Silurian Hypothesis

We have found a pretty unbroken record of evolving liffe going back 500 or more million years. There are no records (fossil) of anythiing that appears to match the life found found in the past 200,000 years in capabilities.
 
Last edited:
But the point of the video is that fossils only form under very specific circumstances and the fossil record therefore only includes only .1% of all species.

If you had 10 board-game pieces and could see that they contained no Monopoly pieces, how confident could you be that a collection of 9990 that you cant see also contain no Monopoly pieces?

It just makes a point about reasonable inferences based on available evidence. (And another point, I think, about humankind's haughtiness).
 
Last edited:
I watched this other video from PBS a while ago and found it pretty interesting.
It used the Silurian Hypothesis as a starting point, but rather than trying to prove or disprove it, it went on to examine what we should be looking for and how that thought experiment could help us with searching for traces of advanced life on exoplanets.
 
But the point of the video is that fossils only form under very specific circumstances and the fossil record therefore only includes only .1% of all species.

If you had 10 board-game pieces and could see that they contained no Monopoly pieces, how confident could you be that a collection of 9990 that you cant see also contain no Monopoly pieces?

It just makes a point about reasonable inferences based on available evidence. (And another point, I think, about humankind's haughtiness).
Evolution does not work like board game pieces. We have mapped a pretty comprehensive Tree of Life. It may be incomplete, but it does not have any ancient branches that point towards life capable of industrial level living. We have tracked life up to and after the major extinction points. No traces of indusrial liiving.

Now could there be some 2-4 million year period (the time it took for humans to evolve) among the 500 million years of life that where human like capability evolved and then was destroyed? Possibly, but there is no evidence for it so far in our Tree of Life or in discovered objects. For it to be true one would have to find a place in the Tree where it fit. This just seems like more "Chariots of the Gods" thking to pick the pockerts of the gullible.
 
We have mapped a pretty comprehensive Tree of Life.
It's this very thinking that they are trying to get you to second guess. How confident can you be that that Tree of Life is complete, if it's based on fossil records for only .1% of species?

By the way, I don't differ from you on your main skepticism. Both this and the extraterrestrial speculation are motivated by a desire just not to be so lonely.
 
It's this very thinking that they are trying to get you to second guess. How confident can you be that that Tree of Life is complete, if it's based on fossil records for only .1% of species?

By the way, I don't differ from you on your main skepticism. Both this and the extraterrestrial speculation are motivated by a desire just not to be so lonely.
Where does that 1% come from? How many of the 99% would be of the tiny one celled or or smaller than insects variety? We might not have found all the various dinosaur species but do you think we have missed some significant group?
 
Where does that 1% come from? How many of the 99% would be of the tiny one celled or or smaller than insects variety? We might not have found all the various dinosaur species but do you think we have missed some significant group?

There's been around 300 million years of life where intelligence could evolve.

Vast majority of fossils found are aquatic.

The 0.1% is estimated on diversity on how many species likely should exists.

For land based stuff it's maybe 0.001 we have found.

It's more about hubris. Di we know what we're looking for and how we interpret it. What we do know is less than 200 years old as well.
 
I watched this other video from PBS a while ago and found it pretty interesting.
It used the Silurian Hypothesis as a starting point, but rather than trying to prove or disprove it, it went on to examine what we should be looking for and how that thought experiment could help us with searching for traces of advanced life on exoplanets.

Think I've seen that one before.
 
What is this overforestation idea? I don't recall that I ever heard that one.
it wasn't connected with an extinction event afaik but after the evolution of certain trees, the world was basically covered in them because there wasn't really anything immediately evolved to be able to eat them on a large scale. i don't know where i learned this idea sadly

basically wood contains a specific structure of fibrosity or a chemical or somesuch - whose name i don't remember - that requires certain enzymes to break down if you want to GET any kind of positive calories out of the process. it's cows breaking down grass on steroids (which such grazers need extremely complex digestive systems to do efficiently - think about what's needed to break down wood, then, on an effective scale, and particularly how long modern trees last after they die or whatever)
 
Last edited:
not quite knowing this, but knowing the history of life, the size and scope of the ocean and its life, why is this a pointer to anything?

