EPTPlanets that can potentially support life... - Page 21
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
midftw
Canada170 Posts
| ||
|
summerloud
Austria1201 Posts
On April 30 2012 13:27 songohan wrote: this made me thing that we humans are like bacteria , evolving and evolving then searching for other planets (organisms) to spread to. and I'm not implying that we're parasites, bacteria can be good too! and what exactly makes a bacterium 'good' or 'bad' in your opinion? | ||
|
Zrana
United Kingdom698 Posts
i still tend to believe it was a one-time event. one shouldnt assume earth to be less significant just because the cosmos is so big. a very interesting argument for the cosmos actually not being big at all but just big enough for us to exist was given by wheeler in the anthropic cosmological principle: assuming what we know about the physical laws of the universe is correct, the universe has to be the size it is since its size is linked to its age due to the process of expansion. and it has to be as old as it is since it has to have enough time for a couple of generations of suns to die in supernovaes to spread enough heaver elements into the cosmos to enable a mineral-rich planet like earth to exist anywhere in the universe Your logic is backwards: The universe is not designed for us, we simply came about because of how it is. | ||
|
Kazahk
United States385 Posts
| ||
|
summerloud
Austria1201 Posts
On April 30 2012 14:46 Zrana wrote: Your logic is backwards: The universe is not designed for us, we simply came about because of how it is. i didnt claim the universe was designed for us (although i personally believe so), the statement i made is basically the weak anthropic principle: the conditions that are observed must allow an observer to exist. you probably know about all the fine-tuning argument like any of the elemental constants being slightly different wouldnt allow life to exist. we obviously have a set of physical laws and elemental constants that do allow life to exist, however in order for life to exist the universe must first reach a certain age/size given our laws and constants. its not a design argument really. look at it just as another factor of our universe that, if it was any different, wouldnt allow observers to exist. thus the universe has to be big. also, if you do believe in a creator, then maybe the easiest way to create a universe that can harbor life on a single planet is to make the universe massive. so basically either way the vastness of space is not a valid argument to use against anthropocentrism imho, and its an even worse argument to use for the existance of extraterrestial life since it is only one of the factors (most of them basically unknown) in the famous drake equation | ||
|
DyEnasTy
United States3721 Posts
| ||
|
Miyoshino
314 Posts
| ||
|
Aelfric
Turkey1496 Posts
On April 30 2012 15:17 summerloud wrote: i didnt claim the universe was designed for us (although i personally believe so), the statement i made is basically the weak anthropic principle: the conditions that are observed must allow an observer to exist. you probably know about all the fine-tuning argument like any of the elemental constants being slightly different wouldnt allow life to exist. we obviously have a set of physical laws and elemental constants that do allow life to exist, however in order for life to exist the universe must first reach a certain age/size given our laws and constants. its not a design argument really. look at it just as another factor of our universe that, if it was any different, wouldnt allow observers to exist. thus the universe has to be big. also, if you do believe in a creator, then maybe the easiest way to create a universe that can harbor life on a single planet is to make the universe massive. so basically either way the vastness of space is not a valid argument to use against anthropocentrism imho, and its an even worse argument to use for the existance of extraterrestial life since it is only one of the factors (most of them basically unknown) in the famous drake equation I still can't get your mindset though. If 1 / [All the life supporting planets out there] is the chance of us being evolved as what we are, 2 / [All the life supporting planets out there] is the possibility of somewhere another species exists or existed. What you're saying doesn't change anything at all, it is what it is. | ||
|
ArchAngelSC
England706 Posts
On April 30 2012 18:44 Miyoshino wrote: The universe was designed for us? That's one of the most random statements I ever hear, lol. How do you even come up with something like that? I mean, there's no evidence for it, but how do you get to such a line of throught? The universe is a big big place and nothing in nature is 'designed' and humans are just nothing in the size of all stuff. The universe being designed for us is a very widely accepted theory (not saying it's the only one, just one of many). You must still be in your early years of education if you do not know this. | ||
|
Aelfric
Turkey1496 Posts
On April 30 2012 20:30 ArchAngelSC wrote: The universe being designed for us is a very widely accepted theory (not saying it's the only one, just one of many). You must still be in your early years of education if you do not know this. It's not a scientific theory. It's just a religious idea. Nothing found in science points out to a universe designed for us yet. We're just in a tiny part of universe that is in order for a tiny bit of a timeline. This part will find it's chaos when the time comes too. The universe is what it is, nothing less nothing more. Althought i agree with you that it's odd he hasn't heard of this "idea" yet. | ||
|
TritaN
United States406 Posts
On April 30 2012 20:30 ArchAngelSC wrote: + Show Spoiler + On April 30 2012 18:44 Miyoshino wrote: The universe was designed for us? That's one of the most random statements I ever hear, lol. How do you even come up with something like that? I mean, there's no evidence for it, but how do you get to such a line of throught? The universe is a big big place and nothing in nature is 'designed' and humans are just nothing in the size of all stuff. The universe being designed for us is a very widely accepted theory (not saying it's the only one, just one of many). You must still be in your early years of education if you do not know this. No, it is not a "very widely accepted" theory. Intelligent Design is laughed at by the scientific community. Absolutely nothing in the known universe suggests design of any sort, other than what the laws of physics are able to produce of their own volition. As the above poster noted, ID is NOT a scientific theory. | ||
|
Yorbon
Netherlands4272 Posts
On April 30 2012 20:38 Aelfric wrote: Never will, science rules out such a statement. (not saying it to be false)It's not a scientific theory. It's just a religious idea. Nothing found in science points out to a universe designed for us yet. We're just in a tiny part of universe that is in order for a tiny bit of a timeline. This part will find it's chaos when the time comes too. The universe is what it is, nothing less nothing more. Althought i agree with you that it's odd he hasn't heard of this "idea" yet. I must say that most of the planets found that 'may support life', we know almost nothing about. These planets have some favorable factors, but there are a lot of unknown parameters still undiscovered. This will change rapidly because of new technologies, but to make statement on how many life-supporting planets there are or other general issues like that, is quite premature. Currently, the kepler mission helps a lot in the sense that these are the most accurate measurments up to date. In my bachelor thesis, we are currently creating a new method of finding exoplanets. we can find effects of the order of magnitude 10 ppm with a singal to noise of 7 or 8. first indications are that there might be (we don't discover planets, further measurements are necessary, before we can be certain) a lot more heavy planets in close orbit than we expect. This (along with literature research) says to me that we actually do not really have a lot of a clue. We are only at the beginning of exploring planets and the behaviour of solar systems. | ||
|
Nallen
United Kingdom134 Posts
On April 30 2012 20:30 ArchAngelSC wrote: The universe being designed for us is a very widely accepted theory (not saying it's the only one, just one of many). You must still be in your early years of education if you do not know this. Come on guys, obvious trolling. | ||
|
Aelfric
Turkey1496 Posts
| ||
|
ArchAngelSC
England706 Posts
On April 30 2012 20:38 Aelfric wrote: It's not a scientific theory. It's just a religious idea. Nothing found in science points out to a universe designed for us yet. We're just in a tiny part of universe that is in order for a tiny bit of a timeline. This part will find it's chaos when the time comes too. The universe is what it is, nothing less nothing more. Althought i agree with you that it's odd he hasn't heard of this "idea" yet. Well it just comes down to a persons bias on how you view what your observe. For example, a scientist that believes the evolutionary theory will see something and say "this developed into being like this because it is the best way to be", whereas a scientist who believes the creation theory will see that same thing and say "it was designed like this because this is what is required" and really they're both just as unprovable as each other. | ||
|
DaCruise
Denmark2457 Posts
On April 30 2012 20:30 ArchAngelSC wrote: The universe being designed for us is a very widely accepted theory (not saying it's the only one, just one of many). You must still be in your early years of education if you do not know this. The Earth is designed for us. The universe is NOT! If it was then why is it so insanely difficult to launch anything, especially people, into space? If Earth wasnt such a fantastic planet to live on it would be our prison, perhaps for eternity. | ||
|
Aelfric
Turkey1496 Posts
On April 30 2012 21:11 ArchAngelSC wrote: Well it just comes down to a persons bias on how you view what your observe. For example, a scientist that believes the evolutionary theory will see something and say "this developed into being like this because it is the best way to be", whereas a scientist who believes the creation theory will see that same thing and say "it was designed like this because this is what is required" and really they're both just as unprovable as each other. You are terribly misinformed. Creatures doesn't evolve because "it's the best way to be". They mutate randomly, the new adaptations helps the creature with it's enviroment stays active geneticely, others get disabled. Those disabled genes may pass to the children too, they just stay disabled or re-evolve to be more effective. No serious scientists has the guts to claim evolution is not a fact anymore. Even Michael Behe accepted it. They figure things out, some of them just don't admit it. And yes, The universe being designed really isn't a scientific theory. Never could be. | ||
