Intelligent Reasoning

Promoting, advancing and defending Intelligent Design via data, logic and Intelligent Reasoning and exposing the alleged theory of evolution as the nonsense it is. I also educate evotards about ID and the alleged theory of evolution one tard at a time and sometimes in groups

Friday, May 19, 2006

Factors required for Complex Life

The following is a list of things required in order to maintain/ sustain complex life- (outside of the required chemical processes at the cellular level). The point of the list is to show how very incredibly lucky we are. We won the cosmic lottery! Or is there a purpose for our existence? Does Occam’s Razor really favor one designed universe over multiple chance collisions & multiple lucky events? Does science really favor the chance collisions & multiple lucky events scenario? (also mixed in are the ways the factors aid in scientific discovery)

ID vs. sheer dumb luck- You decide.

Factors for complex life:

1. Liquid water
a. Enough surface water to help regulate the planet’s temperature
b. Good solvent
c. Transports minerals
d. The presence of liquid water means the planet is in the habitable zone of it’s local star (Sun)
e. The presence of liquid water defines the CHZ (Circumstellar Habitable Zone. The CHZ of our solar system lies between Venus & Mars. Some scientists have narrowed it to:
-If the Earth were 5% closer to the Sun – too hot, no liquid water
-If the Earth were 20% father away from the Sun- too cold carbon dioxide would build up

2. Carbon based
a. Great bonding affinities
b. Allows for complex macro-molecules

3. Terrestrial planet
a. Crust thin/ thick and pliable enough to allow for plate tectonics
b. Recycling of minerals
c. Plate tectonics means the crust is sitting on an active core
d. Must retain enough heat for convection, i.e. keep the core liquid
e. Convection mixes the elements & shapes the continents
f. Active iron core is required to generate a protective magnetic field
g. Magnetic field has to be strong enough to withstand the solar winds
h. Must provide protection from radiation

4. Oxygen atmosphere
a. Our oxygen/ nitrogen mix is good
b. Clear- allows for good viewing
c. Ours is <1% of planet’s diameter
d. Allows in the right kind of light for viewing

5. Stable circular orbit

6. Large Moon (see also Gonzalez, G., “Wonderful Eclipses,” Astronomy & Geophysics 40, no. 3 (1999): 3.18- 3.20) (J. Laskar et al., “Stabilization of the Earth’s Obliquity by the Moon,” Nature 361 (1993): 615-17)
a. Our Moon is ¼ the size of Earth
b. Stabilizes the Earth’s axis of rotation
c. Gives our oceans a required tidal action
d. Just so happens that our Moon is 400x smaller than the Sun, which is 400x farther away
e. Both with a very circular shape
f. Allows for perfect solar eclipses
g. Confirmed Einstein’s prediction with the 1919 solar eclipse (gravity bends light) when scientists photographed the Stars behind it. We could have only made that discovery during a total solar eclipse.
h. Light spectrum
i. Observing & studying the Sun’s chromosphere is made possible

7. Gas Giants
a. Protection from intruding cosmic debris
b. Great for observing & scientific discovery

8. Sun- Spectral type G2 dwarf main sequence star-
a. If it were smaller the habitable zone would shrink and any planets in that zone would be locked into a synchronous orbit (rotation = revolution) as our Moon is with us
b. Total number estimated in the Milky Way- 100 billion
c. Over 80% are low-mass red dwarfs (most likely lack a habitable zone)
d. 1-2% are massive short-lived blue giants
e. Only about 4% of the stars are early G-type, main-sequence stars like our Sun
f. 50% of those are in binary systems
g. Then we have to consider what % of those are in the Galactic Habitable Zone


9. Location in the galaxy- Galactic Habitable Zone
a. We are between spiral arms
b. Perfect for viewing
c. Not a lot of activity
d. Not too close to the violent and very active center
e. More radiation near the center
Neighbors
Not a good viewing platform from which to discover
Not so far away where the heavy elements are scarce

10. Fine-tuning
a. Laws of Nature
b. Laws apply here also apply anywhere
c. Constants that are independent of those laws

Summary:
Within the Galactic Habitable Zone
Within the Circumstellar Habitable Zone
Liquid water
Orbit a Spectral type G2 dwarf main sequence star
Protected by gas giants
Nearly circular orbit-
Oxygen rich
Correct mass
Large moon to stabilize the angle of rotation
Moderate rate of rotation
Terrestrial planet
Ratio of water to continents
Plate tectonic re-cycling
Magnetic field
Both plate tectonics and the magnetic field require the core have enough heat to keep it liquid. The convection currents mix the minerals before recycling and also produce the required magnetic field as it flows around the iron inner core.
The Earth’s orbit is slightly elliptical. When the Earth is closest to the Sun (perigee) the southern hemisphere is enjoying summer, i.e. the Earth’s axis of rotation has the southern hemisphere at a better angle (than the northern hemisphere) towards the Sun for absorbing its vital rays. The Earth has the bulk of its continents in the northern hemisphere. Water stores the heat and then transfers it around the globe.

