Odds of other life in the Universe (Page 5)
bitemykayak: there maybe 30 billion planets in the milky way but only 1.6 billion contain water in liquid form and are considered life friendly
bitemykayak: Life theorists consider life on other planets a certainty but also consider it unlikely that this life is more than single cell microbes. Higher life (multi cell life) is probably an earth only event though its possible its elsewhere. The biological circumstances that lead microbes to develop mitochondria that used oxidation as an energy generator is beyond a statistical anomoly, and may have happened only on earth. I know some will say that its happened on earth and the universe is soo big it will or has happened elsewhere, but the experts admit while its possible, it may be unlikely even given the universes vastness and great numbers
bitemykayak: The 1.6 billion is arrived through extrapolation from detailed surveys, a method scientifically reliable and considered acceptable by our legal system
Blackshoes: I sure it's a reasonable assumption . None the less\" it's just assumed that life can survive on planets that we have no knowledge of whatsoever
kittybobo34: We have found life in volcanic vents, just short of boiling, life deep in caves and consumes rock for energy. It seems that once life gets a foothold it adapts to every environment.
bitemykayak: No Black, im saying its believed that life can survive on planets where water can be found
kittybobo34: Seems that microbial life existed on this planet in the 1st billion years. But, complex life took another 3 billion to evolve, then another 500 million to get to intelligent life.
kittybobo34: The classification system is all about how the evolution progressed, Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species, Variety. But all this didn't even start till the first 2 bacteriums formed a simbiotic relationship, making the first cell.
Blackshoes: True .entirely based On the assumption' that species evolved
"The classification system is all about how the evolution progressed"
Once you strip away all the religious assumption of Evolution ', you'll Quickly understand how unscientific it is .
The truth is simple . Though it may make sense that you're little more than a monkey ',because Apes and Primates Humans may look alike and act alike ,it's not Scientifically possible.
Actually we have far more in Common socially with Wolfs than we do with Apes
Because you want something be true', doesn't make a fact
kittybobo34: so you are totally ignoring all the evidence of early pre humans like Lucy and the first family, Neandertal, homo erectus, homo gigantus etc..
bitemykayak: The evolutionary road of homo sapiens is only partially mapped out, but the road is complete enough to see a direct progression. Im addition, DNA analysis show genetic links to extinct ancestors of modern humans, bt genetic links i mean actual DNA. Let me guess, DNA is not scientifically possible either lol.
kittybobo34: Don't forget the Teeth, that's the fingerprint of a species. Lucy and the first family all had our teeth.
kittybobo34: With Blackshoe, I have given up trying to talk to him of science, he just doesn't understand it well enough. So I am resorting to the facts he can't deny like fossils, recently divided species like horses and donkeys, lions and tigers, Dolphins and whales with the bones structure for feet even though they have evolved into fins. Islands where new species have appeared, even though there was no island during some supposed creation. hmm just occured to me, he might think the earth is only 6000 years old.
Blackshoes: You just keep telling yourself and others that line
The facts do not support your theory 'only assumptions do !
What's supposedly so hard that I'm unable to understand ?
It's impossible for Life to have developed on its own here on earth
Therefore what chance would it have' In unknown ,and likely far harsher Environments outside the Earth ?
kittybobo34: What's hard to understand is why you don't think the facts support the theory, or why you think its impossible for life to have evolved here, when the evidence clearly shows that it did. Or, why you think the creation concept fits the facts when it doesn't.
kittybobo34: Just watched the last video post. He says the fossil record makes no sense, well I guess it doesn't if you want it to prove creation. It does show progressive changes in all species, especially plants. It shows for instance how dino's ceased to exist after the comet extinction or KT event and the only mammals were small burrowing versions like the possums and squirrels and from that the fossil record shows steady variations and new animal species filling all the niches that were abandoned by the dino's to the point of this world having large mammals like the mastodons, and giant ground sloths. and then another major extinction when the climate changed to rotating ice ages as we have now.
He comments on how we can't test our theory like we do in Physics. Yet somehow he neglects to notice how genetics has been teased down the the specific genes that make each organ, and how genetic engineering has been successful in showing how the changes work. He also mentioned the genetic algorithms and how they don't work, but forgets the success of those algorithms is why we can do genetic engineering now.