New Earth like Planet Discovered

[Clint]

You seem to be stuck on the idea that the part of the human brain that makes us what we are is so special that it could never have appeared ever anywhere else under any other circumstances, and yet you refuse to say why that is.

The brain went through billions of years of evolution. From reptiles, to mammals, to migration, which leads to different environments and therefore leads to different ways of evolution. Those different styles of evolution occurring over those billions of years is what makes humans smart. In order for that part of the brain to be developed elsewhere would require circumstances, migration, and evolution to be near exact. 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.

Going back to my point, if the dinosaurs had survived for another 60 million years, there's no reason to say flat out they couldn't have developed intelligence just like mammals eventually did.

Dinosaurs were reptiles. The reptilian brain is the old brain. Even though they are one of the oldest species on the planet, they still have only that old brain. If the dinosaurs had remained alive, there would be no development, as seen with today's reptiles.

and there's no reason to say mammals couldn't have eventually developed intelligence even with the dinosaurs around.

The dominating species holds back all others. Think of Planet of the Apes, for example. In those movies, the apes are the dominating species on the planet, and the humans aren't even smart enough to talk.

And yeah, an atmosphere is probably needed for advanced life as we know it, but most of the planets in our solar system have atmospheres, and even some of the moons. There's nothing special about an atmosphere, and there's no reason to suggest our atmosphere is the only exactly combination of gases that could support intelligent life, or even that you need any of those gases in the first place.

It's true, other planets in our solar system can hold life. Microorganisms. In order for life to grow, however, earth's climate and atmosphere is needed. However, if earth was off it's axis by only a little bit; a bit further to the sun and we'd all fry, a bit further away and we'd all freeze. It's not just about climate, it's about the other planet being in exactly the axis around a sun exactly the same size, as earth is in.

There also has to be a moon corresponding to the scale of our moon. The moon is essential for the magnetic field. If there was no moon, or if the moon was too small, too much radiation would get into the atmosphere, and the planet would become like Mars. A barren wasteland.

[espritduo]

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.

Or the slightest change may have made our brains even more developed than it is now. Like you said, nobody knows, so what makes you think you do? You don't even know what the links are, and yet you seem to think they are not only vital, but unique to our particular path, and that no other path could have ever worked. Tell me what links can't be missing, tell me why they can't be missing, and tell me why no other possible permutations of evolution could possibly work, and you'll have yourself a leg to stand on.

Dinosaurs were reptiles. The reptilian brain is the old brain. Even though they are one of the oldest species on the planet, they still have only that old brain. If the dinosaurs had remained alive, there would be no development, as seen with today's reptiles.

Dinosaurs were not anything like modern day reptiles. Dinosaurs were markedly different from any reptiles living today and are far removed from most of them, with crocodiles being the only reptiles even remotely related to them. Their "old" brain was the brain they had 65 million years ago, a brain whose basic set up was shared by most of the animals on the planet at that time. There wasn't anything "old" about it at the time. They got wiped out, so of course their brain never developed any further. If they hadn't, then certain species of dinosaurs like the troodons and Baryonyx very possibly would have continued their trend of growing brain size and complexity. You don't know what would have happend, so you can't say anything about what could have been with the dinosaurs.

Besides, it is widely accepted by most scientists today that some dinosaurs did in fact survive, and they evolved into what we now know today as birds, which have a much more complex brain(in fact birds such as crows are considered some of the smartest animals alive today) and *gasp* the power of flight. Even us almighty humans never evolved that particular biological feat. Although there were plenty of other animals that did, completely seperately from birds. If something as amazing as flight(another biological process we do not fully understand) could be duplicated multiple times throughout evolutionary history in multiple organism at different times and under different circumstances, why is the brain so much more special? Why, why, why? Answer.

The dominating species holds back all others. Think of Planet of the Apes, for example. In those movies, the apes are the dominating species on the planet, and the humans aren't even smart enough to talk.

So now you're the one using science fiction to support your claims? It is true, though, that there was something about homo sapiens that allowed us to beat out our other primate competitors, but there's no evidence it was a superior brain. Like I said before, Neanderthals had the same brains as us, if not even more developed, and we still won the evolutionary struggle. There's a lot of things besides brain power that go into deciding which species becomes the dominant form in a particular niche, not just brains. And there's no reason to assume that a species would have to be the dominant lifeform to have intelligence, just because we happen to be on top now(and that's only from our perspective - I'm sure ants, bacteria, and other wildly successful organisms in their own right could care less about what us humans are up to). Unless you can point to something other than a B movie from the 60's as evidence, I'm afraid you don't have any reason to make the assumptions you're making.

It's true, other planets in our solar system can hold life. Microorganisms. In order for life to grow, however, earth's climate and atmosphere is needed. However, if earth was off it's axis by only a little bit; a bit further to the sun and we'd all fry, a bit further away and we'd all freeze. It's not just about climate, it's about the other planet being in exactly the axis around a sun exactly the same size, as earth is in.

Again, why? Why, why, why? You say things like Earth's exact atmosphere and exact climate are necessary for any form of intelligent life, and yet you give no reasons, nor any reasons why these things are non-duplicatable in the vastness of space.

As far as Earth's position, we've already found planets that have the right position in relation to their sun, and we're only going to find more, so there's no reason to state as a matter of fact that Earth's position in the solar system is anything unique.

There also has to be a moon corresponding to the scale of our moon. The moon is essential for the magnetic field. If there was no moon, or if the moon was too small, too much radiation would get into the atmosphere, and the planet would become like Mars. A barren wasteland.

The moon has nothing at all to do with Earth's magnetic field. Literally nothing. Earth's magnetic field is produced by the spinning of its metal core, not the Moon.

[Clint]

Tell me what links can't be missing, tell me why they can't be missing, and tell me why no other possible permutations of evolution could possibly work, and you'll have yourself a leg to stand on.

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.

They got wiped out, so of course their brain never developed any further. If they hadn't, then certain species of dinosaurs like the troodons and Baryonyx very possibly would have continued their trend of growing brain size and complexity. You don't know what would have happend, so you can't say anything about what could have been with the dinosaurs.

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.

If something as amazing as flight(another biological process we do not fully understand) could be duplicated multiple times throughout evolutionary history in multiple organism at different times and under different circumstances, why is the brain so much more special? Why, why, why? Answer.

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

Neanderthals had the same brains as us, if not even more developed, and we still won the evolutionary struggle. There's a lot of things besides brain power that go into deciding which species becomes the dominant form in a particular niche, not just brains. And there's no reason to assume that a species would have to be the dominant lifeform to have intelligence, just because we happen to be on top now.

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.

Again, why? Why, why, why? You say things like Earth's exact atmosphere and exact climate are necessary for any form of intelligent life, and yet you give no reasons, nor any reasons why these things are non-duplicatable in the vastness of space.

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.

As far as Earth's position, we've already found planets that have the right position in relation to their sun, and we're only going to find more, so there's no reason to state as a matter of fact that Earth's position in the solar system is anything unique.

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.

The moon has nothing at all to do with Earth's magnetic field. Literally nothing. Earth's magnetic field is produced by the spinning of its metal core, not the Moon.

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?

[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.

[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.