It means intelligent land based life which the hypothesis relates to are even more rare.
 
Where do these numbers come from? We have identified 20% of non-threatened modern mammalian species in the fossil record, and 9% of threatened ones. You think we only have 1 in 100,000 for the past?

Video quotes those numbers.

99% of fossils apparently are aquatic. This us due to how fossils are created.

0.1 of known fossils numbers to vary but it's based on estimates of how many species likely existed.

Fossils in general are comparatively rare. We only see a small fraction if what existed and have found a tiny percent of what was fossilized.
 
You understand that there are things on the internet that are not absolutely true?

I'm aware but I've seen similar numbers elsewhere and in science articles.

The videos not pushing intelligent lizard men or whatever but examining a published paper.

Alot of people place to much faith in science. The opposite is also true. A good on admits what they don't know and updates their views on new evidence.
 
I'm aware but I've seen similar numbers elsewhere and in science articles.

The videos not pushing intelligent lizard men or whatever but examining a published paper.

Alot of people place to much faith in science. The opposite is also true. A good on admits what they don't know and updates their views on new evidence.
You are the one quoting a youtube video as fact.
 
the nauseating AI generated thumbnail is really putting me off here even more than the pseudo-conspiratorial speculation

If anyone here watches Doctor Who (most recent seasons), maybe they could tell if the thumbnail is taken from that show or inspired by it. I wouldn't know, since the last time I saw Silurians from that show was many years ago. The video narrator admits the name of the "hypothesis" was taken from Doctor Who.

(yes, I watched the video)

Heck, what if our universe is simply the latest iteration of the universe. How many "big bangs" over trillions and trillions of years may have occurred? Like the old scientist's lament, the more we know, the more we we realize how much we don't know.

The thing about the Big Bang is that before it happened, there wasn't anything - no subatomic particles, no time, no space. So it's not like anything from a previous universe is going to carry over. Assuming that the hypothesis of sequential universes has any validity to begin with. Personally I rather doubt it does.

I took one for the team and watched the video. None of you have to worry about watching it, actually. It's not advocating that there was such a civilization, just explaining a 2018 article that says we can't conclusively prove that there wasn't, and giving that article's reasoning for that considerably more modest thesis.

For myself, the best part is around 12:30. Because there he makes clear what I was thinking all along. There are actually two separate questions: could there have been previous intelligent life? and was there life that imitates our own industrialized carbon-burning societies? At 12:30, he indicates that we tend to conflate those two. What if, I ask, there was an intelligent species that was in fact more intelligent than we are, discerned the importance of sustainability and therefore deliberately took a principled hard pass on all of our forms of "civilization." Contented themselves with staying hunter-gatherers, with no tool more advanced than a sharpened stick. A society like that might well leave no material trace.

In other words, it's rather haughty of us to think that intelligent life necessarily = carbon-burning industrial life. After all, as we are increasingly coming to realize, maybe that's not in fact the most intelligent way to live, after all.

The idea that there could have been an earlier technological civilization that died out and we never found evidence for it isn't a new one. This video does seem to have a bit more of a scientific orientation than the kind of thing that previous ideas have included.

It made for one of the better Star Trek Voyager episodes ("Distant Origin"), in which a civilization of intelligent hadrosaurs made it off Earth before the asteroid hit, and traveled all the way to the Delta Quadrant, settled on a planet, and then developed a religious doctrine that claimed that's where their species first evolved. As I explained over on TrekBBS, the episode itself wasn't about intelligent hadrosaurs, per se, but rather about Galileo and the dispute he had with the Catholic church over the heliocentric theory, as well as the other discoveries he made (sunspots, mountains and craters on the Moon, Jupiter's moons, phases of Venus, etc.).
 
You are the one quoting a youtube video as fact.

And they're referencing an academic paper. We can nitpick numbers but broadly speaking I thought people here would be familiar with what they're talking about.

The videos not saying there's an intelligent industrialized pre human civilization but detecting it I harder than might think.

And we are making assumptions that said civilization would be like us.

At least 95% fossils are aquatic. Video used 99%. Doesn't change overall argument.


Less than 1/10th of 1%

 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom