Why Was Earth and Other Planets Formed With Only Animal and Plant Life?

rhinefire said:

1.You forget the mathematical probability of life elsewhere stating there is.
2. A single solar flare could singe Earth in one try.
3. There was most likely two stages of prehistoric life ,the first dying off from poisonous sulpheric gas.
4. We cannot at present avoid annihilation by meteorite but we are working on it.

Click to expand...

1. I didn't. I said that we haven't found life anywhere else yet. Why don't you read my comment?
2. No it couldn't. Solar flares happen all the time.
3. It is possible but we haven't found evidence of that. But some people speculated that there was another generation of life before the dinosaurs. What did I just say in the comment?

So we haven't found evidence of macroorganism life on this planet farther away than the dinosaurs. Some people once speculated that there may have been another "era" of life on the planet before the dinos, but there is no evidence of that. So we are part of the rebirth of life, a sort of, 2nd generation of life on the planet though we have SOME animals that exist from that dino era... like crocodiles and cockroaches and other insects.

Click to expand...

4. Yes we can avoid it because we have the technology. The next dangerous asteroid (important distinction) may hit with odds of 40.000 to 1 against in 2036 and we know where it would land. If we wanted, we can deflect it and increase the odds to 60k to 1 against or more, there is the technology in place just not the willpower to fund such a project. But the UN is working on it.


Read what I wrote.

Buck Ewer said:

The NYT author is not a scientist and neither are you.
No real scientist or mathematician will use the word "probability" when discussing life outside of earth...as I said, with only one data point we can only postulate the possibility that any given planet could host life.
You won't get "odds" for it in Vegas either...
You are still very confused about this.
This may help;

Read more: Difference Between Probability and Possibility
With only one data point only possibilities can be postulated. It is possible that there is life on other planets but without any evidence of that occurrence comes the equally viable possibility that there is not. No degree of certainty or uncertainty can be postulated from the lack of evidence, so a probability can not be established.

Click to expand...

I'm quite comfortable and justified by your definition.


The number of favorable cases for [at least] life as we know it, or life even not as we know it, (with even a different primordial soup) went up significantly with the discovery of far, far, more planets that can host such life or it's development in both number and other 'favorable' conditions.

rhinefire said:

So slimy creatures and creepy plants once rule the world for millions and millions of years. A giant meteorite ends the time for the giant creatures. Man shows up but only because the big boys were killed off by something trillions of miles away that just happened to hit Earth. Meteors hit us all the time but that one rock gave a whole new meaning to why this planet supports life. The position of the moon and sun are "perfect" to support life, so much so that one has to wonder why. So, if that rock never hit killing off the prehistoric creatures what would the purpose of Earth be? Before you answer it is widely held that if man had evolved he would not have survived on a planet crawling with giant Godzillas. Also, it is almost certain there are planets out there that have life but why if there are no intelligent species as well? Why is all this stuff here if there is not some incredible event or destiny in the future?

Click to expand...

There is so much wrong here, I honestly know not where to begin.

1. Massive die offs, usually due to climate change, always result in new species filling the void. Nothing magical there. It just is what it is.

2. The moon is actually the result of the earth being hit by a planet-sized object, roughly 4 Billion years ago. No magic there either.

3. Meteorites not only "killed the dinosaurs", they also brought to earth water, and quite possibly, if not highly likely, life.

4. There is no "destiny event" in the future. All there will be is another massive die off with more species evolving to take our place.

rhinefire said:

"The laws of physics"...have nothing to do with the conditions of life here

Click to expand...

If you believe in some kind of supernatural explanation for life, either that a God "made" life or some other intelligent design theory, then, ummm... okay.

But if you believe that life arose "naturally", and evolved "naturally", as I do, then they only way it possibly could have is according to the laws of physics (some of which we're aware of, others of which we're still painfully ignorant of and may always be).

mbig said:

I'm quite comfortable and justified by your definition.

Probability vs Possibility: ".. In other words it can be said that probability indicates the extent to which an event is likely to occur. It is usually measured by the ratio of the favorable cases to the whole number of cases that are possible. Hence it can be said that probability is a subset of possibility...​

The number of favorable cases for [at least] life as we know it, or life even not as we know it, (with even a different primordial soup) went up significantly with the discovery of far, far, more planets that can host such life or it's development in both number and other 'favorable' conditions.

Click to expand...

