New Earth like Planet Discovered

[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.