The above list contains factors required for complex life, but life is not guaranteed to arise even if all factors are met. The fact that a large, stabilizing moon is required and ours just happens to provide us with a huge natural setting in which we can & have conducted a multitude of scientific experiments that have increased our knowledge base and confirmed scientific predictions, is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to evidence to support their finding that habitability = measure-ability. Think about it. In the accepted age view of the solar system & Earth, with the Moon’s recession rate coupled with the Sun’s expansion rate, these perfect solar eclipses, along with the scientific discoveries that accompany them, will soon be gone (10 million years). The best place for viewing eclipses, is also the only place in the solar system with perfect solar eclipses, is also the only place with conscious observers and we, intelligent observers, just happened to arrive when the scenario was best for scientific discovery.

Earthquakes, even though very destructive, are a necessary byproduct of the required plate tectonic recycling. They also offer us a way to measure the density of the material between designated points via the sound waves produced by plate movement. Volcanoes offer a way to vent the internal pressure. Without vents the internal pressure would build uncontrolled, until the planet exploded. Plate tectonics also means that there is an active core. An active core like the Earth’s creates a protective electro-magnetic field. The size of the field is important- too small and the solar winds blow it away; too large and life is a no-no. Volcanoes are part of the mineral recycling process. Volcanic ash also covers the ground, not only providing rich soil for future generations but also in some cases creating a time vault that enables scientists to get an excellent view of the past. To support plate tectonics a crust that is thick enough to support oceans and continents is required, but it can’t be so thick that it doesn’t have subducting plates to recycle vital minerals.

The laws that govern nature are independent of the constants that control them. IOW fudge with the constants and even though the outcome is changed, the law still remains true. And that change will, in all likely-hood, prevent the conditions required for complex life.

Did we win the “cosmic lottery”? Or is intentional design, design with the purpose of having said design be understandable and ensuring beings exist that can grow to understand it, the better explanation?



See also:

The Privileged Planet

44 Comments:

  • At 12:22 AM, Blogger Zachriel said…

    Well, with a hundred billion tickets (stars in the Milky Way), it's not so hard to win the lottery. Your list of coincidences just aren't that extraordinary. In any case, it would be hard to turn that into a valid scientific hypothesis, meaning a tentative and falsifiable assertion that would have empirical consequences. I mean what would the puddle think?

    Douglas Adams: A puddle wakes up one morning and thinks to itself, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!'

     
  • At 7:40 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    When puddles can "wake up and think" you may have a point. However all you are doing now is showing how desperate your anti-ID position is. Thanks again.

    Zach:
    Well, with a hundred billion tickets (stars in the Milky Way), it's not so hard to win the lottery.

    Actually it is- because of the number of factors required. After the factors required are considered the number of stars is dwarfed by the fraction made up by the factors.

    Conservative figures puts the calculation @ 100,000,000,000 (stars) x 1/1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000(factors)

    Zach:
    Your list of coincidences just aren't that extraordinary.

    Science demonstrates they are extraordinary.

    ZAch:
    In any case, it would be hard to turn that into a valid scientific hypothesis, meaning a tentative and falsifiable assertion that would have empirical consequences.

    It has been turned into valid science- it makes predictions, predictions that can be tested, confirmed or falsified.

    Oh yeah and it is all based on peer-reviewed scientific research.

     
  • At 8:56 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Breaking it down:

    100,000,000,000 stars
    x fraction of of stars that are early G dwarfs and at least a few billion years old
    x fraction of remaining stars in the GHZ
    x fraction of remaining stars near the corotation circle and with low eccentricity galactic orbits
    x fraction of remaining stars outside spiral arms
    x fraction of remaining stars with at least one terrestrial planet in the CHZ

    and then we get to planets. and not just any planet will do. It has to be the correct size. It has to have surface water. It has to have a very hot liquid iron core. The core has to be spinning. The planet must be rotating. Its axis of rotation must be stable (presence of a large moon will do this) The planet's crust must be thin enough to allow for plate tectonics. Then there is the atmosphere.

    Oh just so you know- these factors were derived by scientists working for NASA assigned to find out what it takes to have life. And if they are right we now know where to look - the best possibilities. Also as I said "Rare Earth" came to closely the same conclusions- that Earth and our solar system are rare. The authors of that book are not IDists.

     
  • At 10:28 AM, Blogger Zachriel said…

    joe g: "Conservative figures puts the calculation @ 100,000,000,000 (stars) x 1/1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000(factors)"

    As if you could make such a calculation.

    Gee. I just dealt a hand of bridge. You should see the layout of the cards. What are the odds? (About one in 10^68.)

    joe g: "Oh just so you know- these factors were derived by scientists working for NASA assigned to find out what it takes to have life."

    What is really odd is how you keep citing those who disagree with you.

    NASA: We don't know whether or not there is other intelligent life in the universe. There is no reason there shouldn't be. We know by our own existence that the universe is conducive to life.

     
  • At 10:55 AM, Blogger Zachriel said…

    joe g: "Also as I said "Rare Earth" came to closely the same conclusions"

    Ward and Brownlee assert that life is common, but ETI (extra terrestrial intelligence) is rare. Ward and Brownlee's hypothesis is not that the Earth is unique. In fact, they believe that ETI is probable, but believe it to be rare enough as to leave humans essentially isolated by space and time. Not all scientists accept their conclusions, but there is just not enough data to reach any firm conclusions.

     
  • At 11:02 AM, Blogger Zachriel said…

    Peter Ward, author of 'Rare Earth': "Maybe we have between ten and a hundred within our one hundred thousand light year wide galaxy, we’d [be] lucky. And once they're spaced out, once we have so few, the possibility of talking to them is low."

     
  • At 11:22 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    joe g: "Conservative figures puts the calculation @ 100,000,000,000 (stars) x 1/1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000(factors)"

    Zach:
    As if you could make such a calculation.

    It's been made by the scientists doing the research.

    joe g: "Oh just so you know- these factors were derived by scientists working for NASA assigned to find out what it takes to have life."

    Zach:
    What is really odd is how you keep citing those who disagree with you.

    I go with the data.

    Zach:
    NASA: We don't know whether or not there is other intelligent life in the universe. There is no reason there shouldn't be. We know by our own existence that the universe is conducive to life.

    You miss the point. Obviously you have issues with reading and reading comprehension.

    In an ID scenario we would expect more complex and intelligent life. However in a "sheer dumb luck" scenario (the anti-ID position) getting ALL of the factors in one place and time makes life a lot less likely, if not impossible.

    And again the scientific research that is behind the factors and the calculations were made by scientists doing the research for the NASA program.

     
  • At 11:25 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    This is too funny:

    Peter Ward, author of 'Rare Earth': "Maybe we have between ten and a hundred within our one hundred thousand light year wide galaxy, we’d [be] lucky. And once they're spaced out, once we have so few, the possibility of talking to them is low."

    Yeah that's scientific- "Maybe we have..."

    Yeah Pete, maybe we don't. By the looks of the data, we don't.

     
  • At 11:28 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    And this is funny:

    Zach:
    joe g: "Also as I said "Rare Earth" came to closely the same conclusions"

    Ward and Brownlee assert that life is common, but ETI (extra terrestrial intelligence) is rare.


    They can assertall they want. They don't have any data to support their assertion.

    Zach:
    Ward and Brownlee's hypothesis is not that the Earth is unique.

    It doesn't have to be unique to be rare.

    Zach:
    In fact, they believe that ETI is probable, but believe it to be rare enough as to leave humans essentially isolated by space and time. Not all scientists accept their conclusions, but there is just not enough data to reach any firm conclusions.

    Reality demonstrates we have plenty of data to make an informed scientific inference.

    You should read the book instead of arguing from ignorance.

     
  • At 1:45 PM, Blogger Zachriel said…

    joe g: "Yeah that's scientific- 'Maybe we have...'"

    It's your own cited authority.

    However, as the probabilities are based on very limited knowledge and a wide range of plausible values, a "Maybe" is appropriate.

    joe g: "They don't have any data to support their assertion."

    It's your own cited authority.

    However, they are working with the limited available data and attempting a reasonable extrapolation.

    joe g: "It doesn't have to be unique to be rare."

    Quite true. But if there are hundreds of such winners in each of the billions of galaxies, then the supposed luck is merely due to the limited perspective of the observer.

    joe g: "Reality demonstrates we have plenty of data to make an informed scientific inference."

    You just said, "They don't have any data to support their assertion."

    Your cited authority calls it hypothesis based on very limited information. For instance, they support SETI, and they surely support continued scientific investigation.

     
  • At 8:49 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    joe g: "Yeah that's scientific- 'Maybe we have...'"

    Zach:
    It's your own cited authority.

    However, as the probabilities are based on very limited knowledge and a wide range of plausible values, a "Maybe" is appropriate.


    It doesn't matter who you claim it is, "maybe" is not scientific and is not based on any real data.

    joe g: "They don't have any data to support their assertion."

    Zach:
    It's your own cited authority.

    When they start talking out of their arse, as opposed to following the data, they aren't anyone's authority.

    Zach:
    However, they are working with the limited available data and attempting a reasonable extrapolation.

    But there isn't ANY data that would demonstrate microbial life is common in the universe.

    joe g: "It doesn't have to be unique to be rare."

    Zach:
    Quite true. But if there are hundreds of such winners in each of the billions of galaxies, then the supposed luck is merely due to the limited perspective of the observer.

    If pigs had wings could they fly?

    joe g: "Reality demonstrates we have plenty of data to make an informed scientific inference."

    Zach:
    You just said, "They don't have any data to support their assertion."

    That was pertaining to Ward & Brownlee and their assertion that microbial life is common. "TPP" came after "Rare Earth" and as such had more scientific data to work with.

    Ya see Gonzalez was part of a NASA research team. And it was the data collected by that team that went into the book.

    It still remains- ALL of the factors mentioned in my OP have to be in the same place at the sametime just to sustain life. The factors do NOT gauratee life will arise.

    Heck just look at our solar system. There isn't another habitable planet or moon in it. And the extra-solar planets discovered thus far just show more of that.

     
  • At 11:07 AM, Blogger Zachriel said…

    joe g: "It doesn't matter who you claim it is"

    Are you trying self-parody? It's your cite!

    joe g: "But there isn't ANY data that would demonstrate microbial life is common in the universe."

    The existence of extraterrestrial life is still an open question, however, there is substantial evidence that it may be common based on the Principle of Mediocrity. We can support the application of this principle with some basic observations.

    * Life exists on at least one planet.
    * Life is based on carbon and liquid water.
    * Carbon and water are common in the visible universe.
    * Organic compounds readily form under a variety of conditions.

    * The Sun is a star.
    * There are hundreds of billions of stars.
    * There are planets around some stars.
    * Some planets likely have liquid water.

