New Earth like Planet Discovered

[espritduo]

Evolutionary links. If you stop a species from evolving by not allowing that species to migrate, then those links are broken, and the span of events has changed from what it should have been. For example, if ancient primates hadn't been able to migrate, we wouldn't exist.

How does migration have anything to do with it? Organisms are perfectly capable of evolving without migration. Evolution is just an organism adapting to fit its environment as best as it can. That doesn't always mean they have to physically move from one place to another. Climate changes, changes in resources, changes in other life in the area, and just the natural survival of the fittest all shape how an organism evolves. There's no basis for claiming migration is the single fundemental reason intelligence evolved the way it did, or that the lack of it would have prevented that particular path.

Modern reptiles tell what the brains of dinosaurs would have become. The crocodile is one of the oldest animals on the planet, and yet, it has only the old brain. The crocodile was around during the time of the dinosaurs, and yet, it's brain hasn't evolved. It doesn't know logic or reason. All it has are basic survival instincts.

No, birds tell what the brains of dinosaurs became, because they are what dinosaurs became. The crocodile is what is called a living fossil - a relatively uncommon type of organism that has remained virtually unchanged for millions of years. These organisms are the exception to evolutionary rules, not the norm. If the startling variety and proliferation of dinosaurs is any indication, they were some of the most evolutionary versatile and changing organisms ever to live.

Birds wouldn't know what to do with their wings if they didn't have a brain.

And how does that help your argument? Birds don't have intelligence, and yet their brain was able to evolve in tandem with the wings to allow flight. Taking that as an anology, it's easy to say that intelligence is just a natural evolution of the brain in tandem with the basic tasks primates needed to perform in order to survive and thrive. Nothing to see here folks, move along.

Who's to say that all the different primate species of humans didn't became the modern day human? You don't know what happened with the Neanderthals. They could have easily mated with other species of human. Also, it is safe to assume that the dominant life form is the most intelligent, because the most intelligent builds society focusing around itself, and dominates the entire planet. For example, humans run the earth.

You're using the anthropic principle here. You're saying that the fact we are the dominant species on the planet because we're intelligent proves that intelligent species will always become the dominant species. You're saying that the fact that we are here talking right now is all the proof you need that there couldn't be another way. That's circular logic and doesn't work. Without another planet to study, you can't draw any conclusions from our particular situation here.

Without earth's atmosphere, microorganisms can survive, but do you actually think that microorganisms are intelligent? There are basic elements that make up the structure of an organism, and those particular elements can't survive in just any atmosphere.

No, those particualr structures evolved to take advantage of the atmosphere they found themselves in. That's the very definition of what evolution does. In a different atmosphere, those structures would have evolved differently to take advantage of whatever was there. Say our atmosphere happened to have more CO2 than oxygen in it. We would have instead most likely developed a method for turning CO2 into oxygen, instead of the other way around, like plants do. Life evolves to fit the environment it finds itself in. In other words, the environment dictates the form life takes, not the other way around - ie life dictating the type of environment it needs to survive. Unless you can state as a matter of fact that this element or that gas needs to be present for this process or that process and in the exact ratio as Earth's, then you can't claim intelligent life has to have exactly the same atmosphere as our own.

You also have to find a planet located at the same location of earth, orbiting around the same sized sun. If the sun was any bigger, we'd fry. If it was any smaller, we'd freeze.

No you don't. A smaller sun would give off less heat, and thus the planet could be closer to it and maintain that Goldilocks temp. And a larger sun would give off more heat, and thus the planet could be farther away and maintain the Goldilocks temperature. Almost any star out there could potentially harbor an Earth, as long as the distance is proportional to the energy given off by the star.

Yes it does. The magnetic field is produced by the spinning of the core, but the moon is what stabilizes it. You didn't think the moon's only purpose was to serve the tides, did you?

Oh no it doesn't. I'm not sure where you're getting your facts from, but the Moon does not have any impact on our magnetic field. The moon's magnetic field is only 1/100 of the Earth's, and that is solely due to the materials on the surface, not to any movements of its core. It has no impact on Earth's magnetic field. Earth's magnetic field stabilizes itself by the processes of dynamo theory. It doesn't require an external body, especially a mostly non-magnetic one, to stabilize itself.

And the Moon doesn't have a "purpose". It is what it is, and does what it does. It doesn't have to fit into your view of the evolution of life if it doesn't want to.

[Clint]

How does migration have anything to do with it?

Migration causes evolution, which is why you see animals very similar, but of a different species. For example, the camel was originally a North American animal. During the last ice age, part of the species migrated over to Asia, remaining the same, considering that both North America and Asia are in the Northern Hemisphere. However, another part of the species migrated to South America, a different hemisphere and climate, and became the llama.

No, birds tell what the brains of dinosaurs became, because they are what dinosaurs became.

Well, if that's the case, do you see birds running the show? Across billions of years, their brains haven't gotten sophisticated enough to produce highly intelligent beings. Thank you for proving my point.

You're using the anthropic principle here. You're saying that the fact we are the dominant species on the planet because we're intelligent proves that intelligent species will always become the dominant species. You're saying that the fact that we are here talking right now is all the proof you need that there couldn't be another way. That's circular logic and doesn't work. Without another planet to study, you can't draw any conclusions from our particular situation here.

Collect a group of animals; birds, dogs, cats, various fish, deer; whatever you like, and create a controlled environment. And then throw a couple of humans in there and see what happens.

No, those particualr structures evolved to take advantage of the atmosphere they found themselves in. That's the very definition of what evolution does. In a different atmosphere, those structures would have evolved differently to take advantage of whatever was there. Say our atmosphere happened to have more CO2 than oxygen in it. We would have instead most likely developed a method for turning CO2 into oxygen, instead of the other way around, like plants do.

I agree with you there. Life can exist without the exact same circumstances as on earth, such as plants developing to turn CO2 into oxygen. But plants aren't intelligent, are they?

No you don't. A smaller sun would give off less heat, and thus the planet could be closer to it and maintain that Goldilocks temp. And a larger sun would give off more heat, and thus the planet could be farther away and maintain the Goldilocks temperature. Almost any star out there could potentially harbor an Earth, as long as the distance is proportional to the energy given off by the star.

In direct proportion from the earth to the sun? If our sun was any bigger, we'd be dead. There's also radiation that the sun emits. A bigger sun would emit more radiation, which means that the planet's magnetic field would need to be larger, which means that it's core needs to be larger and spinning faster, which would make the planet a magnet for any iron-based meteors, and one would eventually crash into the planet, and everything would die. No life there. Take the planet Mercury, for example. It has the most dense iron core in our solar system. Do you realize how many times that planet gets struck by meteors? If it was in the position that the earth is in, it would be getting hit even more, due to weaker gravity further away from the sun.

Oh no it doesn't. I'm not sure where you're getting your facts from, but the Moon does not have any impact on our magnetic field. The moon's magnetic field is only 1/100 of the Earth's, and that is solely due to the materials on the surface, not to any movements of its core. It has no impact on Earth's magnetic field. Earth's magnetic field stabilizes itself by the processes of dynamo theory. It doesn't require an external body, especially a mostly non-magnetic one, to stabilize itself.

Yes, it does. The moon serves as a device that holds the magnetic field in place. The further away it moves, the less of a magnetic field we have. In a few billion years, when the moon is out of reach, there will be nothing left on earth. You should take some of those lectures about the moon. Very interesting.

[Fluffy]

Migration causes evolution, which is why you see animals very similar, but of a different species.

It might change the path it will take, but I don't believe you can say it causes it. But the point is, you can't say that migration was a necessary path to take for the brain to develop to what it is today. Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't; we can't say for sure. If you can, then please enlighten us on why migration is definitely a necessary step. The fact that we developed, and we migrated, is not proof. As much as you might want it to be true, correlation does not imply causation.

Well, if that's the case, do you see birds running the show? Across billions of years, their brains haven't gotten sophisticated enough to produce highly intelligent beings. Thank you for proving my point.

I don't see our cousin primates running the show, either. Over millions (please stop saying billions) of years, they haven't developed the same brains as us, either. It was only in the past couple hundred thousand years that we have achieved what we have. It took us 65 million years before we developed to this. A few million more would be a small timeframe, and yet, what if another creature started to develop their brains a bit more in that timeframe? If you want to say it's impossible, you need a reason.

Collect a group of animals; birds, dogs, cats, various fish, deer; whatever you like, and create a controlled environment. And then throw a couple of humans in there and see what happens.

Yet this doesn't refute his argument. Using our planet as it is as an example accomplishes nothing in proving that it couldn't be any other way.

There are variables which could overcome intelligence. Force in numbers, overpowering physical strength, or other forms of lethality (such as toxicity). Aggressiveness is likely a key factor as well.

Throw 100 developing humans on a planet with millions of said creatures (assume the creatures are not intelligent, and are quite aggressive), and see what happens.

The most intelligent would not dominate in every situation. The most aggressive and unopposed lifeform will dominate. On this planet, we are that aggressive and unopposed creature.

I agree with you there. Life can exist without the exact same circumstances as on earth, such as plants developing to turn CO2 into oxygen. But plants aren't intelligent, are they?

Whether plants are intelligent or not is irrelevant. The point is, if needed, animals could have been the ones to develop a method of anaerobic respiration. We developed to make use of what we had.

