclear war) nearly happened in 1962, and possibly at other times, it could quite easly of taken place. And thats just us, what about some other biological, natural, planetry, sola system disaster. The list could be endless. They is several options though, not on the one to four list. A dominat power in the galaxy, and anyone who puts the light on and says "hello, is there anybody out there?" gets wipped out. Or we're begin stopped from making contact, some how. Or if we do make contact with an other civilization, again your wipped out. Our goverments aren't really our goverments, (scary)! Or we're simply not patient enough, it's only been a hundred years or so we've been looking at the sky with good technology. I hope our civilization lifetime lasts many more thousands of years, if that in itself is enough. Its all so critical, this moment in time, I do have hope!

5. Maybe they don't care about Humans. If I was an alien I wouldn't care about Humans either.

Taxonomy for extraterrestrial life[edit]

There's something I've been wondering about for years: If/when we do find extraterrestrial life, how would we go about classifying it? Say, for instance, that we discovered life forms on Mars. Would we take the animal-like Martian life forms and put them in our Kingdom Animalia, put the plant-like ones in our Kingdom Plantae, and so forth? (This wouldn't seem to jive with the current trend of having taxonomy reflect genetic lineage.) Or would you start an entirely new tree for them - maybe put all life on Earth in "Superdomain Terrania", and put all life on Mars in "Superdomain Martiana"? --The Lazar 00:11, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

No, ASAI could guess, we would almost certainly not place them in terrestrial categories as they would not follow from the same lineage (unless we thought otherwise, which would be a bit of a boondoggle). Something like your super domains would be in order. Now, how much different prokaryotes can be, Martian, terrestrial or otherwise, is an open question. At its simplest level, unicellular life may be largely uniform planet to planet but I can't see how they would be categorized together if they arose in different places. But go to the science help desk. I'm sure you'll find a more enlightening answer than I can provide there. Marskell 00:12, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Added Readings[edit]

I added some additional readings by Steven Dick on the history of extraterrestrial life. ProfButler 22:54, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

New sections[edit]

Sorry to be a dick, but the new sections were all original research. I have removed them. Marskell 09:57, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

The Modern Section[edit]

Enthusiasm? Most people are apathetic to the possibility of alien life. The writer is very clearly biased, and not just using "weasel words", its outright swooning IMHO. And I say that being someone who holds the possibility of alien life (intelligent) as a very high hope and possibility.

I know, when I was younger in an RE lesson and we were talking about reincarnation i asked if you could be reincarnated as an alien. I know it was a silly question but I was interested in astrophysics back then, and I knew that there was more of a possibility of there being aliens than there was of there not being aliens. Anyway, everyone simply laughed and told me there was no such thing as aliens. They just assumed that that was true and I was wrong, when there is no proof that they could give me of there not being aliens. We share the same opion. Anyone interested come to my talk page. Asteroidz R not planetz 19:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I just read the sections in question and they seem pretty neutral to me, so I guess someone has modified this section recently. I'm removing the weasel word banners. --Mirage GSM 13:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Magic and Wishes?[edit]

Someone care to explain that magic and wishes bit in the beginning to article. That can't be right. I, unfortunately can't think of what should be there, but I know for sure that scientists would not in any way associate the idea of aliens with magic or wishes, seeing as how science is, in general, the polar opposite of magic and wishes. Just wanted to point this out. Please address it.

The Fury 03:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Water[edit]

"Water is useful because it has a neutral pH" - surely our definition of a "neutral" pH is based on the fact that terrestrial chemistry is based on water.

pH 7 is regarded as neutral - that means a concentration of 10-7 mol/l of hydrogen ions (H+, or strictly speaking H3O+). This concentration is chosen because it is the equilibrium comcentration of H3O+ in water.

On a planet where ammonia is a liquid, it is quite conceivable that there might be life based on ammonia as a solvent. If there were intelligent beings there, they would regard water as an acid. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.7.20.133 (talk) 22:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC).