Wrong again "favorable" in the definition would translate in this application to places where life has been shown to exist...earth (one) So the ratio between known elements in the equation and the whole number Trillions of billions of possible planets is one in trillions of billions for life to be anywhere.
The favorable to the whole that would be required to establish a probability outside of earth's atmosphere is actually zero to trillions of billions.No probability whatsoever... though the possibility remains.
The Kepler study only shows that life "can" exist elsewhere in the universe and can not establish a likelihood, or probability of life occurring.
Sorry ... Millions of possibilities do not make one percentage point of probability.
I fully realize that you really "want" there to be a probability that life exists elsewhere but that is not science. All the scientific evidence can say is that there "could" be life elsewhere.

rhinefire said:

So slimy creatures and creepy plants once rule the world for millions and millions of years. A giant meteorite ends the time for the giant creatures. Man shows up but only because the big boys were killed off by something trillions of miles away that just happened to hit Earth. Meteors hit us all the time but that one rock gave a whole new meaning to why this planet supports life. The position of the moon and sun are "perfect" to support life, so much so that one has to wonder why. So, if that rock never hit killing off the prehistoric creatures what would the purpose of Earth be? Before you answer it is widely held that if man had evolved he would not have survived on a planet crawling with giant Godzillas. Also, it is almost certain there are planets out there that have life but why if there are no intelligent species as well? Why is all this stuff here if there is not some incredible event or destiny in the future?

Click to expand...

Hmm - I don't follow why Earth has to serve a purpose. Why can't things just exist because they exist.

And further, why wouldn't early 'man' be able to co-exist with large animals? Countless other animals have done so. Why couldn't early man do the same?

Aunt Spiker said:

Hmm - I don't follow why Earth has to serve a purpose. Why can't things just exist because they exist.

And further, why wouldn't early 'man' be able to co-exist with large animals? Countless other animals have done so. Why couldn't early man do the same?

Click to expand...

I think the (erroneous) logic is that they would eat us all.

Buck Ewer said:

I think the (erroneous) logic is that they would eat us all.

Click to expand...

Exactly. Why bother when there's bigger, more fleshy game afoot? Humans would be akin to a vermin. Like eating wild dog or monkey rather than larger animals that can sustain a big body longer.

Aunt Spiker said:

Hmm - I don't follow why Earth has to serve a purpose. Why can't things just exist because they exist.

And further, why wouldn't early 'man' be able to co-exist with large animals? Countless other animals have done so. Why couldn't early man do the same?

Click to expand...

I don't know what rhinefire wants to instigate by that logic. It makes no sense.

if humanity would have existed at the time the dinos existed, we would have probably still owned the planet just as we do today. Except that we wouldn't have having lions in zoos, but velociraptors. One issue is that we probably wouldn't have as much oil so you know... we'd go green energy early on

We would have tini-t-rex's instead of chihuahuas and what naught. Or we would have killed them all. We are the dominant species on the planet for a good reason.

I think he is implying that because the dinos got wiped out, and mammals started dominating the planet, and then we evolved or something... it's like, an act of God. God tossed a rock towards Earth, killed our "competition" and allowed us to exist. Which is bollocks because there's this asteroid called Apophis which is named after the Egyptian god of death which pretty much has our numbers. There's a good chance it'll hit us. Well, a better chance than you have to win the lottery. So unless religious fundamentalists would say that said asteroid is "a test" from God... well... if it is, it's kinda stupid and genocidal.

Buck Ewer said:

Wrong again "favorable" in the definition would translate in this application to places where life has been shown to exist...earth (one) So the ratio between known elements in the equation and the whole number Trillions of billions of possible planets is one in trillions of billions for life to be anywhere.
The favorable to the whole that would be required to establish a probability outside of earth's atmosphere is actually zero to trillions of billions.No probability whatsoever... though the possibility remains.
The Kepler study only shows that life "can" exist elsewhere in the universe and can not establish a likelihood, or probability of life occurring.
Sorry ... Millions of possibilities do not make one percentage point of probability.
I fully realize that you really "want" there to be a probability that life exists elsewhere but that is not science. All the scientific evidence can say is that there "could" be life elsewhere.

Click to expand...

I'm afraid you're wrong again.
And porked with your own definition as well.

again

mbig said:

I'm quite comfortable and justified by your definition.

Buck's Probability vs Possibility: ".. In other words it can be said that probability indicates the extent to which an event is likely to occur. It is usually measured by the ratio of the favorable cases to the whole number of cases that are possible. Hence it can be said that probability is a subset of possibility...​

The number of favorable cases for [at least] life as we know it, or life even not as we know it, (with even a different primordial soup) went up significantly with the discovery of far, far, more planets that can host such life or it's development in both number and other 'favorable' conditions

Click to expand...