    You cited NASA, again. NASA: We don't know whether or not there is other intelligent life in the universe. There is no reason there shouldn't be. We know by our own existence that the universe is conducive to life.

     
  • At 8:57 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Lol!

    joe g: "But there isn't ANY data that would demonstrate microbial life is common in the universe."

    Zach:
    The existence of extraterrestrial life is still an open question, however, there is substantial evidence that it may be common based on the Principle of Mediocrity. We can support the application of this principle with some basic observations.

    Umm, you should read "The Privileged Planet". It thoroughly refutes the principle of mediocrity.

    Zach:
    * Life exists on at least one planet.

    Yes it does. But HOW it came to exist on this planet is still an open question. And scienbce tells us only life begets life.

    Zach:
    * Life is based on carbon and liquid water.

    LoL! Life is based on more than that. True without carbon or water we wouldn't have life...


    Zach:
    * The Sun is a star.

    Our Sun is a special type of star. Only 4% of the stars in our galaxy are like our Sun. Oh yeah- the scientific data demonstrates any habitable planet has to have a Sun like ours.

    ZAch:
    * There are hundreds of billions of stars.

    Again try following along:

    Breaking it down:

    100,000,000,000 stars
    x fraction of of stars that are early G dwarfs and at least a few billion years old
    x fraction of remaining stars in the GHZ
    x fraction of remaining stars near the corotation circle and with low eccentricity galactic orbits
    x fraction of remaining stars outside spiral arms
    x fraction of remaining stars with at least one terrestrial planet in the CHZ


    Zach:
    * There are planets around some stars.

    All the planets we know of have either the wrong orbit or are gas giants not conducive for life.

    ZAch:
    * Some planets likely have liquid water.

    Life is more than "just add water" and life is more than organic compounds.


    BTW I already responded to your NASA quote-mine.
    But here it is again:

    You miss the point. Obviously you have issues with reading and reading comprehension.

    In an ID scenario we would expect more complex and intelligent life. However in a "sheer dumb luck" scenario (the anti-ID position) getting ALL of the factors in one place and time makes life a lot less likely, if not impossible.

    And again the scientific research that is behind the factors and the calculations were made by scientists doing the research for the NASA program.

     
  • At 9:10 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Richard H:
    If you argue that the chance of life appearing on earth is less likely than design then you have to also accept that the designer is more likely to be natural than supernatural.

    That is irrelevant. The debate is NOT super natural vs. natural. The debate is intelligent, directed (goal oriented) processes vs. unintelligent, blind/ undirected (non-goal oriented) processes. The reason is, as I have stated in many of my posts, is that it ALL comes down to something non or super natural because the origin of nature could NOT have come about via natural proceses because natural processes only exist IN nature.

    Also the probabilities were calculated by SCIENTISTS! Scientists doing the research. So it appears you argument is with them.

    Did you read the book or watch the video? Your lottery analogy is taken care of...

    Richard H:
    For the record I believe it is highly possible that life on earth has been designed, but I find it highly improbable that the design was by a supernatural being.

    ID doesn't say anything about the supernatural.

    Richard H:
    However, I also believe it is possible that we have infact evolved on this planet.

    Evolved from what? The only scientific data we have pertaining to life is that only life begets life.

    Richard H:
    Probabilities, no matter how small the odds do not make something impossible.

    Extraordinary claims (like those trying to buck the odds) require extraordinary data (evidence).

    Richard H:
    Do you believe that it is impossible for life to have started on earth naturally or just unlikely?

    Bogus question as both intelligence and design are natural. However I do accept that science will determine that life could never have arisen via unintelligent, blind/ undirected (non-goal oriented) processes.

    Anything may be possible Richard. And that is where the data comes in.

     
  • At 9:27 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Raevmo:
    In general, without going into a detailed rebuttal, I would say your list of necessary conditions is too restrictive because it focusses on life as WE know it.

    The scientific research demonstrates that all life will be "as we know it". Perhaps with minor variations but we have a very wide range of life to look at on this planet. The laws of nature that apply here also apply everywhere in the universe.

    Again all the data was compiled by scientists doing scientific research. So I don't know if you guys have an issue with science or what?

     
  • At 10:31 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    To re-iterate:

    100,000,000,000 stars
    x fraction of of stars that are early G dwarfs and at least a few billion years old
    x fraction of remaining stars in the GHZ
    x fraction of remaining stars near the corotation circle and with low eccentricity galactic orbits
    x fraction of remaining stars outside spiral arms
    x fraction of remaining stars with at least one terrestrial planet in the CHZ

    and then we get to planets:

    * Not just any planet will do.
    * It has to be the correct size.
    * It has to have surface water.
    * It has to have a very hot liquid iron core.
    * The core has to be spinning.
    * The planet must be rotating.
    * Its axis of rotation must be stable (presence of a large moon will do this)
    * The planet's crust must be thin enough to allow for plate tectonics.
    * Then there is the atmosphere.

    Oh just so you know- these factors were derived by scientists working for NASA assigned to find out what it takes to have life. And if they are right we now know where to look - the best possibilities. Also as I said "Rare Earth" came to closely the same conclusions- that Earth and our solar system are rare. The authors of that book are not IDists.


    (btw as ANYONE can see I cite "Rare Earth" not for the "maybe's" it contains pertaining to microbial life, rather I cite it for also demonstrating the Earth and solar system are indeed rare.)

