True Scientists Recognize The Source Of Science

@DanielsASJ you're looking at how things are, and saying that's how things had to be.
But if things were not the way they are, they'd be different.
Pure happenstance doesn't need luck.

@newjaninev2 So much luck that you appeared in my comment. Welcome

@DanielsASJ The likelihood of the earth being the way it is to support human life is astronomical. However, the universe is so vast that this can occur given the sheer amount of planets in the universe. It's like the odds of winning the lottery are very low, but if you play it 13 trillion times, the odds increase.

@JimboSaturn I don't get the 13 trillion times thing

@DanielsASJ I figure of speech to mean a lot.

@DanielsASJ There are an estimated 2 trillion galaxies. The Milky Way galaxy alone has 100 to 200 billion stars. Astronomers are finding that many stars have planets revolving around them, and some are located at the right distance from the star to support liquid water. Astronomers have tried to estimate the probability of life in the universe beyond Earth (the Drake Equation is a well-known example) and it appears likely that we are not alone.

I love your erroneous and misinformed asteroid example. Small asteroids hit the earth every day, contributing to the 15,000 tons of extraterrestrial material that ends up on earth every year. Large ones hit much less frequently, but they do occur, including the one(s) that hit about 66 million years ago and ended the Cretaceous Period.

We know Mars had liquid water on the surface and an atmosphere that allowed it to persist for millions of years. Liquid water still exists on Mars deep beneath the surface. We haven't found life there yet, but it would not be surprising at all if we did.

@DanielsASJ Your fallacy here is known as the "anthropic principle." Yes, it's a rare combo of conditions that allow life to develop. But in the places where those rare conditions don't exist (Mars & Venus, e.g.) nobody is there to observe the frequency of conditions.

Another way to say it is these conditions select for life; others don't.

And speaking of coincidence, is this coincidence or not??

@ElwoodBlues Whatever you may name the principle. In this whole universe, or atleast in the solar system and nearby galaxies, only Earth is the LUCKIEST to have life? Not even Venus or Mars?

Forget about it. It takes drawing things from scratch. You already overwhelm yourself everyday with a new principle.

@DanielsASJ According to Wikipedia, Most are within 100 light years, with the farther planets being mostly gas giants like Jupiter.

To support life, the planet must be in the habitable zone, have a protective magnetic field, and an excess of water. Just because the Earth has these features doesn't make it common. For example, Mars used to have water, but because of a weak magnetic field, the solar wind slowly eroded its atmosphere. Venus has lots of water, but it suffered runaway greenhouse effect and became too hot for life.

Which brings us to the next condition: billions of years of habitable conditions. The first microbes on Earth appeared about 3.7 billion years ago. Multicellular life didn't appear until 600 million years ago. That 3.1 billion years for single cell life to evolve is a LONG TIME, and we don't know how rare extended habitable conditions are.

The nearest galaxy big galaxy is Andromeda, 2.5 million light years away; others are much farther (dwarf galaxies don't have that many stars). We cannot pick up radio signals from nearly that far away.

How far can we receive signals from? Suppose there's a planet similar to the Earth with life transmitting radio signals similar to ours.

Key question: How far away could this earth-like planet with earth-like radio activity be such that we could still detect them with SETI?
Answer: about 100 light years. That's not that big a neighborhood in which to be listening.

@DanielsASJ Your error lies in your reliance on hindsight and the assumption that what we see today was, at some time, a goal.

You are looking at what is here now and saying that it's highly improbable that all of this (the planet and the life on it) would exist in the form we currently see.

But if the planet and the life on it did not exist in the form we currently see, then something else would exist... or nothing would exist.

What we currently have, and what we currently see, didn't have to exist. It never had to exist... until it did.

It is exactly the same for me. Given that my parents were fecund and sexually active, it was highly probable that they would produce a child.

Yet it was blindingly, incomprehensibly, improbable that they would produce me. Yet here I am, as I am today, appearing in your comment.

@newjaninev2 Good that your parents did so. But why can't a child be born out of sweat of a single parent? Why it requires two? Why is their 99.9% uniformity in the procedure? Who maintains this law? If a procedure is uniquely carried out in every living individual, then there should be some law like the law of Gravity governing it.

Who actually forms these laws?
We know that Constitutional laws are framed by the Congress.

@DanielsASJ
The same pair that have enabled, directed, and maintained, all life - sex and death

If you have one, you need the other.
If you have both, you need nothing else.

@newjaninev2 Not an answer to my question.

@DanielsASJ I said: sex and death

What do you find to be unclear about that?

@newjaninev2 Who actually forms these laws?

@newjaninev2 Why do we need to die like the engine of a car? Why can not any species live forever like the earth? Who governs the law of death or the law of life?

There is a law, you know that, Right? My simple question is who is entitled to frame these laws? Or even for the sake Law of Gravity? Who has written in a book that gravity needs to be there?


Even if I presume somehow that Human beings evolved upto this to support their existence? Should not these laws too evolve to support the existence of species on earth?

You can not say Point blank - "Law of Nature". Then, my question is "Who is nature? Who has given power to nature to form these laws?

@DanielsASJ

Species exist within environments. Environments are constantly changing. If a species is unable to meet those changes, it will go extinct. That has happened to 99.9% of all species that have ever existed. That's not a law, it's simply a predictable effect of a hostile environment causing the death rate to surpass the rate of reproduction... simple arithmetic.

(Incidentally, the Earth will not 'live' forever. It's 4.5 billion years old and is middle-aged. In around another 5 billion years the Sun will expand and destroy the Earth. Still, 10 billion years is a good innings, I suppose) 😀

You seem to be using the word 'law' as if it were some sort of imposed rule, but that isn't how the word is used when referring to the natural world. In order to be a natural law, a law must describe some consistent aspect of the universe and be based on repeated observation. Sometimes the law applies only under certain well-defined conditions, outside of which it breaks down.

The important thing to note is that human societal laws are prescriptive, whereas natural laws are descriptive.

@newjaninev2 Lot of what you wrote is called WORD SALAD but , I am not hungry atm.

@DanielsASJ Point out the parts that are scrambled and I'll see if I can reword them for you

@DanielsASJ Alternatively we can work through it together step by step e.g.

Species exist within environments - do you agree?

Environments are constantly changing - do you agree?

@newjaninev2 These are not my questions though.

My questions are -

1)
2)

3)

4)

@DanielsASJ I'm sure you understand what you mean by these questions.

@newjaninev2
Are you going to answer his questions or aren't you?

@GodSpeed63 Questions 1 and 3 are basic science questions that can easily looked up.
Questions 2 and 4 are questions asking who created these laws and why? There is not who created them, and no why, they just simply are. Who and why? are silly questions.

@GodSpeed63 She answered, and she has offered to walk him thru her answers step by step. He seems to be refusing to take the first step.