It's unfortunate my editing was undone I restored my change. I changed the biochemistry section to more accurately describe what makes water special(it's hydrogen bonding not van der waals forces). More editing should probably be done on the part on water because it's also not very scientific to suggest that salts dissolve by interaction with hydroxide and hydronium ions. It's more accurate to say that positive ions from salts interact with the partial negatively charge of the oxygen atoms in the water molecules and that negative ions interact with hydrogen atoms of the water molecule.195.241.123.113 (talk) 21:19, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

O.K.I have no idea what your talking about,but Im going to comment on the scientific probability of science and wishes anyway.First off,theres possibly so many different dimensions and universes,who says on one plane of dimension,you cant get everything you wish for?I mean,its highly probable that simply thinking of something will cause something to happen somewhere else,right?Magic and wishes could simply be thinly spread through multiple dimensions.In fact,my random rambling might actually make sense somewhere in some other alternate dimension.Im just saying,anything you can think of,most likely exists somewhere.Open your mind a bit.

~Ditto

Recent Vandalism[edit]

Am I the only one who thinks there's been a lot of vandalism on this article lately? Is there any interest in locking the article? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Eljamoquio (talkcontribs) 21:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC).

The article is under control. Good thing that you spotted that but i'd say that many good contributions to this article comes from IP's. -- Szvest Wikiquote-logo.svg Wiki me up ® 14:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, I disagree, but I'm not going to force any point. If you look at the history of the article, about 1/2 of the versions are either inserting or removing vandalism. I'd prefer not to have to pay attention to keep this article clean, but if everyone else does, I'll just let you guys clean it up.--Eljamoquio 21:29, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Check again. I tried to edit the article to get the images off, but didn't know how. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.48.91.56 (talk) 10:59, 31 December 2006 (UTC).

Extraterrestrial biosystem[edit]

There doesn't seem to be an example (in Wikipedia itself) of what an extraterrestrial biosystem might look like, especially from a scientific perspective. I thought this might be a good project to work on myself. If anyone is interested in this idea and would like to help, or if it is against the rules in any way, please contact me ASAP on my user page. Mrug2 17:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Mars: Could it have held life?[edit]

As you all know, Mars, and the rest of the planets (Including the many, MANY small planets not found within our system.) are "Uninhabited". I think this is false, and I also think that some of the planets could have held life millions of years ago, or could be able to hold life in a few million years. Earth, as you know, was once another Carbon-Based planet, but that was long ago... Too long to find any physical evidence because the Big Bang supposedly went off 13.7 Billion years ago. I also think that a few million years after Earth formed, plants/trees began to grow/form, possibly being able to make the planet inhabitable, thus leading to the time of rain... But back on-topic, Mars just might be able to hold life again, with an infinite amount of possibilities: Humans Terraforming Mars, millions of years of mixing gases (Oxygen, Hydrogen, Etc.)

Terraforming: Click the link below, or you can look for it yourself, hehe. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terraforming

Vandalism![edit]

There's vandalism on the section: Beliefs in extraterrestrial life Ootmc Signme!Complaints Dept. 19:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, whoever fixed it. Ootmc Signme!Complaints Dept. 19:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe someone should correct the whole article and record all those IPs of the vandalists...with an short look over the article, I already discovered two things; the first, "BILLY IS AWESOME", the second under "Hi!"; although the latter is probably not meant destructive, it still should not be here. ~Nathrael

Criticisms of the search[edit]

Might a section on criticisms of the search be a good idea?

Jared Diamond criticized the seach extensively in The Third Chimpanzee both because he believed it to be implausible that intelligent life exists within a distance that could reach us, and that attempts are monumentally stupid. If we somehow did contact an extraterrestrial civillization, we have no reason to expect friendly treatment.

I'm sure there must be others who made similar arguments. --71.192.116.13 00:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Aliens and Time Travel[edit]

I'm not sure which page fits more with this topic, aliens or time travel. ever thought about something like this? So time travel is traveling to the future or past. The universe is a tremendous place, what if there are lots and lots(infinite) planets, galaxies, etc. Current theory, Life is all developed from simple DNA structure, then basically the domino effect. What if there is a planet exactly like the Earth in another place in the huge universe. That planet might be formed perfectly exactly the same way as Earth, the same kinds of comets crashing in same places as Earth, thus the domino effect would begin which can only be changed if something from the outside changes it. However, the only thing different about this planet is that it lags behind Earth by like 500 years?

This would make everything happen the same, George Washington, Roman empire, geography, etc except they're 500 years behind us. Here's something important, if a person from earth watches the planet, that person might not be smart enough to know, can't travel there, or he would be an outside factor and alter the whole domino effect.

This is sort've creepy and crazy if you get what I mean and just said.

Is there already a theory on this, if there is, which one?

You should use current theories in science to help design one of your own instead of creating a theory that you wish were true.