And that is why scientists are duly excited.
It's worth noting as well, that I Used to have, and did argue your position on this very board until Kepler's discoveries.

Your new post only makes My point more solidly. Whatever the odds number/numertor you want to use, ie, "a Trillion Billion" was lowered by the the discovery of a VERY significantly higher absolute amount of planets/goldilocks planets.. the denominator.

mbig said:

I'm afraid you're wrong again.
And porked with your own definition as well.

again

And that is why scientists are duly excited.
It's worth noting as well, that I Used to have, and did argue your position on this very board until Kepler's discoveries.

Your new post only makes My point more solidly. Whatever the odds number/numertor you want to use, ie, "a Trillion Billion" was lowered by the the discovery of a VERY significantly higher absolute amount of planets/goldilocks planets.. the denominator.

Click to expand...

Sorry but no ...Logic is obviously not your strong suit.
Keep dreaming.

Read this a while ago and managed to find an online copy-

Extraterrestrial life could be extremely rare

Just because life emerged early on Earth does not mean that this is likely to occur on other Earth-like planets, says a pair of US astrophysicists. The researchers' new mathematical model says that life could just as easily be rare – putting a damper on the excitement surrounding the recent discovery of Earth-like planets orbiting stars other than the Sun.

rhinefire said:

So slimy creatures and creepy plants once rule the world for millions and millions of years. A giant meteorite ends the time for the giant creatures. Man shows up but only because the big boys were killed off by something trillions of miles away that just happened to hit Earth. Meteors hit us all the time but that one rock gave a whole new meaning to why this planet supports life. The position of the moon and sun are "perfect" to support life, so much so that one has to wonder why. So, if that rock never hit killing off the prehistoric creatures what would the purpose of Earth be? Before you answer it is widely held that if man had evolved he would not have survived on a planet crawling with giant Godzillas. Also, it is almost certain there are planets out there that have life but why if there are no intelligent species as well? Why is all this stuff here if there is not some incredible event or destiny in the future?

Click to expand...

Link?

When did that meteor hit earth and who proved it?

Manny said:

Which I do not deny. However, carbon is building block, and it's everywhere.

So, granted it's possible... but not PROVEN... for those who insist on seeing empirical proof in order to believe things... or even admit their POSSIBILITY.

Just sayin!

My view, regardless of origin is that life is the ultimate "product" of this universe, in the natural progression from pre-bosonic matter to simple atoms, to heavy elements, to molecules. These happened sequentially, through well understood processes. The complexity of organization increases over time, logically, through what we humans perceive as "laws" of the universe. The pinnacle of achievement, the most complex of molecules is DNA which is the blueprint for living organisms. And of all organisms KNOWN to us, we, the human beings, are the most complex and highly organized things there is. That is a fact, from which you may draw your own conclusions!

Click to expand...

Actually, there are organisms with significantly more DNA than us. The point is that the building blocks for life are found outside of this planet and organic chemistry is hardly revolutionary. The notion that life couldn't arise elsewhere is pretty silly. That's all within the realm of nature.

Why does complexity increase over time? There are plenty of organisms that haven't materially changed in millions of years.

obvious Child said:

Actually, there are organisms with significantly more DNA than us. The point is that the building blocks for life are found outside of this planet and organic chemistry is hardly revolutionary. The notion that life couldn't arise elsewhere is pretty silly. That's all within the realm of nature.

Why does complexity increase over time? There are plenty of organisms that haven't materially changed in millions of years.

Click to expand...

And the more planets that are Like us, the more likely the building blocks arose. (rater than say 900 F or -400 F ones)
Kepler revealed there are exponentially more rocky planets, and many, many, many more in the Goldilocks zone where those building blocks could brew.
As I said.

Manny's article, despite getting a disingenuous 'like' from Buck Ewer, Contradicts him. It is Full of "likelihoods" and "probability" Buck says didn't exist!

And of course, Manny's article (that life may be 'rare') is from August 2011, 3+ Years BEFORE Kepler Exploded the amount of Planets that could very well support earth-like life. Or even non-earth-like life.
Ooops!
The odds/Probability now obviously and dramatically changed.

Oh yeah, "logic" and "strong suits" is it Buck?
Nothing like trying condescension.. Uphill.
Even at that point it was knowingly dishonest/defeated.
Game Over.