Nobody knows what happened during those early years of development, but the slightest change could have sent humans back a notch on the food chain. In other words, there can't be any missing links.

And this refutes any claim you have of knowing that it's impossible. For, you see... the slightest change could have sent the dinosaurs forward in their development of their brain. Perhaps in their mass extinction, the specific dinosaur which would have become a highly intelligent being died.

[Clint]

If you can, then please enlighten us on why migration is definitely a necessary step. The fact that we developed, and we migrated, is not proof. As much as you might want it to be true, correlation does not imply causation.

I'm merely suggesting theories, because you people keep asking me questions. If you don't like them, then make your own theories. My point is this, if you go back in time and stop humans from migrating, what will happen? They would have stayed in a desert, and wouldn't have gained intelligence. The reason being that they would constantly be on the move in search of water. When they migrated, the learned to cultivate land and live off of that land for years before moving on. You not only need a sophisticated brain in order to be an intelligent being, you need to learn as well.

I don't see our cousin primates running the show, either. Over millions (please stop saying billions) of years, they haven't developed the same brains as us, either. It was only in the past couple hundred thousand years that we have achieved what we have. It took us 65 million years before we developed to this. A few million more would be a small timeframe, and yet, what if another creature started to develop their brains a bit more in that timeframe? If you want to say it's impossible, you need a reason.

On the contrary, across the billions of years (remember, we're speaking of the development of the brain in general, not just of the human brain,) the primate brain has grown the same. Gorillas, the closest relative that humans have, have nearly the exact same brain as us, and they are unbelievably smart. Some have been taught sign language, others have been taught to write. There was a gorilla in the 1970s who actually learned to speak. For words, but she still spoke. It's not that humans are smarter, it's that humans utilize more of their brain then the average gorilla uses. That's what makes a being intelligent. And, just for the record, I've already stated my reason as to why an alien life form possessing intelligence is impossible, because you need a brain. Life that starts 20 light years away from earth wouldn't be able to develop exactly the same, and therefore, it may produce brainless organisms, such as a being resembling bacteria or average plant life.

Throw 100 developing humans on a planet with millions of said creatures (assume the creatures are not intelligent, and are quite aggressive), and see what happens.

The most intelligent would not dominate in every situation. The most aggressive and unopposed lifeform will dominate. On this planet, we are that aggressive and unopposed creature.

That's simply not true. Humans have never been the most aggressive animals around. The hippopotamus, the hyena, and the chimpanzee, for example, are far more aggressive then humans have ever been. The hippopotamus kills anything that comes close to it. Even when two hippos fight, one will always end up dead. The hyena will kill anything that moves. The chimpanzee will steal human infants and eat them. Humans aren't as aggressive because humans possess a conscience, made up of three parts, the id, the ego, and the superego. Most other animals such as the three that I named, in the wild, only possess the id, the section of the brain that tells you I want it now (if raised by humans, though, they'll develop an ego and superego.) Humans have reason, the superego, and compromise, the ego.

And this refutes any claim you have of knowing that it's impossible. For, you see... the slightest change could have sent the dinosaurs forward in their development of their brain. Perhaps in their mass extinction, the specific dinosaur which would have become a highly intelligent being died.

The dinosaur was a reptile. Reptiles have only the "old brain." If what that other guy was saying is true, which I believe it is to an extent, and dinosaurs evolved into the modern day bird, you have your proof right there that the dinosaurs, if they hadn't gone extinct, wouldn't have gotten sophisticated enough to be considered highly intelligent.

[Fluffy]

I'm merely suggesting theories, because you people keep asking me questions.

We keep asking questions because you're not answering them. We're not looking for theories, we're looking for facts to back up your claim that certain things are impossible. Unless if you want to retract your claim that it's impossible. I wouldn't be arguing with you if you simply changed it to be saying that you simply think it's impossible.

And, just for the record, I've already stated my reason as to why an alien life form possessing intelligence is impossible, because you need a brain. Life that starts 20 light years away from earth wouldn't be able to develop exactly the same, and therefore, it may produce brainless organisms, such as a being resembling bacteria or average plant life.

But you never said why that is impossible. You can't prove that something is impossible by stating that another thing is impossible unless if you can prove that your second claim is, in fact, impossible.

That's simply not true. Humans have never been the most aggressive animals around.

Note the key word in there: unopposed. Nothing is strong enough to defend themselves against us. And we are, in fact, the most aggressive. Tell me what other animal on this planet kills the majority of all other creatures as a source of food and expands across the entire planet.

The dinosaur was a reptile. Reptiles have only the "old brain." If what that other guy was saying is true, which I believe it is to an extent, and dinosaurs evolved into the modern day bird, you have your proof right there that the dinosaurs, if they hadn't gone extinct, wouldn't have gotten sophisticated enough to be considered highly intelligent.

But had something gone differently, they would have likely evolved differently. You stated this yourself in respect to humans. There can be no missing links. The extinction of specific dinosaurs could have been the missing link to their further development of their brain. You also have no proof that birds will not continue to develop.

[Sasquatch]

But you never said why that is impossible. You can't prove that something is impossible by stating that another thing is impossible unless if you can prove that your second claim is, in fact, impossible.

Statistically, Evolutionism is all but impossible. Factor in the idea that life was magically created from no life, and the idea that single-celled organisms magically became multi-celled organisms, and the word "impossible" is pretty damn accurate.

Note the key word in there: unopposed. Nothing is strong enough to defend themselves against us. And we are, in fact, the most aggressive. Tell me what other animal on this planet kills the majority of all other creatures as a source of food and expands across the entire planet.

Note the key word in there: unopposed. Just because other animals aren't ABLE to kill everything around them doesn't mean they wouldn't -- and just because they aren't smart enough to adapt doesn't mean they wouldn't. If any other creature was advanced enough beyond others in its area, you think they would think twice about wiping them out for food?

[Fluffy]

Just because other animals aren't ABLE to kill everything around them doesn't mean they wouldn't

There are many which can but don't. They have no need to. We don't have to need to do it, though; we do it anyway.

[Furore]

I agree with you there. Life can exist without the exact same circumstances as on earth, such as plants developing to turn CO2 into oxygen. But plants aren't intelligent, are they?

They very well could be. I do believe the International Laboratory of Plant Neurobiology (LINV) located at the University of Florence has been researching plant intellect and they may be capable of some rather interesting feats.

Smarty Plants: Inside the World's Only Plant-Intelligence Lab
It's an article from 2007, but talks about what I was suggesting earlier. Perhaps a lifeform (like one on another planet) mightn't need a human brain to be considered 'intelligent'. They may and likely would develop something that works differently that still provides a high level of intellect which might even surpass our own in some cases. But as we've never come across such beings yet, we just don't know. And we ourselves personally may never know, as it doesn't seem all that likely to me that we'll ever make contact with them. Some might develop the means to come looking for us at some point in time though.

[espritduo]

Migration causes evolution, which is why you see animals very similar, but of a different species. For example, the camel was originally a North American animal. During the last ice age, part of the species migrated over to Asia, remaining the same, considering that both North America and Asia are in the Northern Hemisphere. However, another part of the species migrated to South America, a different hemisphere and climate, and became the llama.

But migration isn't the only thing that can cause evolution. The factors I named previously are just as powerful evolutionary forces, and have just as much weight in how an organism evolves.

Well, if that's the case, do you see birds running the show? Across billions of years, their brains haven't gotten sophisticated enough to produce highly intelligent beings. Thank you for proving my point.

Their brains evolved differently, and they focused on flight over intelligence. It's all about balance. They didn't need overwhelming intelligence to survive, so they never evolved it. Primates, without the wonderful ability to fly, did need intelligence, and thus they evolved that particular advantage from an already increased brain size. Both end results(flight and intelligence) are products of organisms evolving specialized features based on what advantages they started with.

Collect a group of animals; birds, dogs, cats, various fish, deer; whatever you like, and create a controlled environment. And then throw a couple of humans in there and see what happens.

I'm sure if I put you(or even ten of you) into an environment full of wild dogs, big cats, sharks, and 12-point stags, you'd survive just fine right? Even with all your intelligence, you'd be fish food in a matter of hours, if not minutes. And don't say you'd bring a gun. Humans didn't just start out with guns in their hands. You start out with your own naked self and your almighty intelligence, nothing else, just like your ancestors. Intelligence does not prove itself to be dominant just by be being intelligence.

I agree with you there. Life can exist without the exact same circumstances as on earth, such as plants developing to turn CO2 into oxygen. But plants aren't intelligent, are they?

Plants being intelligent or not has nothing at all to do with their method of respiration. Oranges and apples.

In direct proportion from the earth to the sun? If our sun was any bigger, we'd be dead. There's also radiation that the sun emits. A bigger sun would emit more radiation, which means that the planet's magnetic field would need to be larger, which means that it's core needs to be larger and spinning faster, which would make the planet a magnet for any iron-based meteors, and one would eventually crash into the planet, and everything would die. No life there. Take the planet Mercury, for example. It has the most dense iron core in our solar system. Do you realize how many times that planet gets struck by meteors? If it was in the position that the earth is in, it would be getting hit even more, due to weaker gravity further away from the sun.

Yes, it does. The moon serves as a device that holds the magnetic field in place. The further away it moves, the less of a magnetic field we have. In a few billion years, when the moon is out of reach, there will be nothing left on earth. You should take some of those lectures about the moon. Very interesting.

You seem to have completely missed what I was saying. You don't need a sun exactly our size, or an orbital distance exactly that of Earth. All you need is the same proportion. Larger sun = larger orbital distance required; smaller sun = less orbital distance required. And please don't get started on the magnetic field stuff here, too. You have already shown quite clearly that you have a very weak understanding of magnetic field theory and all of the points you made about the effects of a magnetic field in this paragraph are way off base with zero science behind them. A larger planet would not have a faster spinning core, a larger iron core would not create a larger magnetic field, a larger magnetic field would not attract more asteroids, a larger sun would not require a larger magnetic field, and the moon has no effect on our magnetic field, no matter how many times you try to say it. If you want to spout that nonsense again, provide a link to an accepted scientific article supporting it.

I'm merely suggesting theories, because you people keep asking me questions. If you don't like them, then make your own theories. My point is this, if you go back in time and stop humans from migrating, what will happen? They would have stayed in a desert, and wouldn't have gained intelligence. The reason being that they would constantly be on the move in search of water. When they migrated, the learned to cultivate land and live off of that land for years before moving on. You not only need a sophisticated brain in order to be an intelligent being, you need to learn as well.

You see, you're not "merely" suggesting anything. You're stating as a fact your ideas, and not listening to us when we try to correct you. And desert? Africa was no desert a few million years ago, and mostly still isn't today. Our ancestors came from a verdant plain environment full of flora and fauna of all kinds, with easy access to water and food. And they were already possessed of fully-evolved, modern-day-level brains at that point. I hate to say it, but your migration theory falls apart under the proof that our brain hasn't actually significantly evolved since we started migration around 200,000 years ago. According to the Out of Africa theory(the most common theory about human migration), we were already fully evolved into the forms we have today, both physically and mentally, by the time we started migrating to the rest of the world. So you could say that the migration was a result of the intelligence, not the other way around.

On the contrary, across the billions of years (remember, we're speaking of the development of the brain in general, not just of the human brain,) the primate brain has grown the same. Gorillas, the closest relative that humans have, have nearly the exact same brain as us, and they are unbelievably smart. Some have been taught sign language, others have been taught to write. There was a gorilla in the 1970s who actually learned to speak. For words, but she still spoke. It's not that humans are smarter, it's that humans utilize more of their brain then the average gorilla uses. That's what makes a being intelligent.

I agree with Fluffy. Don't use billions of years. A billion years ago there was no brain or even multicellular life. The entire evolution of the nervous system from the ground up has taken place in the last 500 million years or so, and primates haven't even been around for 100 million years. And other primates do NOT have the capacity for thought that we do. You can only teach a lesser primate so much, and even then it's mostly mimicry and basic "do this to get this" level thinking. It's not just a matter of "wanting" to be smart or using more of the same organ. There's a biological difference between our brains and other primates. It's not just a matter of us using parts that the other primates don't use. We're using structures that the other primates don't even have, or don't have as complex a version of. This is a difference that could easily change over millions of years if allowed, but it is a definite difference.

And, just for the record, I've already stated my reason as to why an alien life form possessing intelligence is impossible, because you need a brain. Life that starts 20 light years away from earth wouldn't be able to develop exactly the same, and therefore, it may produce brainless organisms, such as a being resembling bacteria or average plant life.

Yes, you've stated that "reason" numerous times, and we've been trying to get you to explain it from the beginning, because it doesn't have anything to back up, and you haven't stated a single solitary fact supporting it yet. You need to tell us why the intelligent brain could never evolve again anywhere under any circumstance and you need to use facts to support your reasons.

Statistically, Evolutionism is all but impossible. Factor in the idea that life was magically created from no life, and the idea that single-celled organisms magically became multi-celled organisms, and the word "impossible" is pretty damn accurate.

If you're going to bring statistical probability into the mix, you're going to need to bring in some figures to back up your statements. Like I said before, when you expand the playing field onto the entire universe, statements like "1 in a million" or 1 in a billion" or even "1 in a trillion" lose their everyday meaning of "impossible" and are basically guaranteed events. The sheer size of the universe renders statistical arguments like yours moot. Of course, if the tone of your statement is implying that you don't believe in evolution at all, I think you're in the wrong thread.

(and I'm still waiting on the origin of the Magus Sister's names, Sasquatch. If you just don't know where they came from and were trying to stump everyone with an unanswerable question, just say so and I'll leave you alone about it. )

[Clint]

The factors I named previously are just as powerful evolutionary forces, and have just as much weight in how an organism evolves.

That's really great. I'm proud of you. Good job, kiddo!

Their brains evolved differently, and they focused on flight over intelligence. It's all about balance.

So what you're saying is that if humans focus long enough, we'll eventually grow wings and fly without the use of an airplane. All we have to do is focus on flight over intelligence, right?

I'm sure if I put you(or even ten of you) into an environment full of wild dogs, big cats, sharks, and 12-point stags, you'd survive just fine right? Even with all your intelligence, you'd be fish food in a matter of hours, if not minutes. And don't say you'd bring a gun. Humans didn't just start out with guns in their hands. You start out with your own naked self and your almighty intelligence, nothing else, just like your ancestors. Intelligence does not prove itself to be dominant just by be being intelligence.

I know how to build fires, catch food, raise shelter, and make leather. That comes from intelligence. If I was thrown into the wild, I'd be on top, because I would be the most intelligent. Intelligence equals dominance, whether you like to admit it or not.

You seem to have completely missed what I was saying. You don't need a sun exactly our size, or an orbital distance exactly that of Earth. All you need is the same proportion. Larger sun = larger orbital distance required; smaller sun = less orbital distance required.

Longer orbit equals longer winter. Longer winter means less food for a longer period of time. Less food for a longer period of time equals starvation. Starvation equals death. Now, I'm no rocket scientist, but I know that I can't live without food for too long. What about you?

A larger planet would not have a faster spinning core.

That depends on how active the core is. A larger planet can have a faster spinning core, as can a smaller planet.

a larger iron core would not create a larger magnetic field,

Well, yeah, not if it's a dead core.

a larger magnetic field would not attract more asteroids,

Sure, if they're not iron-based asteroids.

a larger sun would not require a larger magnetic field,

Sure, if you can find a species that can survive that much radiation, then my friend, you have just become a billionaire.

and the moon has no effect on our magnetic field, no matter how many times you try to say it. If you want to spout that nonsense again, provide a link to an accepted scientific article supporting it.

Yes it does. The earth has an axis. Do you agree? The earth rotates on an axis as it revolves around the sun. Do you agree? Without the axis, the magnetic field will go haywire. Do you agree? The moon keeps the earth on axis, which you obviously don't agree with, seeing as though you claim that the moon serves no purpose. The moon, by keeping the earth on a regular axis, stabilizes the magnetic field, so suck it.

Africa was no desert a few million years ago, and mostly still isn't today.

If my memory serves me correctly, human life began around Ethiopia. What is the vast majority of Ethiopia?

And they were already possessed of fully-evolved, modern-day-level brains at that point.

You have no proof that the humans had fully developed brains, because there are no existing brains from that time, not to mention that the shapes of the skulls were of different sizes, which means that they did in fact have different brains. Will my brain fit into a longer, narrower skull? No, not undamaged. Will yours? Maybe, if it's small enough.

we were already fully evolved into the forms we have today, both physically and mentally, by the time we started migrating to the rest of the world. So you could say that the migration was a result of the intelligence, not the other way around.

If humans were fully evolved, then how were Neanderthal remains found in Germany?

And other primates do NOT have the capacity for thought that we do. You can only teach a lesser primate so much, and even then it's mostly mimicry and basic "do this to get this" level thinking.

Read the experiments, man. It'll blow your mind the amount of stuff some of these gorillas can learn. Of course, you won't do that, because that would prove what I'm saying to be true, and you can't have that, because then you'll have nothing to complain about.

[espritduo]

That's really great. I'm proud of you. Good job, kiddo!

Ah yes, ad hominem, the last resort of the losing debater.

So what you're saying is that if humans focus long enough, we'll eventually grow wings and fly without the use of an airplane. All we have to do is focus on flight over intelligence, right?

If evolution had anything at all to do with conscious effort, sure. But it doesn't. It's a natural process driven be necessity and random chance. There is every possibility we *could* eventually evolve wings over millions of years if the right mutations occured and they proved advantageous enough to be passed on and accumulated.

I know how to build fires, catch food, raise shelter, and make leather. That comes from intelligence. If I was thrown into the wild, I'd be on top, because I would be the most intelligent. Intelligence equals dominance, whether you like to admit it or not.

And not a single one of those things will keep you alive with the animals I mentioned. You can catch a rabbit, maybe, but a lion? A shark? Gimme a break, you're not Allan Quatermain. Survival is not just about surviving against the elements. You've got to be able to defend yourself against the other predators around you, and none of those skills are going to keep you alive against a blood-thirsty big-game predator.

Longer orbit equals longer winter. Longer winter means less food for a longer period of time. Less food for a longer period of time equals starvation. Starvation equals death. Now, I'm no rocket scientist, but I know that I can't live without food for too long. What about you?

Way to use both hyperbole and slippery slope argument to make a mountain out of a molehill. A longer orbit can create a longer winter, depending on how elliptical the orbit is, but that doesn't mean much. Life has no problem surviving in climates where it's winter all year round, and there's no reason to suggest a winter whose temperatures are still within habitable levels would impede the evolution of life.

That depends on how active the core is. A larger planet can have a faster spinning core, as can a smaller planet.

Exactly. You see, now you're saying the opposite of what you said before. The speed of the core's rotation is not directly proportional to the size of the planet or its core. Any size or distanced planet could have the appropriate magnetic field.

Well, yeah, not if it's a dead core.

Well duh. Again you're just agreeing with me that magnetic fields are not always tied to planet size or core size and are a much more flexible phenomenon than you want to admit.

Sure, if they're not iron-based asteroids.

This is just wrong and about as unscientific as it gets and if you want to be taken seriously you're going to need to post some actual facts to back up such a ridiculous argument. Facts which you will not post, because you never post facts. Magnetic fields do not attract other celestial bodies. Period. Magnetism is not like gravity - they are two completely seperate forces of nature and their comparative strengths are vastly, vastly different.

Sure, if you can find a species that can survive that much radiation, then my friend, you have just become a billionaire.

Again, you do not understand basic magnetic field theory, or even what our magnetic field is protecting us from. Cosmic radiation(the horrible radiation you're talking about) is not affected by our magnetic field. Our atmosphere protects us from said radiation. Also, cosmic radiation does not primarily even come from the sun - it comes from all arounds us in space. What our magnetic field does is protect us from the solar winds, which get weaker as you move away from the sun just like the temperature. So a planet that needed to be farther away from its hot sun to maintain goldilocks temperatures would also not have to deal with as much solar wind bombardment. The radiation would be exactly the same because cosmic radiation is not dependant on the sun.

Yes it does.

No it doesn't. I'm not even going to respond to the rest of this statement because your chain of thought is completely off-base and doesn't have a shred of scientific sense behind it. When you can provide one single scientific statement that says the Moon has anything to do with our planet's magnetic field, I'll listen. Until then, you can keep spouting nonsense and insults until the cows come home.

If my memory serves me correctly, human life began around Ethiopia. What is the vast majority of Ethiopia?

Exactly what I said it was. A verdant plain full of flora and fauna. You seem to think that northeastern Africa was always a desert, when it was not. The desertification of that region didn't start until about 5000 BC, well past the point modern homo sapiens evolved and well past the point where humans migrated out of Africa. Before that, northeastern Africa was as nice a place to live as the lower regions are today.

You have no proof that the humans had fully developed brains, because there are no existing brains from that time, not to mention that the shapes of the skulls were of different sizes, which means that they did in fact have different brains. Will my brain fit into a longer, narrower skull? No, not undamaged. Will yours? Maybe, if it's small enough.

Sure I do. DNA analysis indicates that modern humans came onto the scene around 200,000 years ago and fossils unearthed from as early as 100,000 years ago are the same as modern humans, skulls and all. That's why they are classified as homo sapiens, the same species as us. The skulls you're thinking of are from earlier hominids that are millions of years old.

If humans were fully evolved, then how were Neanderthal remains found in Germany?

Because Neanderthal Man wasn't human? Neanderthal Man lived at the same time as homo sapiens(around 30,000 to 20,000 years ago), and there's no conflict with them living alongside our earliest fully-evolved ancestors.

Read the experiments, man. It'll blow your mind the amount of stuff some of these gorillas can learn. Of course, you won't do that, because that would prove what I'm saying to be true, and you can't have that, because then you'll have nothing to complain about.

I'd read them if you would show them to me. But you seem unable to support anything you've said since the beginning with a single outside source. I am fully aware of what gorillas are capable of learning, but there are limits, and those limits are imposed on them by biological differences between their brains and ours. Of course, I fail to see how proving that gorillas have the intelligent brains you say only humans can possess actually helps your argument to begin with.

And the only thing I am complaining about is your abject refusal to support even one of your claims with even one scientific fact. Here, let me make this real easy for you:

1. Link me to a scientific article supporting your belief that our brain is nonduplicatable in the universe.

2. Link me to a scientific article supporting your belief that human intelligence would never have evolved if we hadn't migrated.

3. Link me to a scientific article supporting your belief that the moon has any impact on the Earth's magnetic field.

4. Link me to a scientific article supporting your belief that a stronger magnetic field would result in an increased frequency of collisions with iron-based asteroids. I'd love to see this, because this is probably the most absurd statement you've made so far.

5. Link me to a scientific article supporting your belief that primates are just as capable of thinking as we are, but just do not know how to use their brain as well.

There's your homework assignment.

[Clint]

No it doesn't. I'm not even going to respond to the rest of this statement because your chain of thought is completely off-base and doesn't have a shred of scientific sense behind it. When you can provide one single scientific statement that says the Moon has anything to do with our planet's magnetic field, I'll listen. Until then, you can keep spouting nonsense and insults until the cows come home.

"The Earth's axis of rotation is tilted 23.4° away from the perpendicular to its orbital plane,[18] producing seasonal variations on the planet's surface with a period of one tropical year (365.24 solar days). Earth's only known natural satellite, the Moon, which began orbiting it about 4.53 billion years ago, provides ocean tides, stabilizes the axial tilt and gradually slows the planet's rotation."

Earth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Can't look up earth on Wikipedia? Since I've just proven that the moon stabilizes earth's axis, then it's safe to assume that I was right about the magnetic field, as well, considering that if earth didn't have a stable axis, the magnetic field wouldn't be stable, either. So, I guess this argument is done... No, you have something else to complain about? Damn...

I'd read them if you would show them to me. But you seem unable to support anything you've said since the beginning with a single outside source. I am fully aware of what gorillas are capable of learning, but there are limits, and those limits are imposed on them by biological differences between their brains and ours. Of course, I fail to see how proving that gorillas have the intelligent brains you say only humans can possess actually helps your argument to begin with.

"The intelligence of gorilla is still being explored. However, it's known that they are not as curious or excitable as its nearest relative, the chimpanzee, instead, gorilla shows more persistence and memory retention in solving a problem and is more likely to perform a task out of interest than to earn a reward, It also discriminates between geometrical shapes more effectively. After some success with chimpanzees, researchers in the mid-1970s turned their attention to communicate with gorillas by means of the American sign language, and one gorilla mastered more than 1000 words."

http://www.geocities.com/bioeureka/gorillas.htm

Since you can't google anything, here's something for you. If you want to learn more, do research, because I'm not doing it for you.

[RamesesII]

[quote=espritduo;1185083]
As far as the human brain goes, it's actual physical makeup is for the most part identical to the brains found in almost every other organism. There's only a tiny, tiny portion that covers the surface of the brain(the neocortex of the cerebral cortex) that makes us any different from our pets. That's it. The rest of the brain below that layer is anatomically almost exactly the same as lesser animals. It's not like our brain is wholly different from an animal's brain. The brain has been evolving steadily for hundreds of millions of years before humans, and our sentience is only the latest development on top of the countless other parts of the brain that have already evolved. It's not very difficult to believe this one little development(which we still don't understand very well) could happen elsewhere, and there is no reason to believe it is something so remarkable, evolution-wise, that it could never happen again anywhere ever in the entire history of the universe.

I agree. Plants for example are almost as complex as our selves, it could be said that plants are a vegetative human form. Its all about adaption we evolved to adapt to our situation just as a plant adapts to the lack of water or a weed can adapt to a poison, they evolve. Just as animals evolve and adapt in different ways i don't think they are much different to us they just use their brain differently their brain has evolved and adapted to their situation. So in theory there is nothing stopping it from happening millions of light years away. Animals are very intelligent just in different ways we are to busy getting swollen heads thinking we are the most intelligent life form on earth that we forget how an animal uses its intelligence differently, take a crow for example probably one of the most intriguing birds know what a gun is and know to piss the hell off when one is pointed at them.

If you mean the planet Gliese 581c, we can infer its probable age by the age of the star. The star Gliese 581 is a red dwarf star, which is a relatively slow-burning star with a very predictable(and long) lifespan. Based on the type of light it emits we can gauge how much of its hydrogen has been converted into helium, and thus tell how long it's been around burning that hydrogen. Assuming the planet followed what we understand as normal planetary formation, it would have formed from debris around the star a few million years after the star itself formed.

Scientist are still perplexed about stars ages, considering the ripple effect which makes the universe, scientist have found stars that are actually younger than those that are created later in the continuum.





Quote:
Collect a group of animals; birds, dogs, cats, various fish, deer; whatever you like, and create a controlled environment. And then throw a couple of humans in there and see what happens.

Lol and you will see that they all rely on their instincts. Yeah so the human may come out the species on top but in the end every living thing relies on instinct. We reproduce not because it fells good but it is set in concrete in our brain to continue our species and to adapt to our environment.



Quote:
I agree with you there. Life can exist without the exact same circumstances as on earth, such as plants developing to turn CO2 into oxygen. But plants aren't intelligent, are they?

Hell yes they bloody well are like i said earlier plants are almost as intelligent as us but not in they way we think is intelligent we think intelligent is when you can solve a maths problem or invent the gun or automobile. A plant is intelligent because it knows when the weather is right to germinate or a Pine tree knows when it is hot enough to drop its cones which rely on heat and fire to open them. A weed can adapt to a certain poison if used to much on the one species. A plant can drop its leaves to conserve energy when there is not enough water. Hell plants produce chemicals to attract insects and lure them into to traps so the plant can absorb the insect plants are a very very intelligent life form.