How would aliens get here?[edit]

Isn't there a speed of light, large seperation between stars, general relativity, and the fact that as you accelerate an object its mass increases thus making the energy required to travel at or near the speed of light impossible. Finally, to avoid later arguements, worm holes are the size of two quarks generally as they occur from the collision of particles and their anti-paritcle. Also, anti-gravity does not exsist in our universe. This leads me to conclude that aliens, while I do believe exist, are not likely to visit us before we communicate with them.

   I believe that they would have to use the Enterprise, but captain Packard is off this month, plus, the warp drives need a tune up as they can only reach warp 6

@The first person you seem to be suggesting that Extraterrestrial life would have the same level of technology as us in which case it would be impossible, for example natural wormholes may be the size of two quarks that doesn't mean that artifical ones are or that they can only be created by the collisions of particles and there anti-particles only that that is the only (known) way they appear naturally, and anti-gravitiy may not exist naturally but it would be near impossible to prove it can't be created artifically anyway maybe you should read Interstellar travel —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.137.237.167 (talk) 19:15, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Voyager Golden Record[edit]

Isn't it worth mentioning the Voyager Golden Record? Axl 19:45, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Zecharia Sitchin[edit]

Zecharia Sitchin is a pseudo science quack. He does not belong in a serious scientific discussion such as this atricle. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.63.57.204 (talk) 22:11, August 20, 2007 (UTC)

Mars[edit]

Article states that existence of extraterrestrial life remains theoretical. It is not clear, whether the word "existence" covers only current time or all the times. If latter is true, then the existence of extraterrestrial life is proven, or not? Article on "Life on Mars" states, that it is unclear, whether living organisms were on Mars or they are on Mars now. But even if they've only existed and not exist now, then existence of extraterrestrial lifeforms somewhere in the past already proven. --81.95.228.219 11:49, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

No it hasn't, unless I am mistaken you are talking about the bcteria-like stuctures but they were later show not to be bacteria. 86.137.237.167 (talk) 17:26, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

FBI Page[edit]

no info, suspicious! Link:[3]--Sonicobbsessed (talk) 00:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Chances are, they have discovered aliens somewhere in this new galaxy that i talk about on my website. The reason the gov. doesn't tell anybody is because they're trying to prevent people from panicing. ;)SLJCOAAATR 1 (talk) 16:05, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

yeah, but you would think they would have ufo reportings by civilians and just or something at least about aliens talking about people complaining about theam keeping secreats and who belivers are "loonies" as they would say (not me.), i think they did that so no one would be suspicious because the secreat that they know there real may be spread because someone would think if they got any results that it would be true. but i see there attept to not cause suspision is suspisious.--Sonicobbsessed (talk) 02:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Mhm. I would have to agree. A few monthes ago, what civilians claimed to be a UFO crashed into a NJ beach. Witnesses say that there was a red flashing beacon blinking in the water from where it crashed. A local man had called the police to investigate when screeching was coming from the are and odd objects were flying through the sky. Investigators interviewed coast guards and police, and they all acted as if they had no idea as to what happened.SLJCOAAATR 1 (talk) 16:45, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

More evidence of Extraterrestrial life[edit]

This should be briefly discussed in the article as possible evidence of extraterrestrial life: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn3186-microbes-from-edge-of-space-revived.html http://www.popsci.com/scitech/article/2006-06/it-raining-aliens --Phenylalanine (talk) 18:48, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Considering you are asking about More evidence, let us look at what the Bible tells us

Jesus said i am not of this world. does this mean he could be of Alien origin.

the book of Eziekiel tells of an Alien Landing

Mosses followed a pillar of fire by Night and a cloud by day

the bible isn't the only religious book to speak of such things, what do you make of it

Jesus said the truth shall set us free, and religion is Bondage. if the gods we worship Are Alien, wow will that change the face of religion forever, from that moment there will be no turning back, everyone will know the truth, as it should be known. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.209.67.117 (talk) 14:20, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Drake equation[edit]

An anonymous user highlighted the following sentence in the article and added "Needs rewording". I have moved their comment to this thread.

In 1961, University of California, Santa Cruz astronomer and astrophysicist Dr. Frank Drake devised the Drake equation, which mathematically simplifies the rate of formation of suitable stars, the fraction of those stars which contain planets, the number of Earth-like worlds per planetary system, the fraction of planets where intelligent life develops, and the fraction of possible communicative planets, and the "lifetime" of possible communicative civilizations which scientifically stated there are an estimated 10,000 planets containing intelligent life with the possible capability of communicating with Earth in the Milky Way galaxy.

