Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
And, as much as "why only once" are the many miraculous (for lack of a better word) events that got us here. The "why only once" doesnt just apply to the origin of life. Why did eukaryotes only develop once and what are the odds? Why chirality? Why ATP Synthase and why only once there? Why "wobble pairs" in the third codon?
It always seems as if life is driving towards something and though improbable filters. I would say "impossible" filters but obviously they happened....once.
I'm not denying or attacking anything.Well of course we have no other evidence. Yet. But we do have a pretty good grasp of how chemistry and biology work as they pertain to the creation of life. We're learning more every day.
But now I see where you're going with this. Science has nothing to do with it. You have an old book that tells you what's what.
.
No you dont see where I am going. Your own religion prevents that. You have been inculcated by a book yourself into a faith in the unprovable Mediocrity Principle and Drake Equation (with lots of help from science fiction writers). You see any questioning of these bedrock beliefs of yours as presenting an opposing religion/philosophy. Or at the very least you misunderstand my motives.
I can make it plainer. Either we discuss the science or we discuss the philosophical questions the science leads us to. But here and now I am only discussing science with no hidden "gotchas" waiting. There are philosophical implications to this but wanting to avoid these implications is no reason to deny plain facts is it?
But...sticking to science...there is no reason to believe in extraterrestrial life. Such a belief has no empirical basis. In fact quite the opposite. As you say we learn more every day and one of the most astounding discoveries recently is how quick life began on earth. It did not take billions of years. It didn't even take a billion years. It apparently didnt even take a half billion years. It may not have taken even 100 million years. And it only happened once (by evidence).
If you deny this you attack all settled science of biology and evolution because we base it all on common descent. That life originated once is so settled that there isn't even a competing theory to consider.
And Earth is in a place we *know* to be conducive to life. So why would you expect anything different on Europa?
I admit, I don't know. But I'm definitely curious.
You, on the other hand, think you have it all figured out.
.
I don't know what you mean by "why only once".
.
I don't think that's a mystery. In our solar system there is a sweet spot in which water can remain liquid without boiling away or freezing, and as far as we know, water is one of the necessary ingredients of life. It looks like Mars had it. And it's possible that it could exist on Europa and/or Enceladus. It would exist under hundreds of miles of ice but kept warm by the cores of those moons. So, in our solar system, there could be life on two or three globes, and Mars may have had it a billion or two years ago.There was one origin of life. A single unique event. I wonder why? And if only once in an environment we know is conducive to life then what does that say for the chances extraterrestially?I don't know what you mean by "why only once".
There was one origin of life.
Virtually all the Startrek aliens are based on water and oxygen/carbon dioxideLife evolved here based on what was available--water and oxygen/carbon dioxide, whatever else. In other solar systems "life" may be entirely different, like all the great Star Trek aliens. Probably a lot of them, being somewhat humanoid, are even too much like us. We humans are so egocentric. It cracks me up.In terms of what I think about life in the Universe, the odds could be construed in 2 different ways...
1 planet of 9 in our solar system has life, so a 1 per 9 chance, with the caveat that we're not 100% certain the other 9 don't have any.
& the odds that we're the ONLY life in the Universe, in terms of overall planets of possibility, is 1 in trillions.
Nobody making a career of gambling would bet that Earth is the only harbor-er of life in this Universe, it's statistically unsound.
We don't know that. We only know that the life that exists today all seems to come from one source. Perhaps other life did start, but was less successful, and became pushed out by the present life that exists. After all, there were some pretty serious extinction events in the early history of the earth.I don't know what you mean by "why only once".
.
There was one origin of life. A single unique event. I wonder why? And if only once in an environment we know is conducive to life then what does that say for the chances extraterrestially?
LOL But Startrek is not reality.Virtually all the Startrek aliens are based on water and oxygen/carbon dioxideLife evolved here based on what was available--water and oxygen/carbon dioxide, whatever else. In other solar systems "life" may be entirely different, like all the great Star Trek aliens. Probably a lot of them, being somewhat humanoid, are even too much like us. We humans are so egocentric. It cracks me up.In terms of what I think about life in the Universe, the odds could be construed in 2 different ways...
1 planet of 9 in our solar system has life, so a 1 per 9 chance, with the caveat that we're not 100% certain the other 9 don't have any.
& the odds that we're the ONLY life in the Universe, in terms of overall planets of possibility, is 1 in trillions.
Nobody making a career of gambling would bet that Earth is the only harbor-er of life in this Universe, it's statistically unsound.
LOL About 34 things that we really don't know about.I'm not denying or attacking anything.Well of course we have no other evidence. Yet. But we do have a pretty good grasp of how chemistry and biology work as they pertain to the creation of life. We're learning more every day.
But now I see where you're going with this. Science has nothing to do with it. You have an old book that tells you what's what.
.
No you dont see where I am going. Your own religion prevents that. You have been inculcated by a book yourself into a faith in the unprovable Mediocrity Principle and Drake Equation (with lots of help from science fiction writers). You see any questioning of these bedrock beliefs of yours as presenting an opposing religion/philosophy. Or at the very least you misunderstand my motives.
I can make it plainer. Either we discuss the science or we discuss the philosophical questions the science leads us to. But here and now I am only discussing science with no hidden "gotchas" waiting. There are philosophical implications to this but wanting to avoid these implications is no reason to deny plain facts is it?
But...sticking to science...there is no reason to believe in extraterrestrial life. Such a belief has no empirical basis. In fact quite the opposite. As you say we learn more every day and one of the most astounding discoveries recently is how quick life began on earth. It did not take billions of years. It didn't even take a billion years. It apparently didnt even take a half billion years. It may not have taken even 100 million years. And it only happened once (by evidence).
If you deny this you attack all settled science of biology and evolution because we base it all on common descent. That life originated once is so settled that there isn't even a competing theory to consider.
And Earth is in a place we *know* to be conducive to life. So why would you expect anything different on Europa?
I admit, I don't know. But I'm definitely curious.
You, on the other hand, think you have it all figured out.
.
I think you're being open minded about it, but for life elsewhere would be difficult. Maybe if life from Earth went elsewhere (panspermia). There is the possibility of colonization of humans, too.
The fine tuning facts would have to be overcome for life elsewhere. Those I've highlighted in green probably would apply for life on other planets. Re: #4. Earth's moon and Mars have no magnetic field. Thus, solar wind has come in and disrupted their atmosphere.
"Fine Tuning Parameters for the Universe
I would think if we had to survive, then it's better to build space stations and live there for the time being until new technology could develop.
- strong nuclear force constant
if larger: no hydrogen would form; atomic nuclei for most life-essential elements would be unstable; thus, no life chemistry
if smaller: no elements heavier than hydrogen would form: again, no life chemistry- weak nuclear force constant
if larger: too much hydrogen would convert to helium in big bang; hence, stars would convert too much matter into heavy elements making life chemistry impossible
if smaller: too little helium would be produced from big bang; hence, stars would convert too little matter into heavy elements making life chemistry impossible- gravitational force constant
if larger: stars would be too hot and would burn too rapidly and too unevenly for life chemistry
if smaller: stars would be too cool to ignite nuclear fusion; thus, many of the elements needed for life chemistry would never form- electromagnetic force constant
if greater: chemical bonding would be disrupted; elements more massive than boron would be unstable to fission
if lesser: chemical bonding would be insufficient for life chemistry- ratio of electromagnetic force constant to gravitational force constant
if larger: all stars would be at least 40% more massive than the sun; hence, stellar burning would be too brief and too uneven for life support
if smaller: all stars would be at least 20% less massive than the sun, thus incapable of producing heavy elements- ratio of electron to proton mass
if larger: chemical bonding would be insufficient for life chemistry
if smaller: same as above- ratio of number of protons to number of electrons
if larger: electromagnetism would dominate gravity, preventing galaxy, star, and planet formation
if smaller: same as above- expansion rate of the universe
if larger: no galaxies would form
if smaller: universe would collapse, even before stars formed- entropy level of the universe
if larger: stars would not form within proto-galaxies
if smaller: no proto-galaxies would form- mass density of the universe
if larger: overabundance of deuterium from big bang would cause stars to burn rapidly, too rapidly for life to form
if smaller: insufficient helium from big bang would result in a shortage of heavy elements- velocity of light
if faster: stars would be too luminous for life support if slower: stars would be insufficiently luminous for life support- age of the universe
if older: no solar-type stars in a stable burning phase would exist in the right (for life) part of the galaxy
if younger: solar-type stars in a stable burning phase would not yet have formed- initial uniformity of radiation
if more uniform: stars, star clusters, and galaxies would not have formed
if less uniform: universe by now would be mostly black holes and empty space- average distance between galaxies
if larger: star formation late enough in the history of the universe would be hampered by lack of material
if smaller: gravitational tug-of-wars would destabilize the sun's orbit- density of galaxy cluster
if denser: galaxy collisions and mergers would disrupt the sun's orbit
if less dense: star formation late enough in the history of the universe would be hampered by lack of material- average distance between stars
if larger: heavy element density would be too sparse for rocky planets to form
if smaller: planetary orbits would be too unstable for life- fine structure constant (describing the fine-structure splitting of spectral lines) if larger: all stars would be at least 30% less massive than the sun
if larger than 0.06: matter would be unstable in large magnetic fields
if smaller: all stars would be at least 80% more massive than the sun- decay rate of protons
if greater: life would be exterminated by the release of radiation
if smaller: universe would contain insufficient matter for life- 12C to 16O nuclear energy level ratio
