Aliens and Parallel Universes

[SelfSim]

So, you are asserting that some speculations are not based upon "detailed observations, sound, current theory and well structured argument". Since anyone who has taken an interest in the subject should know these are present in more than one analysis. Thus, stating that such speculations are based only on opinions is patently false and thus my post is not an opinion, but a concise statement of fact.

I was challenging your opinion that my comment was 'seriously misleading' ... I don't see any deceptions in what I said.

Opinions can certainly be based on 'detailed observations, sound, current theory and well structured argument' .. but they are still opinions.
The notion that alien life exists, (intelligent or otherwise), is held as being 'true' in said opinions .. (there is no objectively sourced evidence from beyond earth's biosphere).

This is not to say that these opinions aren't also testable hypotheses .. they obviously are.

Interesting. Which part is causing you a problem? Potential, or significance? If you doubt the significance of the confirmation of alien life, then I suggest the search may already be at an end, for we shall have found an alien living in our midst.

The issue lies with the underlying notion that: 'alien life' exists is true.
I assert that this notion, alone, is the sole basis of claims of 'potential significance'.
In fact, it is nothing more than a belief.

 

[Shemjaza]

We've looked quite seriously (remember SETI?), and heard nothing. The most likely explanation for that is that there's nothing to hear.

SETI is exactly what I was referring to with my "searching my bedroom for kangaroos" analogy.

It's hardly a serious look. We've had a brief glance around our very immediate surroundings and only would have got any results if a considerably more advanced civilisation in our region was using a lot of power and radio pollution for the exact purpose of alerting a species like us.

If another species at our same level was within 10 light years we would have difficulty detecting them over the interference of space... but I'll accept your conclusion that we are alone in this region.

 

[SelfSim]

.. If another species at our same level was within 10 light years we would have difficulty detecting them over the interference of space... but I'll accept your conclusion that we are alone in this region.

Perhaps you're giving up too soon(?) I mean its also 'possible' to reconsider what it is you're looking for, no(?)

 

[Ophiolite]

I was challenging your opinion that my comment was 'seriously misleading' ... I don't see any deceptions in what I said.

You are under the mistaken impression that things can only be misleading through a deliberate act of deception. That is not the case. Statements can also be misleading because of ambiguity, lack of clarity, internal contradiction, factual error, etc.

Opinions can certainly be based on 'detailed observations, sound, current theory and well structured argument' .. but they are still opinions.

You have inadvertently substituted "opinions" for "speculations". I believe I clearly stated that:

you are asserting that some speculations are not based upon "detailed observations, sound, current theory and well structured argument".

The notion that alien life exists, (intelligent or otherwise), is held as being 'true' in said opinions .. (there is no objectively sourced evidence from beyond earth's biosphere).

1. That's why we call them speculations.

2. The objectively sourced evidence from beyond the Earth's biosphere includes

• Sound estimates on the number of stars in the galaxy, the local cluster, and so on.
• Excellent understanding of the distribution of star types and their life cycles.
• Increasing understanding of planetary formation through exoplanet studies and detailed observations of the solar system planets, moons, asteroids, comets and meteors.
• Detailed information on organic molecules present in interstellar space and in molecular clouds.
• Chemical analysis of organic molecules present on meteorites.

3. The speculations do not assert that alien life exists, they assess the probability that such is the case. Since these speculations (the serious ones) are based upon a multiplicity of observations and well founded theories they do not qualify as opinions,

The issue lies with the underlying notion that: 'alien life' exists is true.

That is something that I have not claimed, nor have I stated that any of the speculations assert that alien life exists. They address the probability that it exists.

I assert that this notion, alone, is the sole basis of claims of 'potential significance'.
In fact, it is nothing more than a belief.

Illogical,
1. If alien life exists that would be of great significance. (The reverse is also true.)
2. It may not exist, as per the probabilities mentioned previously, which is why I have qualified the "significance" with the adjective "potential".

Edit: added a missing, rather crucial, "not".

 

[SelfSim]

You are under the mistaken impression that things can only be misleading through a deliberate act of deception. That is not the case. Statements can also be misleading because of ambiguity, lack of clarity, internal contradiction, factual error, etc.

There's no need for saying that I 'am under 'the mistaken impression' .. I accept your distinction of 'deliberate-ness' vs otherwise.
This doesn't alter what I said.

