For Prose Posted October 18, 2014 Posted October 18, 2014 If you removed all of the life on Earth, "Earth" the planet would still be here, but it would be a dead planet. The living components of Earth give it its life. Just like the living components of humans give them life. Oh dear, now I fully realize what I have gotten myself into...
Phi for All Posted October 18, 2014 Posted October 18, 2014 If you removed all of the life on Earth, "Earth" the planet would still be here, but it would be a dead planet. The living components of Earth give it its life. Just like the living components of humans give them life. Is this all you're going to do, make assertions with nothing to support them? This is a science discussion site, not your personal soapbox. You need to start providing some evidence beyond your opinions. I'm guessing you didn't read any of the rules that help us make these discussions productive.
Lance_Granger Posted October 18, 2014 Author Posted October 18, 2014 (edited) I have supported all of my comments. You Capt Ahab seem to just not like anything I say. That's your issue not mine. I can't be held responsible for you not like anything I'm saying or any of the proof I give. How that's a soapbox is beyond me. I'm sorry your so emotionally involved in this thread, all we are all doing is chatting about one of my ideas. No ego needed just to chat. + Edited October 18, 2014 by Lance_Granger
zapatos Posted October 18, 2014 Posted October 18, 2014 I have supported all of my comments. You Capt Ahab seem to just not like anything I say. That's your issue not mine. I can't be held responsible for you not like anything I'm saying or any of the proof I give. How that's a soapbox is beyond me. I'm sorry your so emotionally involved in this thread, all we are all doing is chatting about one of my ideas. No ego needed just to chat. + Stop the snarky comments please. Enough is enough.
Lance_Granger Posted October 18, 2014 Author Posted October 18, 2014 (edited) Stop the snarky comments please. Enough is enough. And accusing me of standing on a soapbox isn't snarky? Just say'n Whats good for the goose is good for the gander so I can throw stones if they are throw at me. But, like I said my ego needs to stay out of it too. So ill take my own advice and keep my emotions in check as well. Edited October 18, 2014 by Lance_Granger
hypervalent_iodine Posted October 18, 2014 Posted October 18, 2014 ! Moderator Note Lance_Granger,Cut out the childish attitude in your posts. If you believe someone has insulted you, report it and let staff deal with it. However, as far as I can tell, you have been the only one in this thread making veiled insults at other members and it is to stop. To reiterate Phi's comment about soap boxing: that is exactly what you are doing. Please look up what evidence is and start supplying some or this will be closed.
davidivad Posted October 18, 2014 Posted October 18, 2014 one of the goals of this site is to foster argumentation skills. this is first base. second base is being able to talk at the level of your peers and also to submit when you are proven wrong. the proper application of science requires good communication skills. this is our sandbox. please keep it clean as it is for educational purposes only. this is for both sides.
Lance_Granger Posted October 18, 2014 Author Posted October 18, 2014 one of the goals of this site is to foster argumentation skills. this is first base. second base is being able to talk at the level of your peers and also to submit when you are proven wrong. the proper application of science requires good communication skills. this is our sandbox. please keep it clean as it is for educational purposes only. this is for both sides. I agree with you David so I am sorry for getting emotional about it. I feel like I've had to be on the defense since I posted this thread, but I still need to keep a level head. Ty for speaking up.
arc Posted October 18, 2014 Posted October 18, 2014 Maybe this will help. There are planets like Mars, Venus, Mercury and undoubtedly countless others across the cosmos that do not have life clinging to, let alone thriving, anywhere on or within the planet. They are just rocks in orbits around a star. Earth on the other hand is ideally suited and situated to foster and maintain life. I think all could agree with this so far. The Earth's magnetic field is to a large degree responsible for this "oasis in the desert". Earth also orbits its star in what is described as a Goldilocks orbit, one being just right. Rocks seem to have a uncanny ability to attract life if the right conditions exist. In water environments algae will find a niche on a rock out of the harsh stream flow , the "shady side" so to speak. Or even up on the surface a "little world" can find a home on a rock in a Goldilock location; https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=lichen A lichen (/ˈlaɪkən/ or /ˈlɪtʃən/) is a composite organism that emerges from algae or cyanobacteria (or both) living among filaments of a fungus in a mutually beneficial (symbiotic) relationship. The whole combined life form has properties that are very different than properties of its component organisms. You notice though the rock is not considered part of the lichen combined life form, because they would undoubtedly grow on other surfaces if the rock was not available. This rock we live on is just that. An ideally suited rock just the right distance from a star, that is itself also of the right size. A civilization with enough technical know how and where withall could build one of suitable materials. An artificial magnetic field and all, and it too would be a home but not the life that lives within its shelter away from the harsh stream flow outside its walls.. 1
Lance_Granger Posted October 18, 2014 Author Posted October 18, 2014 Maybe this will help. There are planets like Mars, Venus, Mercury and undoubtedly countless others across the cosmos that do not have life clinging to, let alone thriving, anywhere on or within the planet. They are just rocks in orbits around a star. Earth on the other hand is ideally suited and situated to foster and maintain life. I think all could agree with this so far. The Earth's magnetic field is to a large degree responsible for this "oasis in the desert". Earth also orbits its star in what is described as a Goldilocks orbit, one being just right. Rocks seem to have a uncanny ability to attract life if the right conditions exist. In water environments algae will find a niche on a rock out of the harsh stream flow , the "shady side" so to speak. Or even up on the surface a "little world" can find a home on a rock in a Goldilock location; https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=lichen A lichen (/ˈlaɪkən/ or /ˈlɪtʃən/) is a composite organism that emerges from algae or cyanobacteria (or both) living among filaments of a fungus in a mutually beneficial (symbiotic) relationship. The whole combined life form has properties that are very different than properties of its component organisms. You notice though the rock is not considered part of the lichen combined life form, because they would undoubtedly grow on other surfaces if the rock was not available. This rock we live on is just that. An ideally suited rock just the right distance from a star, that is itself also of the right size. A civilization with enough technical know how and where withall could build one of suitable materials. An artificial magnetic field and all, and it too would be a home but not the life that lives within its shelter away from the harsh stream flow outside its walls.. Great info Molecule, ty
davidivad Posted October 18, 2014 Posted October 18, 2014 I agree with you David so I am sorry for getting emotional about it. I feel like I've had to be on the defense since I posted this thread, but I still need to keep a level head. Ty for speaking up. thats ok, i completely understand. it can be frustrating at times. that is the very reason we practice these things here.
Lance_Granger Posted October 18, 2014 Author Posted October 18, 2014 thats ok, i completely understand. it can be frustrating at times. that is the very reason we practice these things here. I totally agree, kudos to you!
Strange Posted October 18, 2014 Posted October 18, 2014 No progress yet, I see. As Lance seems to be willing to moderate his attitude, I thought I'd give him another chance. So, in the hope that counter-evidence won't be dismissed as being "nitpicking", there are a number of fundamental characteristics of life that are not met: Reproduction: The best you have managed is "mountains" which are just tiny ripples in the surface structure. You have failed to explain how this is different from a wart on the skin. Your answer was that a mountain has the same structure as the Earth, which is obviously not true. When challenged on this you suggested that the mountain could fly into space but later denied this. Also, because the Earth does not feed, even if it did manage to split of a child planet (disappointed you haven't pointed to the Moon, by the way) it could only do this by getting smaller. That is not reproduction, any more than having your leg amputated is. So we are left with no evidence at all of reproduction. Homoeostasis The planet does not have mechanisms to keep itself at some stable set of conditions. It is entirely dependent on external factors. It has gone through periods of ice ages and could, in principle, end up like Venus. Feeding and excreting waste The Earth does not feed in any meaningful sense. It absorbs a bit of energy from sunlight. But that does nothing to keep the Earth itself "alive". It is, of course, essential for most of the life on Earth. And the Earth does not excrete, except losing a small amount of gas (mainly hydrogen) from its upper atmosphere. So, in the end, as some have said, it is an interesting analogy but nothing to be taken too seriously. And certainly not taken literally.
sunshaker Posted October 18, 2014 Posted October 18, 2014 I'm not comparing human characteristics, I'm comparing a "living organisms characteristics" as in "any living organisms" characteristics, but I'm referencing the" living organism" known as "human". Huge difference from anthropomorphism, so we can move passed this. You said, "Many planets don't have any, but still are planets." The question you had asked me was do I think other planets are "living" not do I think other planets are planets. *Just odd* If I think of earth as a living organism, I would think of earth as an egg that as been fertilized, And other planets as sterile eggs, A egg only as a small window to be fertilized, then as to be in the right place for life to evolve, Once a sperm fertilizes an egg no other sperm can enter, Which is like the earth once it was fertilized and it was in the right place goldilocks zone/womb, life quickly took hold producing oxygen/atmosphere that was a protective barrier to the earth/egg", Perhaps why life only appeared once on earth, Because it protected itself with this barrier/atmosphere that sterilized any incoming sperm/bacteria. So earth was in the right place at the right time, But who's the daddy? And does he pay maintenance to mother?