    The large moon is an interesting issue. The anti-ID consensus has the Earth-Moon system forming via a giant impact. But without a large moon science tells us the Earth's axis of rotation wouldn't be stable. Earth would wobble too much for a stable environment. Some say that impact also started our rotation period.

    You guys should really read the book or at least watch the video in order to get an idea of the scientific data behind it.

     
  • At 5:01 PM, Blogger Zachriel said…

    joe g: "It thoroughly refutes the principle of mediocrity."

    You can't "refute" it, only its particular application.

    joe g: "Breaking it down:"

    You forgot to include the breakdown. That would seem to be important when making a mathematical argument.

    joe g: "And again the scientific research that is behind the factors and the calculations were made by scientists doing the research for the NASA program."

    And for some odd reason, the people you rely on for the data and calculations do not accept your conclusions.

    joe g: "The only scientific data we have pertaining to life is that only life begets life."

    That is incorrect. It is known that the Earth was once barren, then became populated with primitive microorganisms. We also know that certain molecules are self-replicating. Though there is no complete theory of abiogenesis, all known life is based in carbon chemistry.

     
  • At 6:24 PM, Blogger Zachriel said…

    joe g: "Also as I said "Rare Earth" came to closely the same conclusions- that Earth and our solar system are rare. The authors of that book are not IDists."

    From the author of your cite concerning intelligent life:

    Peter Ward: "Maybe we have between ten and a hundred within our one hundred thousand light year wide galaxy, we’d [be] lucky. And once they're spaced out, once we have so few, the possibility of talking to them is low."

    joe g: "(btw as ANYONE can see I cite "Rare Earth" not for the "maybe's" it contains pertaining to microbial life, rather I cite it for also demonstrating the Earth and solar system are indeed rare.) "

    And I quoted the author concerning his informed opinion on *intelligent life*. The Earth is not 'rare', but an 'instance'. The evidence indicates that the processes on Earth that led to life are not unique in the universe.

     
  • At 9:30 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    joe g: "It thoroughly refutes the principle of mediocrity."

    Zach:
    You can't "refute" it, only its particular application.

    Its particular application has been refuted.

    joe g: "And again the scientific research that is behind the factors and the calculations were made by scientists doing the research for the NASA program."

    Zach:
    And for some odd reason, the people you rely on for the data and calculations do not accept your conclusions.

    Spoken like someone arguing from ignorance. TRy reading "The Privileged Planet" and then try to post the same response. You couldn't do it without lying- but I know you wouldn't let that stop you.

    joe g: "The only scientific data we have pertaining to life is that only life begets life."

    Zach:
    That is incorrect.

    Reality demonstrates I am very correct. IOW there isn't ANY data that demonstrates that non-living matter can give rise to life. Zero- bnon- nada.

    ZAch:
    It is known that the Earth was once barren, then became populated with primitive microorganisms.

    LoL! HOW, Zach- HOW did the Earth become populated with anything? Think man!

    ZAch:
    We also know that certain molecules are self-replicating.

    The stuff of life is much more than merely "self-replicating".

    Leslie Orgel tells us, “Living organisms are distinguished by their specified complexity. Crystals… fail to qualify as living because they lack complexity; mixtures of random polymers fail to qualify because they lack specificity.”

    Zach:
    Though there is no complete theory of abiogenesis, all known life is based in carbon chemistry.

    Without information carbon chemistry would never give rise to life.

     
  • At 9:41 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Raevmo asks:
    How could it be demonstrated that only "life as we know it" (or a minor variation thereof) is possible?

    As I said the SAME laws that apply here apply every where in the universe.

    Again it appears that your issue is with the scientists who did the research.

    Raevmo:
    You criticize the scientific methods of evolutionary biologists when their conclusions do not fit your preconceived notions,

    That is false. I do not challenge any "conclusions" based on a sound application of scientific methodology.

    Raevmo:
    but when scientists make outragious claims that you happened to like, then you are suddenly a lot less critical.

    What you call an "outrageous claim" is really a scientific prediction which can be either confirmed or falsified with further research and data.

    Raevmo:
    There is a lot of crappy science out there (such as the science you so happily quote in your post).

    The science I quote in my post is backed by the scientific data. The crap evolutionism spews is backed by philosophical nonsense.

    Raevmo:
    It takes critical analysis to weed out the rubbish.

    And thanks to critical analysis I am no longer an evolutionist.

    Unified physics theory explains animals' running, flying and swimming

    "Our finding that animal locomotion adheres to constructal theory tells us that -- even though you couldn't predict exactly what animals would look like if you started evolution over on earth, or it happened on another planet -- with a given gravity and density of their tissues, the same basic patterns of their design would evolve again," Marden said.

     
  • At 9:43 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Richard H:
    Joe, thank you for your response.

    You're welcome

    Richard H:
    I wish you well on your journey to find evidence of Intelligent Design.

    Thank you. However that evidence has been found and presented.

     
  • At 12:37 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    joe g: "Also as I said "Rare Earth" came to closely the same conclusions- that Earth and our solar system are rare. The authors of that book are not IDists."

    Zach:
    From the author of your cite concerning intelligent life:

    Peter Ward: "Maybe we have between ten and a hundred within our one hundred thousand light year wide galaxy, we’d [be] lucky. And once they're spaced out, once we have so few, the possibility of talking to them is low."