You have inadvertently substituted "opinions" for "speculations". I believe I clearly stated that:
...
1. That's why we call them speculations.

I have no problems in discussing that speculations formed as objectively testable hypotheses, whilst under test, are held as provisionally true. Its jumping the gun to say that their test subject is considered in science as being objective reality however.
Where something is held as being 'provisionally true', I am yet to see the distinction which separates this from being a belief (albeit a testable one). Can you refer me to one which doesn't rely on belief, truth, etc?

2. The objectively sourced evidence from beyond the Earth's biosphere includes

• Sound estimates on the number of stars in the galaxy, the local cluster, and so on.
• Excellent understanding of the distribution of star types and their life cycles.
• Increasing understanding of planetary formation through exoplanet studies and detailed observations of the solar system planets, moons, asteroids, comets and meteors.
• Detailed information on organic molecules present in interstellar space and in molecular clouds.
• Chemical analysis of organic molecules present on meteorites.

.. and yet, none of this necessarily makes the connection to 'alien life', other than by way of either am instance of perhaps 'special pleading' (ie: in this case, sharing in the belief of its existence), or; accepting the inference, in the absence of specific objective evidence of that connection?

3. The speculations do not assert that alien life exists, they assess the probability that such is the case. Since these speculations (the serious ones) are based upon a multiplicity of observations and well founded theories they do qualify as opinions,

'Probability' of existence goes both ways however. Ie: the case of improbability is just as valid in the light of lack of specific objective results .. both 'probable' and improbable' rely on the same basis of argumentation .. ie: beliefs (or opinions).
What's 'important' to science, in the case of arguing for the existence of exo-life (or aliens) is to recognise the belief basis of the hypotheses under test .. and not lose sight of that (is all I'm really saying here .. and, IMO).

That is something that I have not claimed, nor have I stated that any of the speculations assert that alien life exists. They address the probability that it exists.

The assumption is a hidden one .. my posts are aimed at revealing it. There is no objective test for 'truth exists' (no matter where its revealed).

Illogical,

Its not really a matter of logic .. its a matter of Science.

1. If alien life exists that would be of great significance. (The reverse is also true.)

The 'importance' is in the mind of the beholder .. and as such, not yet a matter of objective reality. Untested predictions made by hypotheses under test are not yet part of scientific objective reality.
Logic follows a different process from the scientific process. The key difference is that logic commences with the untestable posit of the existence of truth, and therefore cannot be soley relied upon in the scientific process ... which wants to test such things.

2. It may not exist, as per the probabilities mentioned previously, which is why I have qualified the "significance" with the adjective "potential".

It makes no difference (in science). The future (or 'potential') is still an untested prediction.

 

[Shemjaza]

Perhaps you're giving up too soon(?) I mean its also 'possible' to reconsider what it is you're looking for, no(?)

I don't think I understand what you are saying here.

I see the problem with finding alien life is both that we have very limited technology for finding it and very limited information as to what we should even be looking for.

 

[Ophiolite]

There's no need for saying that I 'am under 'the mistaken impression' .. I accept your distinction of 'deliberate-ness' vs otherwise.
This doesn't alter what I said.

It seemed the most accurate way of describing the situation. (I can't really help if that accuracy makes you uncomfortable.)
I accept it doesn't alter what you said and that statement remains mistaken.

I have no problems in discussing that speculations formed as objectively testable hypotheses, whilst under test, are held as provisionally true. Its jumping the gun to say that their test subject is considered in science as being objective reality however.

Strawman. The objective reality portrayed by the speculations is the probability of alien life. The probabilities are an objective reality, the alien life is not.

Where something is held as being 'provisionally true', I am yet to see the distinction which separates this from being a belief (albeit a testable one). Can you refer me to one which doesn't rely on belief, truth, etc?

I don't hold with the notion of belief, except in a loose, colloquial sense. I don't believe anything, but I accept a great deal. I accept things that are well established through observation. It's possible that the sun will not rise tomorrow, but I find it pragmatic to work on the basis that it probably will.

.. and yet, none of this necessarily makes the connection to 'alien life', other than by way of either am instance of perhaps 'special pleading' (ie: in this case, sharing in the belief of its existence), or; accepting the inference, in the absence of specific objective evidence of that connection?

These were the observations outwith the biosphere that are relevant to the speculations. You had claimed no such information was available. (You don't like the phrase "mistaken impression", so substitute your own.)
Other information relevant to the calculations comes from organic chemistry, biochemistry, geochemistry, microbiology, genetics, etc. - all comfortably within our biosphere.

