posted
Er...at the risk of giving this thread a one way ticket to the flameboard, what any of us "believe" is irrelevant. Evolution operates on a certain set of rules.
------------------ "What did it mean to fly? A tremor in your soul. To resist the dull insistance of gravity." -- Camper Van Beethoven
posted
Well, yes, but do you know for certain what those rules are? I mean, physics works on a set of rules, too, but we still haven't figured out most of them, so there are still different schools of "belief" out there...
------------------ me: "I need a new sig..." CC: "Well create one." -why I don't have a real signature
posted
What generally happens when there is no "need" to evolve, that is, no environmental changes forcing adaptation, is "specialization," when the same life form diverges into similar, yet slightly different forms, each creating its own niche. The problem with specialization is that it makes it that much harder to adapt IF the situation changes and instability is introduced.
The main flaw of the argument is that thus far, the actual statistical sample is vanishingly small, and thusly no concrete solutions may be derived from it. It's like picking one person at random off the Earth, and then deciding that all humans are redheaded blind sex maniacs with a blue Ford car who like football, eat at Taco Bell, and write books about war.
------------------ "Nobody knows this, but I'm scared all the time... of what I might do, if I ever let go." -- Michael Garibaldi
posted
Well, the only thing true in that sample about ME is the 'blue Ford car,' which is actually a Mercury, but that's close enough. Oh, and there might be some argument in the 'sex maniac' category, but that's it.
------------------ "Nobody knows this, but I'm scared all the time... of what I might do, if I ever let go." -- Michael Garibaldi
[This message has been edited by First of Two (edited March 29, 2000).]
posted
Are lunar tides actually necessary for the formation of complex life forms? Possibly, but has anyone calculated the amount of "agitation" of solar tides alone (they do exist, and are measurable)? Would it be possible that a slightly lesser amount of tides (solar only, or at least primarily in the presence of small moonlets) could provide the amount of motion required?
And what about the effects of solar heating and cooling of, not only the ocean, but the seas themselves? Are they saying that these are insignificant forces? I don't think so.
It sounds to me as though the people who felt most comfortable with the theory that "proved" our solar system of panets to be a relative rarity, and thus life elsewhere impossible, have decided that, in the face of so many new planets being discovered everywhere we look, that some other reason must be found to "prove" that life on earth is unique, and cannot exist elsewhere.
------------------ "Goverment exists to serve, not to lead. We do not exist by its volition, it exists by ours. Bear that in mind when you insult your neighbors for refusing to bow before it." J. Richmond, UB Student
posted
I'm not sure anyone is trying to prove that life doesn't exist elsewhere. (That is, aside from the good folks at TBN.) But there is a very valid debate about what sorts of environments life can live in, and how common those environments are.
As many have pointed out, there simply isn't enough data to draw an accurate conclusion.
Anyway, regarding tides: Life in our oceans absolutely requires them. Solar tides do exist, and are a measureable phenomenon, but they are completely overwhelmed by the tidal powers of the moon. They don't do much, in other words.
------------------ "What did it mean to fly? A tremor in your soul. To resist the dull insistance of gravity." -- Camper Van Beethoven
posted
Well, some Creationists are fond of saying how the universe "must" show design, because the Earth is at the "perfect distance" from the sun, and rotates at "just the right" speed, and a load of other folderol that unsurprisingly sounds a great deal like the aforementioned statement, and is equally unsupported by any hard data.
------------------ "Nobody knows this, but I'm scared all the time... of what I might do, if I ever let go." -- Michael Garibaldi
posted
Interesting hijack attempt, but in the immortal words of Bart Simpson, buh? You equate the statement that life as we know it can only survive under a very strict set of conditions to random musings from the the Institute of Creation Research? I think you need to take several very deep breaths and refocus your priorities.
------------------ "What did it mean to fly? A tremor in your soul. To resist the dull insistance of gravity." -- Camper Van Beethoven
posted
Actually, Sol, those aren't "random musings," they're part of an oft-heard argument on various TV shows like (Oh, what was that show on Channel 40.. "Origins?").
And I was just making the observation that the assumptions "that we're 'unique' because conditions on this planet are 'just right'" are common to both schools of thought."
------------------ "Nobody knows this, but I'm scared all the time... of what I might do, if I ever let go." -- Michael Garibaldi
posted
And yet we are unique. I'm willing to bet a whole dollar that you won't be able to find Earthlike life anywhere else. How that idea can be twisted by certain people into "that must mean we're the only folks in the universe" is beyond my desire to comprehend.
Having said that, there is an easy way to either prove or disprove this. If life can be found on, oh, say Europa, then the idea of life being rare gets blown out of the water. No pun intended. Once is chance, but twice is a pattern. Life developing seperately in two locations in a single solar system is a great argument for life being able to arise just about anywhere.
Beyond that, such a discovery could say for sure whether our "type" of life is unique or not. As it stands now, I see no reason why anything about Earth life needs to be universal. All we need to start are self-replicating molecules, and it is likely that there were a whole host of those even here. DNA happened to "win" on Earth, but why should that extend to other planets?
If, on the other hand, you could show that just one extraterrestrial ecosystem was based on structures similar to our own (cells, etc), then I will happily concede that life is far more limited in the developmental choices it can make then I am assuming.
------------------ "What did it mean to fly? A tremor in your soul. To resist the dull insistance of gravity." -- Camper Van Beethoven
Printer-friendly view of this topic