The sentence is very long and hard to read. I think it would be better to divide it into two or three sepaprate shorter sentences. Any expert up to the task? Andrzej Kmicic (talk) 00:24, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

What?[edit]

"Thus, the three decades preceding the turn of the second millennium". Waxing a little poetic, isn't it? 68Kustom (talk) 03:12, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Added template of WikiProject Rational Skepticism[edit]

I've added the template of WikiProject Rational Skepticism to this page. I believe that this is appropriate. If you wish to discuss, please do so here. Thanks. -- Writtenonsand (talk) 13:59, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

While I agree that in the interests of completeness all opposing viewpoints should be considered, I am unsure about the term "rational" skepticism in this context...lol...if life evolved here the odds that it evolved elsewhere in some form are so close to 100% simply by looking at scientific probability that it may as well BE 100%. Also, someone thought it would be cool to mess with the page again adding random words here and there. 64.238.49.65 (talk) 11:59, 17 February 2009 (UTC)mandragor

life in the void of deep space[edit]

http://www.universetoday.com/2007/08/15/self-organizing-space-dust-could-be-a-precursor-to-life/ says life can exist in space itself, without a surface... 70.55.86.30 (talk) 05:04, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

A broader definition of life is needed.[edit]

The only detailed analyses I have read on this topic specify the absence of the various features vital to life on our planet. However, a brief consideration of the biology of life as we know it seems to show one overwhelming feature in all its aspects - whether in its development or functioning - is change, and many alternative outcomes for that change. Our own bodily functions, in order to occur, require chemical / electrical processes involving and producing change. Even what we are pleased to describe as intelligence is no more, really, than that. With that in mind the prospects for life elsewhere in our galaxy alone increase immensely. Also, of the two planetary bodies (the Moon and Mars) we have been able to examine in detail, both have shown strong evidence of water. Even stipulating that narrow requirement, prospects for the presence of life seem interesting. I accept emphatically the premise that so many stars must inevitably harbour life among them. The general principle is that based on randomness the combination of features and random processes that created life on our planet are very likely repeated many times elsewhere. Maybe I should emphasise that my comments refer basically to the possibility of simpler lifeforms. It seems an extreme stretch of the imagination, and without foundation, to assume there is regular traffic of aliens in spacecraft coming to visit our planet.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.240.121.138 (talk) 17:38, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Alien life / Extraterrestial life[edit]

The alien life page redirects to this page, even though "alien life" does not necessarily mean extraterrestial life (e.g. this). I think this page should include the topic of alien terrestial life and be renamed to "alien life" or the alien life page should be changed from a redirect to a separate article. What do you think ? --George (talk) 11:13, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA GOVERNMENT OFFICIALLY CONFIRMS THE EXISTENCE OF ALIENS AND UFOS[edit]

Check this documentary:

[4]

That press conference was held by official United States investigators of reports of UFOs. A few days ago, I guess. Now, who should change the words "belief" etc. into that it's fact, and they exists? Von Mario (talk) 20:50, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

  • There is no internal evidence in this video clip that it is a press conference "held by official United States investigators of reports of UFOs". It's just the usual loony tunes stuff. andy (talk) 22:23, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Demonology[edit]

Why isn't there an argument pertaining to the possibility of 'extraterrestrial life' as manifestations of demonic beings? If the article is to be truly unbiased, certainly this argument as to the validity of claims regarding extraterrestrial life, as observed as alien presences, should be made. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.80.244 (talk) 09:36, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Material on religion seems out of place[edit]

The article starts out as a scientific exploration of the concept of ET's but then has a large section devoted to religion. How is religion pertinent to this article any more than it would be to an article on fusion? Mythological beliefs have no bearing on whatever the reality is of ET life, such beliefs belong in a different article.Docsavage20 (talk) 21:53, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


Extraterrestrial life in the Solar System[edit]

Saturn - Possible floating creatures.