'Probability' of existence goes both ways however. Ie: the case of improbability is just as valid in the light of lack of specific objective results .. both 'probable' and improbable' rely on the same basis of argumentation .. ie: beliefs (or opinions).
What's 'important' to science, in the case of arguing for the existence of exo-life (or aliens) is to recognise the belief basis of the hypotheses under test .. and not lose sight of that (is all I'm really saying here .. and, IMO)..

Improbability is implicit in probability.

Fine. Produce a citation of a research paper in a reputable, peer reviewed journal that evidently argues from the premise that alien life exists.

The assumption is a hidden one .. my posts are aimed at revealing it. There is no objective test for 'truth exists' (no matter where its revealed).

You haven't revealed it thus far. If you can meet my prior challenge then you may have succeeded.
You are the one who keeps going on about truth. I don't think science has much to do with truth (unless we are talking formal logic). Perhaps you could explain why you think it does.

Its not really a matter of logic .. its a matter of Science.
The 'importance' is in the mind of the beholder .. and as such, not yet a matter of objective reality. Untested predictions made by hypotheses under test are not yet part of scientific objective reality.
Logic follows a different process from the scientific process. The key difference is that logic commences with the untestable posit of the existence of truth, and therefore cannot be soley relied upon in the scientific process ... which wants to test such things.

It makes no difference (in science). The future (or 'potential') is still an untested prediction.

Now you have started talking about predictions, when I am talking about probabilities.

I probably have it wrong, but you are coming across as wanting to argue with a mindset you think exists (and perhaps it does), but it has nothing to do with the scenario I have been discussing.

You are talking about truth, and belief and predictions, none of which are part of my lexicon on this subject. You claim there is no relevant data on the topic outside the biosphere, then complain that my list isn't comprehensive. My position is simple: sound speculations about alien life are based upon evidence. Characterising them as being based upon opinions is false and that is demonstrable. I believe (colloquially) I have demonstrated it.

 

[stevevw]

Possibly, but if you look at all the millions of species of life on Earth and see only a single intelligent species... it would seem reasonable to assume that it's rare.

I think if you looked at all the species intelligent life would be a logical outcome according to the way evolution is said to work. Apes are regarded as very close to humans and so are many other species. So humans are not too far away from many species genetically. If the environment on an alien planet was similar to earth and produced non human species like we have on earth then it is logical to conclude that evolution would also produce intelligent life similar to humans. Considering that scientists claim their are many earth like planets that should be the case.

 

[stevevw]

Look at the diversity of life on earth. How many of the billions of species we have here are 'humanlike'? Just one.

But there are many species very close to humans genetically. According to evolution it would then only be a small step compared to creating life itself to arrive at humans. So genetically and biologically humans are not rare in comparison to thousands of other creatures. Considering that around 95% of all species are micro-organisms if an alien planet began to produce multi-celled life chances are it will produce similar species to our own. Once it begins down that track intelligent life is not too far away according to evolution theory.

 

[Shemjaza]

I think if you looked at all the species intelligent life would be a logical outcome according to the way evolution is said to work. Apes are regarded as very close to humans and so are many other species. So humans are not too far away from many species genetically. If the environment on an alien planet was similar to earth and produced non human species like we have on earth then it is logical to conclude that evolution would also produce intelligent life similar to humans. Considering that scientists claim their are many earth like planets that should be the case.

I disagree that intelligent species should be assumed. For the vast majority of Earth's history life was soft squishy things in the ocean.

Even all the various families of life that developed some intelligence, only primates had all the traits that allowed advanced intelligence to continue to be an advantage.

Millions of species, billions of years, and only one technological intelligence.

 

[stevevw]

I disagree that intelligent species should be assumed. For the vast majority of Earth's history life was soft squishy things in the ocean.

Even all the various families of life that developed some intelligence, only primates had all the traits that allowed advanced intelligence to continue to be an advantage.

Millions of species, billions of years, and only one technological intelligence.

I would have thought that the way evolution is said to work that for example sooner or later the oceans habitats would begin to be exploited and at least one creature would move onto land to find a niche environment. That would then set off a new era of evolution towards land creatures. This would especially be the case if the planet has oceans and land. Somewhere the water would be shallow or have access to the land which would then be explored and used. That is the nature of how evolution is suppose to work. Creatures populate and habitats become used up forcing life to find new ones to survive.