    And again "Maybe..." is NOT based on scientific data.

    The scientific data we do have demonstrates our solar system is atypical.


    joe g: "(btw as ANYONE can see I cite "Rare Earth" not for the "maybe's" it contains pertaining to microbial life, rather I cite it for also demonstrating the Earth and solar system are indeed rare.) "

    Zach:
    And I quoted the author concerning his informed opinion on *intelligent life*.

    Perhaps you should do some research instead of quote mining.

    Zach:
    The Earth is not 'rare', but an 'instance'.

    That goes against the title of the book as well as its contents.

    Zach:
    The evidence indicates that the processes on Earth that led to life are not unique in the universe.

    What EVIDENCE? We don't know what processes on Earth that led to life! We do know what it takes to sustain complex life. And the data demonstrates getting all the factors required, just to sustain complex life, together in one place and at the same time, would be an extraordinary event. As such, your scenario of "sheer dumb luck" just doesn't cut it.

    BTW with the scientific data we do have we can assign very reasonable numbers to all the factors.

     
  • At 1:48 PM, Blogger Zachriel said…

    joe g: "Spoken like someone arguing from ignorance.""

    It is always possible to find someone with a contrary view. Gonzalez is a minority view. In addition, he is an astronomer, not a biologist. The consensus scientific opinion and the consensus opinion of all major scientific institutions is that intelligent design is not science.

    When an appeal is made to authority — as you have done, then the authority should be representing the consensus view of his profession and the expertise in the relevant field of study. The proper response to an appeal to authority is the evidence. I have not found Gonzalez's arguments scientifically persuasive. They are based in puddle-logic.

    joe g: "We don't know what processes on Earth that led to life!"

    That's largely correct. It won't stop your from drawing absolute conclusions though.

    joe g: "BTW with the scientific data we do have we can assign very reasonable numbers to all the factors."

    But instead of numbers, you waved your hands.

     
  • At 9:35 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    joe g: "Spoken like someone arguing from ignorance.""

    Zach:
    It is always possible to find someone with a contrary view. Gonzalez is a minority view. In addition, he is an astronomer, not a biologist.

    Umm Gonzalez is an astrobiologist. And most inferences start off as a minority view.

    Zach:
    The consensus scientific opinion and the consensus opinion of all major scientific institutions is that intelligent design is not science.

    I would bet that consensus doesn't understand the first thing about ID. From what I have read that the "consensus" has written it is obvious that they are clueless when it comes to ID.

    Zach:
    When an appeal is made to authority — as you have done,

    I am appealing to the DATA.

    Zach:
    The proper response to an appeal to authority is the evidence. I have not found Gonzalez's arguments scientifically persuasive.

    You haven't even read the book! You haven't even demonstrated you grasp the data!

    joe g: "We don't know what processes on Earth that led to life!"

    Zach:
    That's largely correct. It won't stop your from drawing absolute conclusions though.

    I draw an inference Zach. An inference based on the scientific data we do have.


    joe g: "BTW with the scientific data we do have we can assign very reasonable numbers to all the factors."

    Zach:
    But instead of numbers, you waved your hands.

    I gave the numbers-

    Conservative figures puts the calculation @ 100,000,000,000 (stars) x 1/1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000(factors)

    That was from assigning a very conservative 1/10 to each factor. WE know that is conservative from the scientific data.


    It appears all Zach can do is to argue from ignorance and personal incredulity- IOW he just can't believe the data.

     
  • At 11:15 AM, Blogger Zachriel said…

    joe g: "That was from assigning a very conservative 1/10 to each factor."

    Claims that the planet must be the "correct size" or be in a certain part of the galaxy, or have a magnetic core, or have plate tectonics, may not be valid assumptions.

    Many of those characteristics may be linked, hence your "calculation" may be faulty. And giving each characteristics the exact same percentage shows a lack of actual data.

    It's called handwaving. It might be interesting, but it hardly constitues a firm scientific inference.

     
  • At 9:40 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    joe g: "That was from assigning a very conservative 1/10 to each factor."

    Zach:
    Claims that the planet must be the "correct size" or be in a certain part of the galaxy, or have a magnetic core, or have plate tectonics, may not be valid assumptions.

    By what data? If a planet is too small the solar winds WILL strip away its magnetic field (if it had one). Without plate tectonics the planet will require another way to recycle its materials, especially its CO2.

    G. Gonzalez, D. Brownlee, and P.D. Ward, “The Galactic Habitable Zone: Galactic Chemical Evolution”, Icarus 152 (2001):185-200)

    Zach read the freakin' book. Your continued argument from ignorance is more than annoying.

     
  • At 9:51 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    BTW Zach,

    Most of the factors are much less than 10%- according to the book. I just gave it 10% for ease of calculation- IOW just so you could see what you are up against.

    The factor for a large moon, for example, is estimated at 0.001%. Given the current consensus of how our Earth-Moon system formed that is more than generous.

    However you guys could falsify the premise by demonstrating these factors are not required. But you have to stop your flailing and actually do some research.

    It would be interesting to observe a planet with an active core that didn't have plate tectonics. It would be even more interesting to see a terrestrial planet without an active core but with a strong protective magnetic field.