[espritduo]

"The Earth's axis of rotation is tilted 23.4° away from the perpendicular to its orbital plane,[18] producing seasonal variations on the planet's surface with a period of one tropical year (365.24 solar days). Earth's only known natural satellite, the Moon, which began orbiting it about 4.53 billion years ago, provides ocean tides, stabilizes the axial tilt and gradually slows the planet's rotation."

Earth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Can't look up earth on Wikipedia? Since I've just proven that the moon stabilizes earth's axis, then it's safe to assume that I was right about the magnetic field, as well, considering that if earth didn't have a stable axis, the magnetic field wouldn't be stable, either. So, I guess this argument is done... No, you have something else to complain about? Damn...

If you're going to use wikipedia, use it right.

Tidal acceleration - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Tidal locking - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Earth's magnetic field - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Dynamo theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Moon will never "stop" the rotation of the Earth, merely synchronize with it.

Also, the Moon keeps the Earth's axis within a small obliquity as compared to other planets, but this has no impact on the sustaining of magnetic fields. An overly stable axis is not a requirement for a magnetic field, as evinced by the numerous magnetic fields present on other planets, as well as stars. You need to show me an article that actually connects the Moon with Earth's magnetic field, not an article that connects the moon with something else that you think should connect with the magnetic field.

Although I will give you this - I misspoke earlier when I agreed that a longer orbit could cause longer winters. Earth's seasons(and that includes winter) are caused by the gradual changing of its tilt towards and away from the sun, not by its variable distance due to an elliptical orbit, a common misconception that I fell prey to, despite the fact that I should know better. So no, a longer orbit would not necessarily cause a longer winter. Also, the temperature difference between summer and winter at the equator, where life is most abundant, is almost non-existent, as any Floridan who marvels at that thing called "snow" will tell you.

"The intelligence of gorilla is still being explored. However, it's known that they are not as curious or excitable as its nearest relative, the chimpanzee, instead, gorilla shows more persistence and memory retention in solving a problem and is more likely to perform a task out of interest than to earn a reward, It also discriminates between geometrical shapes more effectively. After some success with chimpanzees, researchers in the mid-1970s turned their attention to communicate with gorillas by means of the American sign language, and one gorilla mastered more than 1000 words."

Gorilla

You showed me nothing that you hadn't already stated, and that I didn't already know. Nothing there suggests gorillas are capable of human-level intellect, merely that they're very smart for animals. As I already said, I am fully aware of just what gorillas can do, and while it is impressive, nothing there is noteworthy to the argument at hand.

Since you can't google anything, here's something for you. If you want to learn more, do research, because I'm not doing it for you.

No. The burden of proof is on YOU to provide evidence to back up your claims. And I have done the research as I've been arguing with you, and found nothing to support the five points I stated before, including the links you just posted(although I commend your effort at actualy providing links for a change). All the facts I've stated so far are well-known scientific ideas that can be easily verified by a quick google search. All the "facts" you've stated have absolutely nothing to back them up, and the fact that you didn't answer a single one of the five points I asked you to address with conclusive scientific support is proof of that.

[Lunasa]

Life like us could only exist if the same circumstances took place on that planet as they did on this planet. If the dinosaurs hadn't got annihilated, there wouldn't even be intelligent life on this planet. Plus, there's a few billion years of evolution after that, so if the planet isn't that old to begin with, the species wouldn't be evolved yet. From a rational perspective, the chances are very slim that life as intelligent as humans live anywhere else besides earth.

What's to say that other variables cannot allow life to, y'know... have intelligence? It may not be life EXACTLY like us, because they would probably have different laws, weather and the such- or different elements, as it may. Keep in mind that even if the same exact parameters did not exist, the environment is one of the keys to evolution. Whoever or wherever those beings on that particular planet are, even if they aren't intelligent, you can't deny that they are the building blocks to an intelligent race.

[Clint]

The Moon will never "stop" the rotation of the Earth, merely synchronize with it.

I never said it would stop the rotation.

An overly stable axis is not a requirement for a magnetic field, as evinced by the numerous magnetic fields present on other planets, as well as stars.

You're correct. Axis stability isn't a requirement for a planet to have a magnetic field, but once again, I never said that. I said that without a proper axis, the magnet field would go haywire, meaning that there would be no stability within the magnetic field.

As I already said, I am fully aware of just what gorillas can do, and while it is impressive, nothing there is noteworthy to the argument at hand.

Too bad I don't know the argument. This just seems like a bunch of bullshit relating to earth's magnetic field and the brains of gorillas, but not actually about the topic that this thread is about.

All the facts I've stated so far are well-known scientific ideas that can be easily verified by a quick google search.

I'm not disagreeing with you. I never have been. But for some reason, you keep bickering like a little schoolgirl.

didn't answer a single one of the five points I asked you to address with conclusive scientific support is proof of that.

Well perhaps that's because I never saw any five points, considering that I discard most of what you say.

What's to say that other variables cannot allow life to, y'know... have intelligence? It may not be life EXACTLY like us, because they would probably have different laws, weather and the such- or different elements, as it may. Keep in mind that even if the same exact parameters did not exist, the environment is one of the keys to evolution. Whoever or wherever those beings on that particular planet are, even if they aren't intelligent, you can't deny that they are the building blocks to an intelligent race.

I agree. They could be the building blocks to intelligent life, but nobody knows how an undiscovered species is going to utilize their brains. Despite what the E-Sprit Duo thinks, I never denied alien life from existing. It's very likely that it exists, but the circumstances that it took for humans to, not gain intelligence, but to utilize intelligence may not be present on that particular planet. Concerning that only one species on earth utilized intelligence, out of trillions more species, the chances of it happening on that other planet are unlikely, but just like on earth, it could happen. Let me guess, Espritduo has a complaint about this comment as well, even though I wasn't addressing him?

You need to show me an article that actually connects the Moon with Earth's magnetic field, not an article that connects the moon with something else that you think should connect with the magnetic field.

It's hard to find them on one source, but information from multiple sources will give you your answer.

Reville, W., "Looking on the bright side of the moon," The Irish Times, May 30, 2002.

McWilliams, B., "Our primordial indebtedness to the moon," The Irish Times, August 21, 2002.

Put them together, and you have your answer. If you want to know more, do the research yourself. Plus, anybody with half a brain would be able to figure out that a stable axis equals a stable magnetic field, because without a stable axis, the magnetic poles would be out of place, and continuously moving.

[espritduo]

I never said it would stop the rotation.

You're right, you didn't. I just assumed that's where you were going, since I don't really know what else you would be implying by saying there was any importance in the moon stabilizing Earth's axis in regards to life on Earth. And honestly, I still dont. More on that later.

You're correct. Axis stability isn't a requirement for a planet to have a magnetic field, but once again, I never said that. I said that without a proper axis, the magnet field would go haywire, meaning that there would be no stability within the magnetic field.

Go haywire, huh. Define stability of the magnetic field, since you seem to be misunderstanding what that actually means as far as the field goes and how it impacts life. A stable field is not required for life as we know it, only a sustainable field. There's a difference.

Too bad I don't know the argument. This just seems like a bunch of bullshit relating to earth's magnetic field and the brains of gorillas, but not actually about the topic that this thread is about.

You're the one that insisted on bringing them up in the first place in defense of your "no intelligent brain possible anywhere else" statement. I've simply been trying to get you to see that they, in fact, do not have anything to do with your statement, which whether you like it not, is now the topic this thread is about. If you've finally agreed that neither of them have anything to do with your original statement on the uniqueness of intelligent brains, then we may finally have a breakthrough here, folks.

I'm not disagreeing with you. I never have been. But for some reason, you keep bickering like a little schoolgirl.

Sure you are. Every time I try to explain why your assumptions surrounding your "unique intelligent brain" theory are wrong on a basic scientific level, you disagree and make up some other reason as to why they aren't, forcing me to continue correcting you ad infinitum.

Well perhaps that's because I never saw any five points, considering that I discard most of what you say.

That's a shame, because they're the entire crux of your pet theory, and if you'd bother to pay attention to them and answer them, you'd go a long way in the credibility department.

I agree. They could be the building blocks to intelligent life, but nobody knows how an undiscovered species is going to utilize their brains. Despite what the E-Sprit Duo thinks, I never denied alien life from existing. It's very likely that it exists, but the circumstances that it took for humans to, not gain intelligence, but to utilize intelligence may not be present on that particular planet. Concerning that only one species on earth utilized intelligence, out of trillions more species, the chances of it happening on that other planet are unlikely, but just like on earth, it could happen. Let me guess, Espritduo has a complaint about this comment as well, even though I wasn't addressing him?

The only complaint I have is that it now gives me nothing to argue because you've just recinded your original statement that intelligent life is not possible outside of humans, which is the core of what I've been arguing with you about from the beginning. In case you've forgotten:

I'm not saying that other life doesn't exists, just not intelligent life. Think of the circumstances that occurred on earth for humans to be where we are today. Billions of species were wiped out by natural disasters. The chances of those disasters happening exactly the same way to exactly the same billions of species is astronomically low. The atmosphere on the new planet would have to be exact to that of earth's, and the evolution of the brain would have to be exact to that of humans. It's impossible. No intelligent life will ever be found, because no other intelligent life exists besides humans. Whoever disagrees obviously didn't look into the matter and is living in a world of science fiction. Real science will tell you that it's astronomically impossible.