|
Aelfric
Turkey1496 Posts
On April 30 2012 21:19 DaCruise wrote: The Earth is designed for us. The universe is NOT! If it was then why is it so insanely difficult to launch anything, especially people, into space? If Earth wasnt such a fantastic planet to live on it would be our prison, perhaps for eternity. Sigh. Earth is not designed for us. We fit in to the earth. If Earth would be designed for us humans would exist as soon as the world exists. Well, it didn't happen that way. Earth seems to be 4,5 billion years old and our evolution took millions of years, billions if we count all the ancestors. We found our way into the earth by adapting to the enviroment arround us and it took time and the process is still going on. We will adapt to the space with our technology, we are not evolved for space because we never had to survive in that enviroment. Macro evolution takes thousands, millions of years so we can't wait to adapt via biology but our technology and scientific improvements are incredibly fast so we will find our way into space too. | ||
|
Miyoshino
314 Posts
Certain enviromental conditions favour certain traits. This is very specific and never random. The enviroment needs to enforce a certain trend for a long enough period of time and then it will have an effect. This can be referred to as 'survival of the fittest'. The enviroment will chizzle away at the genetic diversity in the gene pool. Certain traits will become more dominant. Others will be filtered out. The gene pool of a certain population is thus always in flux. And if the enviroment favours certain conditions for a long enough period, they will become sufficently expressed. Because of this certain species may become highly specialized, which is actually very bad once their niche starts to disappear. It's all about niches. You evolve to fit a certain niche. Then there's also sexual selection which is quite conter intuitive and tricky to understand. Of course the theory of evolution as a whole is not disputed. What is debated about is certain mechanisms and interpretation. Does it happen in quick fast bursts or is it gradual and slow? How does the evolutionary tree of a certain species look like and why did it evolve the way it did? The earth is not designed for us, lol. We evolved to fit out niche on earth, which is still basically the African savanne. It's a backwards argument. The earth was here first. Then we evolved to survive on it. Dump us on some other planet where life can evolve and we die. Say evolution is convergent enough so on other plantets they also have trees with fruits. We can't eat those fruits. Not because that planet wasn't designed for us and earth was but because we evolved on earth. Our lungs evolved to breathe oxygen because that's what we need. But give us 70% ogygen atmosphere and we die. Why? Our lungs are finetunes to absorb oxygen at a certain rate determined by the percentage of oxygen in the air. Make the air have less oxygen and we have problems too. But in fact people that live in extreme high mountains like Tibet and areas in the Andes and those peole don't get altitude sickness. They have genes that give them lungs more adapted to lower oxygen percentages. If the oxygen percentage on our planet was way higher, we wouldn;t need such big lungs which is a bonus. Well ignore the problem of oxygen reacting with a lot of stuff, lol. If I designed a planet to have intelligent beings because I am a god in a boring universe and I am all powerful so why not I would do things way different. I wouldn't design my creatures to have to rot and decay away other organisms inside their bodies to get energy. That's cruel and nasty and not needed. I make them autotrophic. I also would do away with sexes. No need for that. A form of reproduction is needed. Look at how much problems our evolved cruel genes cause. Sexual reproduction causes competition. All our negative emotions can be traces back to sexual reproduction. Also, I would not put them on a sphere. I would put them inside a sphere. At the center I would place a source of daylight. No need for day and night or seasons. No need for stars or galaxies either. Just the inside surface of a sphere with a source of energy, like how the ancients understood the sun, in the middle. I would also hardcode a language into them. This way they all speak the same language and they can never not have learned it. This solves the problem which the mythology like the tower of Babel had to solve. If you think about it, the way the world is is the last way you would make it if you had the option to design it. I don't believe in a trickster god. And if you believe in a god that created everything, but you don't know how she did it, then the best account of how and why she created what he did is to look at life itself. Not at some book written by a desert people of a backward civilization, with morals worse than todays Taliban. | ||
|
lolmlg
619 Posts
On April 30 2012 15:17 summerloud wrote: also, if you do believe in a creator, then maybe the easiest way to create a universe that can harbor life on a single planet is to make the universe massive. so basically either way the vastness of space is not a valid argument to use against anthropocentrism imho This would be a rather absurd statement for anyone who believes in an all-powerful god to use, though. What does "easier" even mean if you can do anything with no effort? | ||
| ||
