There are hundreds of billions of galaxies at various distances from Earth. When we look out at those different distances, we are also looking out at time. So we have something of the full spectrum of galactic evolution. Even if these events happened "long ago" we should be witnessing them somewhere.
Locally, if these events happend long ago, surely they would have been here by now, harvesting our star.
That's also assuming such things are being being done on a large scale. My point is that we've only had the capability to see such things recently, while the universe is really old.
I personally just don't like definitive statements when there's no way for us to know the whole story.
I am open to the idea that there is evidence we don't have yet, but based on the evidence we do have, the original poster's point doesn't seem likely, even with modification. I understood your point, but as the sibling poster points out, we have the entire history of the universe essentially on display for us.
How can you be open to the idea there is evidence we don't have yet but still make a statement that the entire history of the universe is on display for us?
The entire history of the universe spread out before us in light-delayed time sequence is pretty much the definition of "knowing the whole story", right?
I don't believe we have total access to the entirety of the history of the universe for us to observe at will. If somehow we do, please point out an article that explains how it is possible.
Locally, if these events happend long ago, surely they would have been here by now, harvesting our star.