THAT is what I've been arguing against since the get-go.

If you're willing to admit that in the vastness of space there is the possibility that intelligent life other than ourselves could exist, then you've undone every other argument you've made since then, and I'm as pleased as punch to throw in the towel. Congratulations, and welcome to the other side of the fence.

It's hard to find them on one source, but information from multiple sources will give you your answer.

Reville, W., "Looking on the bright side of the moon," The Irish Times, May 30, 2002.

McWilliams, B., "Our primordial indebtedness to the moon," The Irish Times, August 21, 2002.

Put them together, and you have your answer. If you want to know more, do the research yourself.

I found one of those two articles online here, It appears "Looking on the bright side of the moon" is nothing more than a simple crash course on the basic facts of the moon. While informative, it states absolutely nothing about the moon's affect on Earth's magnetic field. I have found nothing on the second article you listed, so I can't say one way or another what it claims. I tried looking through the Irish Times, and it wasn't there, and there is no record of Brendan McWilliams ever writing that article. If you have access to it, post it here so I can read it. So here we stand again, with still not one single shread of evidence on your part requiring the moon for earth's magnetic field.

Plus, anybody with half a brain would be able to figure out that a stable axis equals a stable magnetic field, because without a stable axis, the magnetic poles would be out of place, and continuously moving.

And this is where you are right, and yet so wrong. You're right that a stable axis will allow for a stable magnetic field, but stable is completely different from sustainable, as I mentioned before. One of these is useful, but not vital, the other is vital. The only real impact an unstable magnetic field would have on life on earth is that we wouldn't be able to use things like compasses to find our way(and I guess birds would get lost more easily). The actual strength of the field and the beneficial effects of the magnetosphere would not be impacted in any meaningful way by moving poles. Even with moving poles, the field is still there, still sustaining itself through dynamo processes, and still protecting us from the solar winds. Heck, as long as the poles move in a predetermined and calculatable fashion, we could still use them to navigate, albeit in a more roundabout way.

And hey, look at this, you want an article about the moon's stabilization of Earth's axis and how it impacts life on Earth? Well here you go, I'm going to do the job you should be doing.

The Moon And Plate Tectonics: Why We Are Alone

This guy makes a much more compelling argument about the importance of the moon to life on Earth, and I wouldn't mind debating with him on the finer points of his theory, because it actually has real facts supporting it and is well reasoned and properly researched. Oh, and look at this excerpt from his article:

"The bulk of arguments about the Moon relate to its effect on the orbital dynamics of the Earth-Moon system (which is stabilised against spin-axis inclination variations, unlike Mars), and to the tidal influence on ecosystems (developing broad coastal flats with regular currents, water-depth variations, and monthly cycles).

None of these are compelling arguments for the origin or nature of life. Instead, we look here at plate tectonics as an essential engine for maintaining the continent/ocean duality on Earth, which enabled advanced life to emerge on land and develop to a tool-using electro-mechanical civilisation (our definition of "advanced life"?)."

So there you go. An actual scientific article written by a scientist saying flat out that the stabilization of Earth's axis by the moon(and thus anything related to this stabilization) does not have an impact on life. Of course he goes on to say that the removal of 70% of the earth's crust by the formation of the moon was necessary for highly intelligent life and technology to develop, but that's a whole other can of worms that I could debate with you on as well if you like, but I don't think you want to keep this going forever, do you?

[Clint]

If you're willing to admit that in the vastness of space there is the possibility that intelligent life other than ourselves could exist, then you've undone every other argument you've made since then, and I'm as pleased as punch to throw in the towel. Congratulations, and welcome to the other side of the fence.

There are trillions of species on earth alive today. There have been many more species on earth that are no longer alive today. That's a great number of species. Do you agree? One species, out of that great number, have been able to achieve intelligence. So the chances of that happening on another planet full of life is one out of a multi-googol. If you want to believe in those chances, then be my guest, but the chances of it actually happening are slim to none. I'm pretty sure I already stated that before, but there you go again. Get over it, and stop trying to change my mind via Wikipedia.

Of course he goes on to say that the removal of 70% of the earth's crust by the formation of the moon was necessary for highly intelligent life and technology to develop, but that's a whole other can of worms that I could debate with you on as well if you like, but I don't think you want to keep this going forever, do you?

You just proved my point of view even more. In order for intelligent life to form on another planet, 70% of the crust has to be removed and formed into an orbiting moon. Then, the orbiting moon will stabilize the axis, which will stabilize the magnetic field. So it's not one out of a multi-googol. With these circumstances, it's actually higher then that. So if you want to continuing to believe that it's more than likely possible for other intelligent life to begin, then please, continue bickering like a little schoolgirl.

[espritduo]

There are trillions of species on earth alive today. There have been many more species on earth that are no longer alive today. That's a great number of species. Do you agree? One species, out of that great number, have been able to achieve intelligence. So the chances of that happening on another planet full of life is one out of a multi-googol. If you want to believe in those chances, then be my guest, but the chances of it actually happening are slim to none. I'm pretty sure I already stated that before, but there you go again. Get over it, and stop trying to change my mind via Wikipedia.

So now you recant what you just said?

Concerning that only one species on earth utilized intelligence, out of trillions more species, the chances of it happening on that other planet are unlikely, but just like on earth, it could happen.

You need to pick a stance and stick with it. Also, you need to stop using unsupported and wild hyperbole to try and show that your ideas hold weight. Trillions of species alive today? No. It is estimated that there are, at most, 10 million species alive today, with only 2 million currently classified. And it is estimated that about 99.9% of the total number of species are now extinct. That means there have only been about 10 billion species in total throughout earth's history, and I'm being generous with that estimate, assuming the maximum number of species alive today. And the vast majority of those species were direct descendants of the species alive today, ie, they are all part of the same evolutionary path. You can't count every single step along the path to intelligent life as a seperate species that didn't become intelligent. We weren't just one lone species with nothing connecting us to the other species that have existed. We owe our current intelligence to millions of different now-extinct species that came before us and played their small part in the evolution of intelligence.

And a multi-googol? Now you're not even trying to use real numbers to back up your arguments. If you mean a googolplex, then you really have no idea how incomprehensibly large of a number that is. A googol is 10 to the 100th power. That's 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00 0,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. There are very few natural phenomenon that can have that number applied to them. A googolplex is 10 to the googol power. That's 1 followed by so many zeros that it is literally physically impossible to write them all out within the confines of our universe. There is nothing in the universe, either observed or potentially possible, that is capable of having that number applied to it.

If you're going to use numbers to try and back up your argument, use numbers that are correct and applicable, please. And you're the one that linked to wikipedia, I merely followed that link to the proper pages to refute what you said and prove what I said.

You just proved my point of view even more. In order for intelligent life to form on another planet, 70% of the crust has to be removed and formed into an orbiting moon. Then, the orbiting moon will stabilize the axis, which will stabilize the magnetic field. So it's not one out of a multi-googol. With these circumstances, it's actually higher then that. So if you want to continuing to believe that it's more than likely possible for other intelligent life to begin, then please, continue bickering like a little schoolgirl.

No, that's his theory, not yours, and I'm not going to argue his theory to you if you can't even quote him correctly. Do you even know why 70% of the Earth's crust needed to be removed? It had nothing to do with stabilizing the Earth's axis.

And there you go again with the stabilization thing. The guy says flat out that the stabilization of Earth's axis by the moon has no impact on the origin and nature of life on Earth. How many more ways do you need that fact thrown at you before you just let it drop?

And let me throw some real numbers at you, since you seem to like quoting off the wall large numbers when the actual numbers involved are much smaller, and the scales those numbers are applied to are much larger. Like I said before, according to our best estimates there have only been about 10 billion species on this planet. And even ignoring the fact that many of them are interrelated and form a continuous chain of evolution towards intelligence, that's a woefully small number on the galactic scale. But just for the sake of argument, let's take your incorrect reasoning and say that the odds of intelligent life forming on Earth specifically were 1 in 10 billion.

Using our own Milky Way galaxy(which is not a particularly large or small galaxy) as an average, let' say there are 300 billion stars in a single galaxy. About 10% of all stars are sun-like stars, and at least 10% of all sun-like stars are assumed to have planets around them(it's actually probably a much higher number than that, and is continually rising as we find more and more planets). That leaves us with 3 billion sun-like stars with planets in our own galaxy alone. We don't know what the odds are of these stars having Earth-like planets are, but we've already found rocky planets comparable to Earth in size and orbit out of the roughly 300 planets we've discovered. So let's just use Gliese 581d(the best candidate found so far for an Earth-like planet) and the small number of planets we've found so far as a base here and say the odds of a planet around a sun-like star being Earth-like are 1 in 300(it's probably higher than that even, considering we have found other planets that are earth-like as well, but let's just use this one planet for the sake of argument). That leaves us with 10 million Earth-like planets in our galaxy.

Now, let's not forget that there are other galaxies besides our own. There are over 100 billion galaxies besides our own, in fact. So now we have 100 billion galaxies with 10 million Earth-like planets each. That's 1 sextillion Earth-like planets in the universe. That's 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.

Now if the odds of an Earth-like planet forming intelligent life is 1 in 10 billion, then there are a whopping 100 billion other civilizations just as intelligent as us out there.