Uh what? --VertigoOne (talk) 04:56, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


Probabilities[edit]

1) Bacteria/single celled life exists in all possible environments on the Earth (even if sometimes dormant until 'suitable conditions recur' including volcanoes, deep underground and in nuclear power plants. Therefore, given 'the general sameness of the universe principle' life, having evolved once, is likely to evolve elsewhere, providing suitable starting conditions exist (probably including stellar lifespan, planetary conditions and 'a range of chemicals') - the level of development is likely to vary - single cells, 'slugs, bugs, crunchy things, algae and suchlike' or more complex entities, with only a small proportion having sentient life (the Drake Equation as text). All that can be deduced is that life 'in some form' is likely to exist elsewhere in the universe - but may depend upon different chemical bases to that on Earth, and that such sentient life as exists has not developed a way of communicating across space (which, as Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy points out, is very large)/the radio transmitter (equivalents) are not pointed in Earth's direction, have not been transmitting long enough, or there is the equivalent of an analogue/digital discontinuity.

2) Why should sentient aliens (assuming they exist) be humanoid? (ie head at the top, human facial layout, two arms two legs) when other layouts are feasible (even if, as pointed out above, some arrangements are more practical than others). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.104.132.41 (talk) 15:21, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Naturalized Earthling?[edit]

Hypothetically, could an extraterrestrial being be considered not an alien if they are either born on Earth or have been legally regestered as a citizen of one of Earth's nations? Because, technically, the term "alien" refers to someone currently within some political boundary they aren't a citizen in. So, a space alien is just someone who isn't a legal citizen of Earth, right? --DanMat6288 (talk) 01:01, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

That person will be fully local with all Human Rights. In case it's not an intellectual creature, then it will be simply a localised, locally adapted or acclimatised species. Gantuya eng (talk) 08:03, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Well I guess it wouldn't be a "space alien" anymore in the legalistic sense, but I don't think that would really matter that much, because alien has two meanings - foreigner (we can extend that meaning to foreign to Earth as well, assuming we colonize other planets/moons/etc.) and creature with radically different physiology than humans. Just because you are no longer a foreigner doesn't mean you cease to be a space alien as well! 24.150.156.219 (talk) 01:10, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

No, it doesn't mean they cease to be a space alien.
Still, IMHO, the Human Rights should apply to all intellectual creatures whatever physiology or biological structure they have. Shouldn't they?
Hypothetically, in case a few Neanderthals or any other alternative human species get discovered still existing parallelly with Homo Sapiens, I hope the Human Rights will apply to them as well. Gantuya eng (talk) 02:38, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Would give the Barack Obama birthers a run for their money.

A few ideas:

Given that life evolved on Earth and microbes have spread 'to all possible locations' (including power stations and volcanoes) it is logical to assume that it will evolve on other planets where the conditions arise (what is the 'general sameness of the universe' concept called?) - though mostly it will consist of 'microbes, water-critters, flitting bugs, wormlikes, lichen and seaweedies': equivalents to multicelluar organisms (animals, plants and the other groups) are likely to be less common and 'sentient creatures' even less so.

Why should the extraterrestials be hostile and want to extract Earth's minerals - bugs and brontosauruses don't have lawyers, and selling the equivalent of TV soaps, airport books, documentaries, calendars and tourist tat is likely to be far more profitable.

In fact why should extraterrestials be humanoid (head at top of body, two arms, two legs, bipedal) at all? Why not Ents, Insectoids, Jellyfishoids, swarm creatures...

What would be the best websites to post discursive speculations such as this, discussions of taxonomies and other 'developments of the concept'? Jackiespeel (talk) 15:24, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Carl Sagan[edit]

This article seems to be way too dependent on Carl Sagan, am I alone in thinking this? There must be a lot of other respected astronomers with views on it, what about Patrick Moore? I don't have time to look for other references right now but they would be really beneficial. K602 (talk) 11:54, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Theory for discussion[edit]

The material below was placed in the article by User:Davidjess. I suggest a rewrite to more encyclopedic language and at least one reference. Other opinions? WBardwin (talk) 04:02, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

One line of reasoning goes that we have already proven that life exists, just that simple. What we know for sure is that life exists on Earth. It is more difficult to prove that no extraterrestrial life exists (must prove that it does not exist on every single other planet), that it is to prove that it does exist (just find it on one, which has actually already been done--just find it on one more. Then the question will be does life exist on 3 or more planets?) edit: 03:34, 2 December 2009 User: Davidjess

Where is this?[edit]

Space Research Institute of the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences confirmed the existence of extraterrestrial life on the 26th of November, 2009. Vatican City agreed. Where is this? [5] --Fluence (talk) 14:50, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Assessment comment[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Extraterrestrial life/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Last edited at 20:44, 29 April 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 20:32, 2 May 2016 (UTC)