Strange Posted October 18, 2014 Posted October 18, 2014 (edited) If I think of earth as a living organism, I would think of earth as an egg that as been fertilized, In that analogy, it may be better to think of the Earth as the rock that the egg has been deposited on, not the egg itself. And it may be more of an infection than an egg. Edited October 18, 2014 by Strange
sunshaker Posted October 18, 2014 Posted October 18, 2014 (edited) In that analogy, it may be better to think of the Earth as the rock that the egg has been deposited on, not the egg itself. And it may be more of an infection than an egg Perhaps you are right, There may be entities that swim through space like fish through water, That school in space depositing sperm/eggs, That then fall on to planets once fertilized. We may be like caterpillers waiting to become butterflies, Planets may be nurseries while we grow, And our true home is space. Edited October 18, 2014 by sunshaker
Phi for All Posted October 18, 2014 Posted October 18, 2014 And accusing me of standing on a soapbox isn't snarky? Just say'n Whats good for the goose is good for the gander so I can throw stones if they are throw at me. Let me clarify a few things, hopefully without being too off-topic. I promise to bring them around to the OP. I needed to moderate this thread pretty heavily to begin with, and I took an approach that didn't sit well with Lance_Granger. I apologize, it happens, we don't mean to chase anyone away, but the majority of members prefer a well-regulated discussion, so we have our rules. When Lance_Granger ignored my modnotes repeatedly, I recused myself, not for impartiality but because I wanted another staff member to take over in hopes of a better match. So I'm just a member in this discussion, but we still don't want a Wild West brawl going on. We discuss science here, and that means criticism of ideas. If you're not willing to entertain the possibility you may be wrong, then all you're doing is preaching at us, or soapboxing. That's not how science works, and it's not how discussion works. This is a far cry from formal peer review, but then it's also a far cry from formal presentation of a scientific hypothesis. It's what we've got and it seems to be interesting enough to put us in the top five science discussion sites worldwide. We don't attack people here, we attack ideas, with the hopes of making the ideas stronger or showing them to be wrong. Again, a big part of the scientific method. Leave your ego at home, it has no place here, that's what everyone likes to see. We don't know you, but we know your idea, so that's what we're talking about. It's essential that we don't tie ourselves to our ideas. We've all had dumb/bad/wrong ideas, but that doesn't make US dumb/bad/wrong. It makes us human. I've tried very hard to show where your concept is weak, Lance_Granger, and needs some work. These are the parts that are trivially falsified, like your misconceptions about evolution. You can't ignore the cracks in the foundation of your idea, calling them nitpicky, and expect to build anything substantial on top of it. Experience tells me it's pointless to continue to discuss this without fixing what's wrong. I hope you can see that. Maybe this will help. There are planets like Mars, Venus, Mercury and undoubtedly countless others across the cosmos that do not have life clinging to, let alone thriving, anywhere on or within the planet. They are just rocks in orbits around a star. Earth on the other hand is ideally suited and situated to foster and maintain life. I think all could agree with this so far. The Earth's magnetic field is to a large degree responsible for this "oasis in the desert". Earth also orbits its star in what is described as a Goldilocks orbit, one being just right. Rocks seem to have a uncanny ability to attract life if the right conditions exist. In water environments algae will find a niche on a rock out of the harsh stream flow , the "shady side" so to speak. Or even up on the surface a "little world" can find a home on a rock in a Goldilock location; https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=lichen A lichen (/ˈlaɪkən/ or /ˈlɪtʃən/) is a composite organism that emerges from algae or cyanobacteria (or both) living among filaments of a fungus in a mutually beneficial (symbiotic) relationship. The whole combined life form has properties that are very different than properties of its component organisms. You notice though the rock is not considered part of the lichen combined life form, because they would undoubtedly grow on other surfaces if the rock was not available. This rock we live on is just that. An ideally suited rock just the right distance from a star, that is itself also of the right size. A civilization with enough technical know how and where withall could build one of suitable materials. An artificial magnetic field and all, and it too would be a home but not the life that lives within its shelter away from the harsh stream flow outside its walls.. Thank you so much, arc, this is good solid evidence, and I know Lance_Granger really means it when he compliments the info you've given. I'm curious to know, however, if what you've said has given him any new insights on his idea. This is really the true test of a scientific mind, the ability to look at real evidence and judge its merit with regard to an hypothesis. So I'll ask directly. Lance_Granger, do you still stick by your hypothesis 100%, or have you begun to modify it? If so, how so? Homoeostasis The planet does not have mechanisms to keep itself at some stable set of conditions. It is entirely dependent on external factors. It has gone through periods of ice ages and could, in principle, end up like Venus. This also ties back to before the Earth had any water or life on it. Are there any other living organisms that start out dead, slowly gain life, and then cycle back and forth between practically frozen/dead and abundantly living? 1
John Cuthber Posted October 18, 2014 Posted October 18, 2014 Yes, and your baby Earths would be geologic features. I actually have answered this question, I just don't think people like the answer, but that is the answer. So we shouldn't need to keep asking the same question over and over again in different ways.. The important thing about a baby is that it grows up to be an adult. Just as soon as you can show one of those baby earths growing up into a big earth and having babies of its own, you will have shown that you are right. Until then, everyone will know that you are wrong.