The fact that there is only one intelligent species does not mean that they are rare. Humans are at the top of the evolution tree. There were a few species of hominids which were intelligent. Despite intelligence the genetic similarities between creatures is close. So the jump to intelligence is not great as far as biology goes. So it only requires creatures to get to a mammal stage and they are well on their way. After-all evolution claims that it only took around 6 million years to jump from a mammal like ape creature with a small brain to homo sapiens which is a small jump in the overall time life has been around on earth. The point is if evolution gets to the point of mammals then it will probably evolve intelligent life.

 

[SelfSim]

I don't think I understand what you are saying here.

Fascinating ..
I urge you to look beyond your reasons for saying that and consider that's only what you believe to be so.

I see the problem with finding alien life is both that we have very limited technology for finding it and very limited information as to what we should even be looking for.

Then it should be no problem to consider that neither the technolgies we use, nor the defintion we seek, are yet set in concrete ... and therefore your 'giving up' may be premature (as I mentioned previously).

 

[Tone]

Because the bible says that Jesus died once and for all for sin.

Maybe we were created to, in His image, create life throughout the galaxies...they are so vast...and now He has shown us how it is done...

 

[stevevw]

Maybe we were created to, in His image, create life throughout the galaxies...they are so vast...and now He has shown us how it is done...

We are intelligent beings who are able to contemplate questions about who we are, where we come from and what happens after we die. We are able to understand Gods creation through our intelligence and science can reveal a deeper understanding.

Maybe because we can understand and be affected by spirituality that is how we are made in Gods image. As opposed to other species we can have a relationship with God and can experience divinity. This fascinates me as humans can have an evil nature which is usually associated with animal behavior. But we can also have a divine nature. Maybe we were made in Gods image and we lost last through sin and now we can recapture that through Christs sacrifice by being born again with a new nature.

 

[Tone]

We are intelligent beings who are able to contemplate questions about who we are, where we come from and what happens after we die. Maybe because we can understand and be affected by spirituality that is how we are made in Gods image. As opposed to other species we can have a relationship with God and can experience divinity.

We know to lay our lives down for even more abundance...like the seed.

 

[Shemjaza]

I would have thought that the way evolution is said to work that for example sooner or later the oceans habitats would begin to be exploited and at least one creature would move onto land to find a niche environment. That would then set off a new era of evolution towards land creatures. This would especially be the case if the planet has oceans and land. Somewhere the water would be shallow or have access to the land which would then be explored and used. That is the nature of how evolution is suppose to work. Creatures populate and habitats become used up forcing life to find new ones to survive.

The fact that there is only one intelligent species does not mean that they are rare. Humans are at the top of the evolution tree. There were a few species of hominids which were intelligent. Despite intelligence the genetic similarities between creatures is close. So the jump to intelligence is not great as far as biology goes. So it only requires creatures to get to a mammal stage and they are well on their way. After-all evolution claims that it only took around 6 million years to jump from a mammal like ape creature with a small brain to homo sapiens which is a small jump in the overall time life has been around on earth. The point is if evolution gets to the point of mammals then it will probably evolve intelligent life.

Intelligence is a costly adaption.

We don't know the exact pressures that made the evolution of homo sapiens possible, but it may be a very unlikely convergence.

* Intelligence,
* cooperation/socialisation,
* tree climbing adapted fine manipulators,
* adaption to savanna that leaves some manipulators free rather then lost
* sufficient yet varied food available to encourage intelligence but allow resources to develop it

None of these things are a guaranteed consequence of our kind of life.

With other mammals, birds, dinosaurs and mollusks, intelligence can be useful, but the transition to technological intelligence could be extremely rare and unlikely.

 

[Shemjaza]

Fascinating ..
I urge you to look beyond your reasons for saying that and consider that's only what you believe to be so.

Then it should be no problem to consider that neither the technolgies we use, nor the defintion we seek, are yet set in concrete ... and therefore your 'giving up' may be premature (as I mentioned previously).

I'd be extremely happy to have evidence for alien life, but I don't like to get my hopes up.

(I really, really wanted KIC 8462852 to be actual advanced aliens, but it's probably not.)

 

[SelfSim]

It seemed the most accurate way of describing the situation. (I can't really help if that accuracy makes you uncomfortable.)
I accept it doesn't alter what you said and that statement remains mistaken.