     
  • At 10:06 AM, Blogger Zachriel said…

    joe g: "The factor for a large moon, for example, is estimated at 0.001%."

    But there is no reason to suppose that a large moon is required. It is a supposition based upon the unique history of Earth. The same with the majority of the other so-called essential conditions.

    joe g: "However you guys could falsify the premise by demonstrating these factors are not required."

    Strawman. An assertion is claimed to be scientific, but the presumed falsification is to be provided by others and to be found someplace that is inaccessible.

    "The Privileged Planet" is a typical argument from ignorance dressed up in the language of science. Puddle-logic.

     
  • At 10:38 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Galactic Habitable Zone

    From the first link:

    Known as the Galactic Habitable Zone, it is an area of space whose boundaries are set by its calm and safe environment, and access to the chemical materials necessary for building terrestrial planets similar to the Earth.

    "Our Milky Way galaxy is home to hundreds of billions of stars, but until recently, astronomers could only guess as to how many are hospitable for the development of complex life. What we have done for the first time is to quantify carefully where complex life is likely to exist," Lineweaver said.

    "Even if a star can build and sustain an Earth-like planet, there are numerous cosmic threats to life. They include impacts from comets and asteroids, devastating bursts of energy from supernovae, close encounters with passing stars, and outbursts from the super-massive black hole at the core of the Galaxy," he said.

     
  • At 10:46 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    And another interseting article:

    The locked migration of giant protoplanets

     
  • At 10:52 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    joe g: "The factor for a large moon, for example, is estimated at 0.001%."

    Zach:
    But there is no reason to suppose that a large moon is required.

    Not only is that the scientific consensus- that a large moon is required- I provided the peer-reviewed article that tells us why!

    J. Laskar et al., “Stabilization of the Earth’s Obliquity by the Moon,” Nature 361 (1993): 615-17

    Leave it to Zach to totally ignore the scientific data.

    joe g: "However you guys could falsify the premise by demonstrating these factors are not required."

    Zach:
    Strawman.

    Why is it a strawman? Just because you can't do it? LoL!

     
  • At 1:45 PM, Blogger Zachriel said…

    Zachriel: But there is no reason to suppose that a large moon is required.

    joe g: "Not only is that the scientific consensus- that a large moon is required- I provided the peer-reviewed article that tells us why!"

    The article explains that a large moon reduces certain chaotic tendencies in axial obliquity. That doesn't mean that life couldn't evolve otherwise, or that other factors can also create suitable conditions, or that this is just a matter of self-selection (puddle-logic).

    In fact, the planetary system is inherently chaotic over the long run.

     
  • At 7:00 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Raevmo:
    Update on scientific evidence, from Williams & Kasting (1997), Icarus 129:

    "We conclude that a significant fraction of extrasolar Earth-like planets may still be habitable, even if they are subject to large obliquity fluctuations."


    That depends. Are they talking about an already existing and advanced technological civilization going to one of those planets and inhabiting it- making parts of it habitable because of their technology? Or are they talking about indigenous organisms? And then what level of organisms?

    Ya see the factors discussed in my OP are for Complex life- air breathing metazoans and apply to indigenous organisms.

    Raevmo:
    So it would appear that the factor for a large moon is orders of magnitude larger than 0.001%.

    Very doubtful. Our Moon is also responsible for the tides (although tides of a sort would still exist without one), as well as climate control:

    C. Wunsch, "Moon, Tides and Climate", Nature 405 (2000): 744

    See also
    D.M. Miller and D. Pollard, "Earth-Moon Interactions: Implications for Terrestrial Climate and Life" Origin of the Earth and Moon, R.M. Canup and K. Brighter eds. (Tuscon: Univ. of Arizona Press, 2000), 513-525

    Also we mustn't forget that the consensus who sez the Earth-Moon system formed via collision tell us it is that collision that gave us the rotation period we have. No collision no or little rotation. Which would be even more problematic for life.

    And without that collision the Earth's crust would be too thick to support plate tectonic recycling.

     
  • At 7:35 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    joe g: "Not only is that the scientific consensus- that a large moon is required- I provided the peer-reviewed article that tells us why!"

    Zach:
    The article explains that a large moon reduces certain chaotic tendencies in axial obliquity. That doesn't mean that life couldn't evolve otherwise, or that other factors can also create suitable conditions, or that this is just a matter of self-selection (puddle-logic).

    First the alleged "puddle-logic" is no such thing- as already explained. That you keep using it just demonstrates your lack of grasp on reality.

    Secondly see my response to Raevmo:

    Our Moon is also responsible for the tides (although tides of a sort would still exist without one), as well as climate control:

    C. Wunsch, "Moon, Tides and Climate", Nature 405 (2000): 744

    See also
    D.M. Miller and D. Pollard, "Earth-Moon Interactions: Implications for Terrestrial Climate and Life" Origin of the Earth and Moon, R.M. Canup and K. Brighter eds. (Tuscon: Univ. of Arizona Press, 2000), 513-525

    Also we mustn't forget that the consensus who sez the Earth-Moon system formed via collision tell us it is that collision that gave us the rotation period we have. No collision no or little rotation. Which would be even more problematic for life.

    And without that collision the Earth's crust would be too thick to support plate tectonic recycling.



    Bottom-line No Large Moon, No Life- for all the reasons listed.

    You guys really should brush up on astronomy and astrophysics.