sunshaker Posted October 18, 2014 Posted October 18, 2014 Strange, on 18 Oct 2014 - 09:12 AM, said: Homoeostasis The planet does not have mechanisms to keep itself at some stable set of conditions. It is entirely dependent on external factors. It has gone through periods of ice ages and could, in principle, end up like Venus. Perhaps a "stable set of conditions" is not what Earth needs, If things don't change they stay the same, Which in my book would be bad for evolution. We have not ended up like venus, Earth as had a say in ice ages through volcanoes/greenhouse gasses, It has been suggested that the end of this ice age was responsible for the subsequent Ediacaran and Cambrian Explosion Cambrian radiation, was the relatively short evolutionary event, beginning around 542 million years ago in the Cambrian Period, during which most major animal phyla appeared So perhaps these ice ages are a important part of a "planet organisms" life cycle, And these " external factors" are important built in factors,
Phi for All Posted October 18, 2014 Posted October 18, 2014 Perhaps a "stable set of conditions" is not what Earth needs, If things don't change they stay the same, Which in my book would be bad for evolution. Why do you think stability would be bad for evolution?
Strange Posted October 18, 2014 Posted October 18, 2014 Perhaps a "stable set of conditions" is not what Earth needs, Earth doesn't "need" anything. (Because it isn't living.) And these " external factors" are important built in factors, If they are external, then they aren't built in. Unless you want to claim that the entire solar system (or galaxy? or universe?) is alive?
sunshaker Posted October 18, 2014 Posted October 18, 2014 Why do you think stability would be bad for evolution? To me, Life adapts to new challenges, The strong/those able to adapt survive, the weak and those that cannot adapt die, Human thrive on challenges and it is what allows us to grow as a species, A good catastrophe can bring out the best in us. Earth doesn't "need" anything. (Because it isn't living.) If they are external, then they aren't built in. Unless you want to claim that the entire solar system (or galaxy? or universe?) is alive? Earth as a nursery for life seems to have all "it needs". Without going of topic to much, Yes i do believe "our universe" is part of a living system/entity.
Strange Posted October 18, 2014 Posted October 18, 2014 Earth as a nursery for life seems to have all "it needs". What is "it"? Earth has all that "life on Earth" needs. Not surprisingly; after all life evolved here. Of course, life in the past could not survive on Earth as it was when life first arose; and that early life could not survive on the modern Earth. So there is nothing special or necessary about the current conditions. Without going of topic to much, Yes i do believe "our universe" is part of a living system/entity. Ho hum.
sunshaker Posted October 18, 2014 Posted October 18, 2014 What is "it"? Earth has all that "life on Earth" needs. Not surprisingly; after all life evolved here. Of course, life in the past could not survive on Earth as it was when life first arose; and that early life could not survive on the modern Earth. So there is nothing special or necessary about the current conditions. What is special about the current conditions is us/life now, We have grown and adapted to what the earth has given us, We go through stages, Early earth was right for early life, Earth now is right for us. Earth in the future will be right for what we/life becomes. Life is on a journey, With Earth leading the way.
Strange Posted October 18, 2014 Posted October 18, 2014 What is special about the current conditions is us/life now, We have grown and adapted to what the earth has given us, We go through stages, Early earth was right for early life, Earth now is right for us. Earth in the future will be right for what we/life becomes. Life is on a journey, With Earth leading the way. While that may have some truth, especially metaphorically, it says nothing about the Earth as a living organism (which it obviously isn't).
Recommended Posts