I'm not entirely clear that we're talking about the same thing yet .. so please take this as being a genuine clarification question and not some deliberate attempt of trying shift anything.
Can you show me the objective evidence 'that human life may exist elsewhere', (meaning human life not originating from Earth), is anything other than an assumption taken as being true, (a belief or opinion), prior to its actually being testing out?
The point I'm making here is that 'human life' is only underwritten by objective evidence in the specific case of earth's biome (including its evolution over earth's geophysical/geochemical history).

Is this what you believe as being mistaken?

Strawman. The objective reality portrayed by the speculations is the probability of alien life. The probabilities are an objective reality, the alien life is not.

i) Even a likely outcome is never a sure thing. The meaning of 'alien life' however, depends on it being one.
ii) How can an objective reality be portrayed by a speculation, when a speculation is defined as having no (verified) objective evidence? Science's method defines objective reality .. and that process calls for test results. There is a contradiction here.
iii) Also, you said:

The speculations do not assert that alien life exists, they assess the probability that such is the case. Since these speculations (the serious ones) are based upon a multiplicity of observations and well founded theories they do not qualify as opinions,

None of the 'well founded theories' you refer to, have tested out beyond the Earth context. They are thus treatable as beliefs (under test) when it comes to a beyond earth context where a belief is defined as: 'A belief is any notion held as being true for any reason'.
There is therefore no: 'such is the case'.

I don't hold with the notion of belief, except in a loose, colloquial sense. I don't believe anything, but I accept a great deal. I accept things that are well established through observation. It's possible that the sun will not rise tomorrow, but I find it pragmatic to work on the basis that it probably will.

So do I .. however, the case of the notion of alien life existing has no objective support, whereas the sun rising does (abundant, observational).
I can remove any lack of clarity in my meaning of belief here by defining it as: 'A belief is any notion held as being true for any reason'.

These were the observations outwith the biosphere that are relevant to the speculations. You had claimed no such information was available. (You don't like the phrase "mistaken impression", so substitute your own.)
Other information relevant to the calculations comes from organic chemistry, biochemistry, geochemistry, microbiology, genetics, etc. - all comfortably within our biosphere.

i) What 'calculations' might those be? I am unaware of any calculations leading us to conclude that alien life is probably out there. (We are dealing with an hypothesis under test here .. not some empirical physical theory which makes empirical predictions, no?)
ii) The 'relevancy' of the observations you presented is, at best, solely dependent upon inference reasoning, (note: a logic based thinking process is invoked here .. and not the scientific method), since they produce no objective outcome directly related to a beyond earth context. Logic based reasoning posits the existence of some truth value .. otherwise true/false gets trashed .. along with the entirety of math axioms, as well as the philosophical logic relied upon for this reasoning.

There is no alternative in the logic based reasoning you invoke here other than 'alien life exists is true' and thus, the above definition of 'A belief is any notion held as being true for any reason', defines it as also being a belief.

Improbability is implicit in probability.

Uncertainty is implicit in the data underpinning probabilities (eg: distributions) .. We have only have one data point .. and no data on any hypothetical parent population proposed throughout the universe.

Fine. Produce a citation of a research paper in a reputable, peer reviewed journal that evidently argues from the premise that alien life exists.

Before proceeding, whatever do you mean by the term 'alien life'? Do you mean 'earth-life' inferred as existing some place other than Earth?

Please also note that I did say (please note emboldenment/underline): '(is all I'm really saying here .. and, IMO)'

You haven't revealed it thus far.

.. and you haven't produced a distinction which would permit us to accept that you have objective evidence which separates that 'alien life' exists in the first place from the belief that the term itself carries any tested meaning other than earth-life only. See, every term in science (including its hypotheses) carries an operational meaning .. meaning that it has already been tested in its applicable specified context .. So where is this, in the case of the term 'alien life'?
I'm happy with going forward with the term carrying a believed meaning .. so long as we all remember that exception ..

If you can meet my prior challenge then you may have succeeded.

I await your clarification of an operationally acceptable meaning which distinguishes 'alien life' from 'earth life' .. after all, earth's life has a huge objective data basis sourced from earth .. whereas 'alien life' has zip .. (unless we hold it as being a belief that alien life exists, of course).