But let's not stop there. Since you want to include the moon-formation theory into the equation, I will. The period when the moon was formed from the collision of a Mars-sized object with our early Earth was a chaotic period full of cataclysmic collisions between all sorts of large astronomical bodies called planetesimals, and there is no reason to consider that one particular collision among so many others of equal or greater magnitude as something truly one of a kind, or even rare, in the universe. But let's say the odds of the Mars-sized planetesimal colliding with Earth during that time was 1 in a billion. That's an extremely low estimate, and the actual odds during that time were undoubtedly much higher, but let's just use it to drive my point home. Even with the odds that ridiculously low(much lower than they probably are), there should still be at least 100 other civilizations out there. Whether we could ever contact or find them is still questionable, but that is irrelevant to the topic at hand. The odds suggest that they are out there, not the other way around.

[Clint]

So now you recant what you just said?
Trillions of species alive today? No. It is estimated that there are, at most, 10 million species alive today, with only 2 million currently classified.

You should pick a stance and stick with it. Are there ten million species alive today, or are there two million? If only two million are classified, doesn't that mean that there's only two million alive today? Because if an animal is discovered, it's given a name, which would therefore classify it.

And just for the record, I was talking about all species, including plant life and microorganisms. If my calculations are correct, they are, or for the ones that went extinct, were at one time, alive on earth. Therefore, my statement about a trillion alive today, and even more extinct was correct.

We owe our current intelligence to millions of different now-extinct species that came before us and played their small part in the evolution of intelligence.

Therefore, that other planet would have to have a similar species in each place of that intelligence-link species, correct? Isn't that exactly what I said earlier? Are you arguing with me, because the more you talk, the more you seem to agree with me?

And a multi-googol? Now you're not even trying to use real numbers to back up your arguments. If you mean a googolplex, then you really have no idea how incomprehensibly large of a number that is. A googol is 10 to the 100th power.

Yeah, it's a big number. But out of those trillions of species, plus the moon thing that you talked about earlier, plus the exact replacement of every intelligence-link species, the chances of intelligent life occurring on another world would be about a multi-googol to one.

And you're the one that linked to wikipedia, I merely followed that link to the proper pages to refute what you said and prove what I said.

Hey, I was just showing you how easy it could be to research. I usually use academic search engines such as LexisNexis and EBSCOhost.

No, that's his theory, not yours, and I'm not going to argue his theory to you if you can't even quote him correctly. Do you even know why 70% of the Earth's crust needed to be removed? It had nothing to do with stabilizing the Earth's axis.

I didn't call it my theory, I called it my point of view, and all I said was that you proved my point even more.

As far as the stabilization is concerned, the removal of 70% of earth's crust did stabilize the earth, considering that that crust removed formed the moon. Not thinking two-dimensionally, are you?

And there you go again with the stabilization thing. The guy says flat out that the stabilization of Earth's axis by the moon has no impact on the origin and nature of life on Earth. How many more ways do you need that fact thrown at you before you just let it drop?

Yes, that's probably true, but it does have an impact on intelligent life, which has been the main point of my entire argument for the last few posts.

The odds suggest that they are out there, not the other way around.

And I entirely disagree. How about we leave it at that?

[MightyHero]

HAng on how long does it take to get there u would have to program a computer to control the ship and you would have to freeze your self which i think we dont have the technoigy yet to do that so ?

[espritduo]

You should pick a stance and stick with it. Are there ten million species alive today, or are there two million? If only two million are classified, doesn't that mean that there's only two million alive today? Because if an animal is discovered, it's given a name, which would therefore classify it.

No, no, no, and no. There are currently 2 million species known to science. That's what it means to be classified. Anyone can tell you we haven't discovered every single species alive today. The most common estimate given for the true number of species alive on the planet today is anywhere from 5 to 10 million.

And just for the record, I was talking about all species, including plant life and microorganisms. If my calculations are correct, they are, or for the ones that went extinct, were at one time, alive on earth. Therefore, my statement about a trillion alive today, and even more extinct was correct.

And for the record, so was I. We have currently classified 2 million species of ALL organisms, from humans to elephants to roses to the common cold. So you are wrong, plain and simple. Your calculations are just numbers you pulled out of thin air with no scientific backing whatsoever.

Therefore, that other planet would have to have a similar species in each place of that intelligence-link species, correct? Isn't that exactly what I said earlier? Are you arguing with me, because the more you talk, the more you seem to agree with me?

No it wouldn't. There could be any number of variations that might lead to the same evolutionary paths, even when starting from different points(remember the whales?). Unless you can state exactly what every single vital evolutionary mutation was that lead to intelligence, and can explain why they are vital, as well as why they could never arise under other circumstances, you can't make the statement that you need exactly this or exactly that for the evolution of an intelligent brain.

Yeah, it's a big number. But out of those trillions of species, plus the moon thing that you talked about earlier, plus the exact replacement of every intelligence-link species, the chances of intelligent life occurring on another world would be about a multi-googol to one.

Well forget the trillions because you're still completely wrong about that, and forget the exact replacement thing because you're completely wrong about that too, and we're back down in the real world where people use real numbers to back up any statistical claim they make. And a googol is not a number that applies to evolution, even under the extremely inaccurate circumstances you describe. For reference, there isn't even a google of atoms in the entire universe. If you can't wrap your head around how big a number a googol actually is, don't use it(or made-up variations of it) for your arguments.

Hey, I was just showing you how easy it could be to research. I usually use academic search engines such as LexisNexis and EBSCOhost.

Then use them and research your facts for a change. You'd find that the majority of what you say is just plain wrong.

I didn't call it my theory, I called it my point of view, and all I said was that you proved my point even more.

And you treat your point of view like it's a sacred law that only a moron would disagree with. I'm here to show you that it's not.

As far as the stabilization is concerned, the removal of 70% of earth's crust did stabilize the earth, considering that that crust removed formed the moon. Not thinking two-dimensionally, are you?

And as far as anything involving the evolution of life is concerned, no one cares about the stabilization of Earth's axis but you. It's an irrelevant point that has been proven increasingly irrelevant as the argument goes on, and yet you still cling to it for some reason I can't begin to fathom. I'm fairly certain it's because you just can't stand to admit you were wrong.

Yes, that's probably true, but it does have an impact on intelligent life, which has been the main point of my entire argument for the last few posts.

No it doesn't. What impact? How does intelligent life require a stable axis? The only thing a stable axis does is keep the magnetic poles from shifting, and the only thing that does is change which way magnetic north is, which only impacts things like compasses, which I daresay are not vital to human life. Again, actually read the article I linked to. It's entire point is the evolution of intelligent life, and it states flat out in the beginning that the stabilization of Earth's axis does not have an impact on that.

And I entirely disagree. How about we leave it at that?

We'll leave it at that when you actually treat your stance as just an ill-informed opinion with no facts to back it up. If anything you stated to explain yourself had scientific merit or relevance, I could agree to disagree. You certainly aren't the only person on earth who believes in the idea that we are alone in the universe. But as long as you keep treating your "point of view" as a fact and posting incorrect information as a defense, I will keep posting the correct information, using real facts.

[Clint]

The most common estimate given for the true number of species alive on the planet today is anywhere from 5 to 10 million.

Then what the hell is it, ten million or five million? Stop flip-flopping, man.

And for the record, so was I. We have currently classified 2 million species of ALL organisms, from humans to elephants to roses to the common cold. So you are wrong, plain and simple. Your calculations are just numbers you pulled out of thin air with no scientific backing whatsoever.

You're wrong if you think that there's less than five million species of microorganisms throughout the entire existence of the planet, which was what I was talking about this entire time. Good job completely ignoring everything that I said.

No it wouldn't. There could be any number of variations that might lead to the same evolutionary paths, even when starting from different points(remember the whales?). Unless you can state exactly what every single vital evolutionary mutation was that lead to intelligence, and can explain why they are vital, as well as why they could never arise under other circumstances, you can't make the statement that you need exactly this or exactly that for the evolution of an intelligent brain.

In order to take something away, such as a species in the evolutionary link that leads to intelligence, another species, quite similar and serving the same purpose, has to replace it. Think of it like drug addiction. In order for drug addiction to be stopped, the drug needs to be taken out of the person's life, and something else needs to replace the drug. There's always an equilibrium.

And a googol is not a number that applies to evolution, even under the extremely inaccurate circumstances you describe.

Okay, I'm going to say this one more time, for you to get this through your head, when I say multi-googol, I'm not speaking in evolutionary terms, I'm speaking of the chances of the entire process happening again, including the proper links, the removal of 70% of the crust from earth, the stabilization of the magnetic poles, the earth-sun ratio. Everything.

And you treat your point of view like it's a sacred law that only a moron would disagree with. I'm here to show you that it's not.

Don't be mad at me because I was right about the functions of the moon and you were wrong.

And as far as anything involving the evolution of life is concerned, no one cares about the stabilization of Earth's axis but you. It's an irrelevant point that has been proven increasingly irrelevant as the argument goes on, and yet you still cling to it for some reason I can't begin to fathom. I'm fairly certain it's because you just can't stand to admit you were wrong.

Let me explain this further. Without the moon, the earth would be on an unstable axis. It would be almost violently tilting. This could cause the magnetic field to shoot out into space a bit too far, and it would begin to disipate. Now it's true that without the moon, there will still be a magnetic field, but it won't be as strong. Now, the magnetic field stops much of the radiation from the sun from coming into the atmosphere. If the magnetic field was weaker, which it would be without a moon, more radiation would enter, and drastically change life on earth as we know it. Therefore, the stabilization of earth's axis is vital to life. If you want to prove my point, find a way to blow up the moon, and see what happens on earth.