     
  • At 8:11 PM, Blogger Zachriel said…

    joe g: "Bottom-line No Large Moon, No Life- for all the reasons listed."

    You haven't listed any reasons. All you have is a lack of imagination and vague numerology substituting for evidence.

    joe g: "Again all the data was compiled by scientists doing scientific research. So I don't know if you guys have an issue with science or what?"

    And the majority of scientists reject your assertions.

    joe g: "Oh just so you know- these factors were derived by scientists working for NASA assigned to find out what it takes to have life."

    NASA: We don't know whether or not there is other intelligent life in the universe. There is no reason there shouldn't be. We know by our own existence that the universe is conducive to life.

     
  • At 9:18 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    joe g: "Bottom-line No Large Moon, No Life- for all the reasons listed."

    Zach:
    You haven't listed any reasons.

    I listed several. That you can't understand them is not my problem.

    Zach:
    All you have is a lack of imagination and vague numerology substituting for evidence.

    Imagination is not a substitute for scientific data. And it appears all you have is an imagination with one focus.

    joe g: "Again all the data was compiled by scientists doing scientific research. So I don't know if you guys have an issue with science or what?"

    Zach:
    And the majority of scientists reject your assertions.

    What assertions?

    joe g: "Oh just so you know- these factors were derived by scientists working for NASA assigned to find out what it takes to have life."

    Zach the broken record:
    NASA: We don't know whether or not there is other intelligent life in the universe. There is no reason there shouldn't be. We know by our own existence that the universe is conducive to life.

    You miss the point. Obviously you have issues with reading and reading comprehension.

    In an ID scenario we would expect more complex and intelligent life. However in a "sheer dumb luck" scenario (the anti-ID position) getting ALL of the factors in one place and time makes life a lot less likely, if not impossible.

    And again the scientific research that is behind the factors and the calculations were made by scientists doing the research for the NASA program.


    IOW the NASA quote-mine is meaningless and just another example of your desparation.


    Bottom-line- No Moon- No proto-Earth/ other large body collision- no rotation period. One side always facing the Sun- very hot-> no surface water-> other side frozen
    No Moon- No tides that would mix the elements and transport nutrients.
    No Moon- No life- unless seeded by an adavanced civilization.

     
  • At 9:58 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Thanks Raevmo. Could you cite the "recent reviewed here"- I am not shelling out $29 for that paper.

    The paper I cited demonstrates that migrating gas giants would wipe out any terrestrial planets in their way into their sun.

    Also under the design paradigm habitable planets may not be that rare. However given the "sheer dumb luck" scenario we would expect us to be it- at least in this galaxy, given all the relevant scientific data.

     
  • At 10:44 PM, Blogger Zachriel said…

    Raevmo: "On the one hand it suggests that suitable planets may not be that rare. On the other hand, it also cautions that there is still a great deal of uncertainty."

    Excellent point. Gaido et. al. point out in their "review of terrestrial planet habitability", that "Such evidence provides us with an important, if nominal, calibration point for our search for other habitable worlds."

     
  • At 10:29 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Zach:
    'Excellent point. Gaido et. al. point out in their "review of terrestrial planet habitability", that "Such evidence provides us with an important, if nominal, calibration point for our search for other habitable worlds."

    Funny, the authors of "The Privileged Planet" said pretty much the same thing. Which should go without saying because that is what the NASA scientists were doing...

     
  • At 10:38 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Raevmo,

    Thank you-
    I noticed the "Galactic Habitable Zone" paper was referenced. Also the slide show that accompanies your paper (Gaidos et al.) does not share your sentiments. It calls terrestrial planet formation as theoretical. IOW we don't know.

     
  • At 11:44 AM, Blogger Zachriel said…

    joe g: "It calls terrestrial planet formation as theoretical. IOW we don't know."

    No, joe g. "We don't know" is not the definition of a scientific theory. Germ Theory, Atomic Theory. The Theory of Gravity. Electron Theory.

    theory: a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena

     
  • At 9:31 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    joe g: "It calls terrestrial planet formation as theoretical. IOW we don't know."

    Zach:
    No, joe g. "We don't know" is not the definition of a scientific theory.

    I know that. I also know that is the position of anti-IDists. Go figure.

     
  • At 5:37 AM, Blogger Lamon Hubbs said…

    I have a background in engineering and my son has a masters in physics and is working on his phd your conclusions are very sound, the factors you list is by no means complete but demisteates the idea. Some other things. That may née d to be on your list is the mixture of gases I our atmosphere the critical ozone layer, the ability of life to constantly remove the buildup of co2 from the atmosphere so as. To be stored in solid form. Also some of the other scientist think something about our existence is just a little too. Right because here is a new experiment that is being worvked on.

    "Ever wonder if the universe is really a simulation? Well, physicists do too. Recently, a group of physicists have devised a way that could conceivably figure out one way or the other whether that is the case. There is a paper describing their work on arXiv. Some other physicists propose that the universe is actually a giant hologram with all the action actually occurring on a two-dimensional boundary

     
  • At 12:45 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Hi Lamon-

    Mixture of gases-> don't recall where I read it but there was something about our rotation that mixed the gases, as in if the rotation was much slower the O2 wouldn't be very well mixed and there may be uninhabitable zones due to the lack of O2 in those areas.

     

Post a Comment

<< Home