You are the one who keeps going on about truth. I don't think science has much to do with truth (unless we are talking formal logic). Perhaps you could explain why you think it does.

I don't mind stepping up to discussing what I mean by 'truth'. Truth in science is never anything more than the last best tested theory (meaning its measured results). They are held as being 'true' simply because they've already tested out.
General philosophically held truths however are usually untestable .. and they are indistinguisable from a belief, where a belief can be defined as: 'A belief is any notion held as being true for any reason'.

you have started talking about predictions, when I am talking about probabilities.

So .. is there a problem in doing this, when the real problem is that you offer probabilities as being 'an objective reality'? (I thought I was being reasonable in conceding that the overall hypothesis is testable and that is may even make some kind of probablistic predictions).
If probabilities are taken as being an objective reality, then there should be a test I can do which already verifies the probabilities .. yet there are no such results produced from such a test.

The objective reality portrayed by the speculations is the probability of alien life. The probabilities are an objective reality, the alien life is not.

Then the probabilities mean nothing more than a belief does.

I probably have it wrong, but you are coming across as wanting to argue with a mindset you think exists (and perhaps it does), but it has nothing to do with the scenario I have been discussing.

The basis of your argument is not a scientific one .. and the only alternative, until proper contextual objective evidence is produced, is that it is a belief .. which is no different from all the others except that it has been turned into a testable hypothesis (the latter however, doesn't mean that its not still a belief).

You are talking about truth, and belief and predictions, none of which are part of my lexicon on this subject. You claim there is no relevant data on the topic outside the biosphere, then complain that my list isn't comprehensive. My position is simple: sound speculations about alien life are based upon evidence. Characterising them as being based upon opinions is false and that is demonstrable. I believe (colloquially) I have demonstrated it.

You have not demonstrated this ... and what I have said is that the basis of what we mean by 'alien life' is an untested belief.
My position is a scientific one and is consistent.

Cheers & Regards

 

[SelfSim]

I'd be extremely happy to have evidence for alien life, but I don't like to get my hopes up.

See, we all seem to accept that we actually know what 'alien life' means .. but we don't have a clue about what this term actually means. Therefore we have total flexibility in tossing a coin and changing it (some astrobiologists do exactly this .. eg: Titan based methanogens).

My overall point in raising all this, is that our tests for exo-life can be just as easily argued as being soo specific to 'earth-life' to the extent that we run the risk (yes a probabiility argument) that we many overstep some un-earth-like 'lifeform' that didn't comply with our definitions, which were originally sourced from the earth context (alone), because we are are so focused on that definition (and context).
The design our detection methods, including test equipment (and even the 'testability' of the hypothesis) has also come from our own earthly context.

The demonstrable fact is that 'alien life' is an informed hunch we have, for which we have a pre-specified range of tests for detecting its presence if our guess of what it may be, turns out to be a match, and we find such a specimen. How narrowly or widely that test is scoped at the moment .. is totally up for grabs .. (as long as it can be framed as a testable hypothesis).
There is a lot of scope for an equal footing argument/proposal on this one ..

(I really, really wanted KIC 8462852 to be actual advanced aliens, but it's probably not.)

Well at least you know its a hope (or a desired belief) .. That's the real 'important thing' to remember in such speculative discussions ... (IMHO).

 

[stevevw]

Intelligence is a costly adaption.

We don't know the exact pressures that made the evolution of homo sapiens possible, but it may be a very unlikely convergence.

* Intelligence,
* cooperation/socialisation,
* tree climbing adapted fine manipulators,
* adaption to savanna that leaves some manipulators free rather then lost
* sufficient yet varied food available to encourage intelligence but allow resources to develop it

None of these things are a guaranteed consequence of our kind of life.

With other mammals, birds, dinosaurs and mollusks, intelligence can be useful, but the transition to technological intelligence could be extremely rare and unlikely.

What you forget is according to evolution theory that a species will not survive if they do not find a way to avoid a threat and survive. So adapt to the Savanna or die or cooperate or live in conflict which makes it even costlier to live.

I guess this will only happen if an alien planet has a similar environment to earth. But water, oxygen and sunlight are important parts of life which are the main things scientists look for on other planets so it is quite possible for other planets to produce similar outcomes. But even if there is a different outcome to earth it seems evolution works towards intelligent beings like humans as we are ultimately capable of survival under almost any conditions and able to defend ourselves against all other species. So the cream is bound to rise to the top eventually.