No it doesn't. What impact? How does intelligent life require a stable axis?

Apparently even though you researched, you didn't actually read the research, and therefore managed to misunderstand what the scientist said. He said that the removal of 70% of earth's crust was vital in the start of intelligent life. This all comes back down to that one simple line, which you pointed out yourself. So stop arguing with yourself.

We'll leave it at that when you actually treat your stance as just an ill-informed opinion with no facts to back it up. If anything you stated to explain yourself had scientific merit or relevance, I could agree to disagree.

I'm no scientist, and I don't treat my idea as fact. It's only an idea. If a little green man shows up on earth, my idea will change, but so far, nothing has proven that intelligent life exists outside of earth. So if you want to keep bickering over how much you disagree with an idea, then I'll be happy to keep the sarcasm alive in this argument.

[espritduo]

Then what the hell is it, ten million or five million? Stop flip-flopping, man.

It's difficult to argue with someone when they don't even understand elementary school math definitions. It's an estimate. The lower range of the estimate is 5 million, and the upper range of the estimate is 10 million. I was doing you a favor and using the upper limit just to show you how statistically probable life is, even using the lowest probability.

You're wrong if you think that there's less than five million species of microorganisms throughout the entire existence of the planet, which was what I was talking about this entire time. Good job completely ignoring everything that I said.

Good job completely ignoring the facts again, as well as not even attempting to understand what I'm talking about. I never once mentioned anything about there being less than 5 million species of microorganisms throughout the history of the planet. Here are the facts. There are around 2 million species known to science today. Based on that fact and other biodiversity-related facts, scientists usually put the current number of total living species(including microorganisms) around 5-10 million, sometimes as high as 30 million according to a few sources. 99.9% of all species have gone extinct. That means there are 1000 times as many total species as there are current species - That means 10 billion species total throughout history, or 30 billion of you want to go to the extreme limit. You can't argue with these facts just because you don't like them. And since you seem to want to just ignore everything I say, here's a bunch of links to articles saying the same thing I'm saying. You'll notice there is indeed a variability in the numbers, but they stay within the "millions" range, and never go anywhere even remotely close to "trillions".

The Environmental Literacy Council - How Many Species are There?
Number of Species
How Many Species
Biodiversity - Encyclopedia of Earth
Extinction
CARPE DIEM: 99.9% of All Species Have Already Gone Extinct

All of these were easily found by doing a simple google search. I'm sure since you have access to such powerful research search engines you could find plenty more articles that support exactly what I've been saying.

In order to take something away, such as a species in the evolutionary link that leads to intelligence, another species, quite similar and serving the same purpose, has to replace it. Think of it like drug addiction. In order for drug addiction to be stopped, the drug needs to be taken out of the person's life, and something else needs to replace the drug. There's always an equilibrium.

No it doesn't. You don't know which species were vital to intelligence and which ones weren't. And you can't say exactly what order or what the nature of each evolutionary step absolutely had to be. And besides, you said yourself right here, right now that the link doesn't have to be exactly the same, just similar enough to do the job. Since you don't know how similar these links would need to be,or even if they're necessary, you can't argue about needing "exactly this or exactly that".

Okay, I'm going to say this one more time, for you to get this through your head, when I say multi-googol, I'm not speaking in evolutionary terms, I'm speaking of the chances of the entire process happening again, including the proper links, the removal of 70% of the crust from earth, the stabilization of the magnetic poles, the earth-sun ratio. Everything.

And you need to get this through your head: A googol(or any made-up variation of it you choose to use), has no place in evolutionary theory because its size is too large to apply to any possible permutation of the evolutionary process, from the formation of the universe itself right down to the act of me typing this sentence. Even if there were a bunch of other variables neither of us had even thought of yet involved in the process that allowed life to evolve intelligently, a googol would still be far, far too large of a number to apply to it. Until you can understand how big that number actually is, don't use it.

Don't be mad at me because I was right about the functions of the moon and you were wrong.

So far you've been nothing but wrong. I have never wavered from the fact that the moon has no impact on the magnetic field as it applies to life on earth. And I never will, because I use facts, and you use your own imagination.

Let me explain this further. Without the moon, the earth would be on an unstable axis. It would be almost violently tilting. This could cause the magnetic field to shoot out into space a bit too far, and it would begin to disipate. Now it's true that without the moon, there will still be a magnetic field, but it won't be as strong. Now, the magnetic field stops much of the radiation from the sun from coming into the atmosphere. If the magnetic field was weaker, which it would be without a moon, more radiation would enter, and drastically change life on earth as we know it. Therefore, the stabilization of earth's axis is vital to life. If you want to prove my point, find a way to blow up the moon, and see what happens on earth.

As usual, you're completely wrong. It would not be "violently tilting", it would merely shift on a slightly wider oblique than it already does, like the rest of the planets without a stable axis. It would not have ANY impact on the strength or size of the magnetic field. Do I need to post the formula for determining a magnetic field here to show you that the axis of rotation does not even factor into the equation? No, because the article I posted already states that the stabilization of Earth's magnetic field has nothing to do with the evolution of intelligent life. And from now on every time you post the same tripe about stabilization, I'm just going to requote that statement, because it says everything you need to know about this non-existent connection you seem hard-pressed to argue about.

Apparently even though you researched, you didn't actually read the research, and therefore managed to misunderstand what the scientist said. He said that the removal of 70% of earth's crust was vital in the start of intelligent life. This all comes back down to that one simple line, which you pointed out yourself. So stop arguing with yourself.

No, you are the one not reading the article, or anything I've said. I am not arguing with you about his article because it is not your argument, it is his. So far you have shown that you do not understand any of the reasoning he has used to come to his conclusions, so there would be no point in me arguing his points with you, when you don't even know what his points are outside of the one I already explained to you(which you subsequently misinterpreted).

I'm no scientist

You sure aren't. And when you stop using incorrect facts to support your "idea" which you have already stated is something anyone with a brain should agree with, I'll stop arguing with you. Because in reality, I'm not arguing with you, I'm arguing with the constant barrage of incorrect statements you use to defend you idea. Start saying something with scientific merit, and I'll stop arguing.

[Clint]

No it doesn't. You don't know which species were vital to intelligence and which ones weren't. And you can't say exactly what order or what the nature of each evolutionary step absolutely had to be. And besides, you said yourself right here, right now that the link doesn't have to be exactly the same, just similar enough to do the job. Since you don't know how similar these links would need to be,or even if they're necessary, you can't argue about needing "exactly this or exactly that".

You obviously know nothing of general psychology. In order to take something away, something very similar needs to be added. Since nobody knows what species were vital in the development and evolution of intelligence, then it's safe to say that in order to aviod the risk, every species that ever existed needs to be accounted for. If you're missing one, that could seriously screw up the entire evolutionary chain, and send intelligence back millions of years.

As for this argument, I'm really tired of repeating myself, as well as hearing your ridiculous double-talk, so how about we both agree to just shut the hell up already?

[espritduo]

You obviously know nothing of general psychology.

Not a single word that has been argued in this entire thread has had anything to do with psychology, and if you think it has, then you're the one with no idea of what psychology is. Psychology deals with what happens after an intelligent mind has already been created. Our argument deals with everything that has happened before that point.

In order to take something away, something very similar needs to be added.

Says who? Quote the scientific law that states this, or shut up.

Since nobody knows what species were vital in the development and evolution of intelligence, then it's safe to say that in order to aviod the risk, every species that ever existed needs to be accounted for.

No, it's the exact opposite conclusion. If you don't know the value of the constants in an equation(in this case, the equation of the evolution of life), you can't just make them up and assume what their values should be or should not be, or even whether they are constants or not. You have to assume the constant as a variable, by definition. In other words, when talking about the equation of the evolution of life, the majority of the links are variables with no definite answer, and should not be regarded specifically and assigned statistical weights when talking about the statistical probability of life evolving in general. Any number you'd give them would be some wild guess with no value whatsoever, like say, a "multi-googol".

If you're missing one, that could seriously screw up the entire evolutionary chain, and send intelligence back millions of years.

And...? So what if intelligence gets set back a million years? That's a drop in the bucket in terms of evolutionary time. The dinosaurs would have gone extinct 66 million years ago instead of 65 million. Big whoop.

As for this argument, I'm really tired of repeating myself, as well as hearing your ridiculous double-talk, so how about we both agree to just shut the hell up already?

I have never used double talk once in any of my arguments. I've maintained a consistent chain of reasoning and arguments that you have just as consistently ignored or refused to believe. Everything I've said are simple scientific facts that you should've already been well aware of. You, however, have been wheedling out of, ignoring, and purposefully misinterpreting every argument I've given, just to defend a position that has been proven not defensible. I'll agree to shut the hell up when you stop evading my points and insulting me with high-handed claims of a superiority you don't have. Just admit that your original "idea" or whatever you want to call it was based on poorly thought-out and unresearched claims and I'll be happy. You don't have to agree with me at all on the basic premise that we may or may not be alone in the universe, that's a philosophical issue that has no absolute right or wrong answer at this current time. All you have to do is agree that your reasons for believing it were incorrect and poorly thought-out, as well as arrogantly self-righteous.