Habemas Papem!

[Kidlicious]

There's no point in arguing with you on this, since there isn't true evidence - but everything MtG has posted is relevant. Real scientists simply don't consider what you're saying true. Believe what you want, it's certainly your right; but you don't have any more reasonable of an argument than the guy looking outside at rain who claims it doesn't rain anywhere else.

No answer to the question, "why didn't dinosaurs evolve into intelligent beings" then?

[snoopy369]

No, focusing on destructive events is the key to the issue. Why didn't dinosaurs evolve into intelligent beings?

You're focusing on what you are interested in. Evolution is not a directed process, and it's not something you can ask 'why didn't ...' really. It didn't. Sometimes you can point to why something DID happen, but it is a logical fallacy to assume that's the only way things could have occurred. It's entirely irrelevant why something didn't happen.

[Kidlicious]

You're focusing on what you are interested in. Evolution is not a directed process, and it's not something you can ask 'why didn't ...' really. It didn't. Sometimes you can point to why something DID happen, but it is a logical fallacy to assume that's the only way things could have occurred. It's entirely irrelevant why something didn't happen.

Dinosaurs didn't evolve into intelligent beings because they were destroyed. Therefore destructive events are both necessary and necessary to not happen. Why did life evolve into intelligent beings, both because certain destructive events happened and others didn't.

[MrFun]

Kid, what's with your assumption that Earth is the only planet in the universe with an oxygen-rich atmosphere?

[MichaeltheGreat]

We're talking about intelligent life so I'll take that as a yes, you need a free oxygen build up event for intelligent life to evolve. But that's only one factor. Do you concede that you need other conditions and events that happened on earth for intelligent life to evolve, such as the evolution of oxygenic photosynthesis, plate tectonics and volcanic activity? Do you concede that intelligent life could not evolve without all of these conditions and events?

You can take it as whatever you like. Photosynthesis is almost inevitable in a near earth mass planet in its star's habitable zone, given there are multiple ways for it to occur chemically and the reqired molecules and processes are all rather basic. Most single cell organisms are photoautotrophs, so that being a requirment is no big deal. Neither plate tectonics nor vulcanism are required for evolution - the only real constraint is that there isn't too much of either, i.e. Venus where you have a total resurfacing phenomona. So you have one condition that should apply universally to many habitable zone planets without an excess of vulcanism or tectonic activity. So, 0.6 out of 3. You almost hit one out of the infield.

You missed one, though: you do have a requred interrelationship of planetary mass, solar distance and magnetic field strength.

[Kidlicious]

Kid, what's with your assumption that Earth is the only planet in the universe with an oxygen-rich atmosphere?

It has nothing to do with gay marriage.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Dinosaurs didn't evolve into intelligent beings because they were destroyed. Therefore destructive events are both necessary and necessary to not happen.

Incorrect. Dinosaurs didn't evolve intelligence because there was no evolutionary benefit for them to do so. Think of poor T. Rex trying to write on a chalkboard in dinosaur school. Intelligent brains (a) consume significant energy, and (b) require enough agility and motor control to be able to manipulate their environment. Think Einstein's brain implanted into an sauropod. What's the benefit? Absent a competitive advantage in propagating its DNA (geek dinosaurs can't get laid), there's no basis for the trait to be preserved, or to develop further.

[Sava]

why didn't dinosaurs evolve into intelligent beings

you can't build things with tiny t-rex arms

rawr rawr rawr

[Kidlicious]

You can take it as whatever you like. Photosynthesis is almost inevitable in a near earth mass planet in its star's habitable zone, given there are multiple ways for it to occur chemically and the reqired molecules and processes are all rather basic. Most single cell organisms are photoautotrophs, so that being a requirment is no big deal. Neither plate tectonics nor vulcanism are required for evolution - the only real constraint is that there isn't too much of either, i.e. Venus where you have a total resurfacing phenomona. So you have one condition that should apply universally to many habitable zone planets without an excess of vulcanism or tectonic activity. So, 0.6 out of 3. You almost hit one out of the infield.

You missed one, though: you do have a requred interrelationship of planetary mass, solar distance and magnetic field strength.

Wow! The build of of free oxygen in the environment is the result of the coming together of the biology that gives rise to the free oxygen production and geology the permits free oxygen to accumulate. This is your failure. You don't understand how everything has happened just it must have for intelligent life to evolve.

[Kidlicious]

Incorrect. Dinosaurs didn't evolve intelligence because there was no evolutionary benefit for them to do so. Think of poor T. Rex trying to write on a chalkboard in dinosaur school. Intelligent brains (a) consume significant energy, and (b) require enough agility and motor control to be able to manipulate their environment. Think Einstein's brain implanted into an sauropod. What's the benefit? Absent a competitive advantage in propagating its DNA (geek dinosaurs can't get laid), there's no basis for the trait to be preserved, or to develop further.

And everything that you've said in this post means it's unlikely for intelligent life to exist on other planets.

[MichaeltheGreat]

It's unlikely on any given planet at any given point in that planet's lifespan. Winning the powerball lotto is unlikely, but the odds get a bit better if you buy a few trillion tickets.

We already have multiple candidate planets that have been identified, despite less than 20 years' total capability for discovering exoplanets of any size or take. And despite only a minority of large scale astronomical instruments being used in exoplanetary search projects.

[Kidlicious]

It's unlikely on any given planet at any given point in that planet's lifespan. Winning the powerball lotto is unlikely, but the odds get a bit better if you buy a few trillion tickets.

We already have multiple candidate planets that have been identified, despite less than 20 years' total capability for discovering exoplanets of any size or take. And despite only a minority of large scale astronomical instruments being used in exoplanetary search projects.

Candidates don't mean a thing. There's a big difference between getting 3 powerball numbers and getting them all (5 or whatever). A lot of fools get 3 numbers and think that means they are going to win next time.

[MrFun]

It has nothing to do with gay marriage.

Now that you got your trolling out of the way, on what basis do you assume that Earth is the only planet in the universe with an oxygen-rich atmosphere?

[MichaeltheGreat]

Candidates mean everything if you have enough of them. If we found planets were a rare thing, or formed only in certain configurations, that would indicate the odds of life were pretty poor. Now we've found planets are the norm, not the exception, they form in a much wider variety of ways, and as we've refined our detection capabilities, we find that near earth mass planets are also common, and we find them in their star's habitable zone too.

[PLATO]

Candidates mean everything if you have enough of them. If we found planets were a rare thing, or formed only in certain configurations, that would indicate the odds of life were pretty poor. Now we've found planets are the norm, not the exception, they form in a much wider variety of ways, and as we've refined our detection capabilities, we find that near earth mass planets are also common, and we find them in their star's habitable zone too.

One of the interesting things about so many planets being discovered is the "tilt" of their orbits I seem to remember. The configuration of the orbits of our solar system does seem to be somewhat rare from what I have read.