if larger: universe would contain insufficient oxygen for life
if smaller: universe would contain insufficient carbon for life- ground state energy level for 4He
if larger: universe would contain insufficient carbon and oxygen for life
if smaller: same as above- decay rate of 8Be
if slower: heavy element fusion would generate catastrophic explosions in all the stars
if faster: no element heavier than beryllium would form; thus, no life chemistry- ratio of neutron mass to proton mass
if higher: neutron decay would yield too few neutrons for the formation of many life-essential elements
if lower: neutron decay would produce so many neutrons as to collapse all stars into neutron stars or black holes- initial excess of nucleons over anti-nucleons
if greater: radiation would prohibit planet formation
if lesser: matter would be insufficient for galaxy or star formation- polarity of the water molecule
if greater: heat of fusion and vaporization would be too high for life
if smaller: heat of fusion and vaporization would be too low for life; liquid water would not work as a solvent for life chemistry; ice would not float, and a runaway freeze-up would result- supernovae eruptions
if too close, too frequent, or too late: radiation would exterminate life on the planet
if too distant, too infrequent, or too soon: heavy elements would be too sparse for rocky planets to form- white dwarf binaries
if too few: insufficient fluorine would exist for life chemistry
if too many: planetary orbits would be too unstable for life
if formed too soon: insufficient fluorine production
if formed too late: fluorine would arrive too late for life chemistry- ratio of exotic matter mass to ordinary matter mass
if larger: universe would collapse before solar-type stars could form
if smaller: no galaxies would form- number of effective dimensions in the early universe
if larger: quantum mechanics, gravity, and relativity could not coexist; thus, life would be impossible
if smaller: same result- number of effective dimensions in the present universe
if smaller: electron, planet, and star orbits would become unstable
if larger: same result- mass of the neutrino
if smaller: galaxy clusters, galaxies, and stars would not form
if larger: galaxy clusters and galaxies would be too dense- big bang ripples
if smaller: galaxies would not form; universe would expand too rapidly
if larger: galaxies/galaxy clusters would be too dense for life; black holes would dominate; universe would collapse before life-site could form- size of the relativistic dilation factor
if smaller: certain life-essential chemical reactions will not function properly
if larger: same result- uncertainty magnitude in the Heisenberg uncertainty principle
if smaller: oxygen transport to body cells would be too small and certain life-essential elements would be unstable
if larger: oxygen transport to body cells would be too great and certain life-essential elements would be unstable- cosmological constant
if larger: universe would expand too quickly to form solar-type stars"
LOL About 34 things that we really don't know about.I'm not denying or attacking anything.Well of course we have no other evidence. Yet. But we do have a pretty good grasp of how chemistry and biology work as they pertain to the creation of life. We're learning more every day.
But now I see where you're going with this. Science has nothing to do with it. You have an old book that tells you what's what.
.
No you dont see where I am going. Your own religion prevents that. You have been inculcated by a book yourself into a faith in the unprovable Mediocrity Principle and Drake Equation (with lots of help from science fiction writers). You see any questioning of these bedrock beliefs of yours as presenting an opposing religion/philosophy. Or at the very least you misunderstand my motives.
I can make it plainer. Either we discuss the science or we discuss the philosophical questions the science leads us to. But here and now I am only discussing science with no hidden "gotchas" waiting. There are philosophical implications to this but wanting to avoid these implications is no reason to deny plain facts is it?
But...sticking to science...there is no reason to believe in extraterrestrial life. Such a belief has no empirical basis. In fact quite the opposite. As you say we learn more every day and one of the most astounding discoveries recently is how quick life began on earth. It did not take billions of years. It didn't even take a billion years. It apparently didnt even take a half billion years. It may not have taken even 100 million years. And it only happened once (by evidence).
If you deny this you attack all settled science of biology and evolution because we base it all on common descent. That life originated once is so settled that there isn't even a competing theory to consider.
And Earth is in a place we *know* to be conducive to life. So why would you expect anything different on Europa?
I admit, I don't know. But I'm definitely curious.
You, on the other hand, think you have it all figured out.
.
I think you're being open minded about it, but for life elsewhere would be difficult. Maybe if life from Earth went elsewhere (panspermia). There is the possibility of colonization of humans, too.
The fine tuning facts would have to be overcome for life elsewhere. Those I've highlighted in green probably would apply for life on other planets. Re: #4. Earth's moon and Mars have no magnetic field. Thus, solar wind has come in and disrupted their atmosphere.
"Fine Tuning Parameters for the Universe
I would think if we had to survive, then it's better to build space stations and live there for the time being until new technology could develop.
- strong nuclear force constant
if larger: no hydrogen would form; atomic nuclei for most life-essential elements would be unstable; thus, no life chemistry
if smaller: no elements heavier than hydrogen would form: again, no life chemistry- weak nuclear force constant
if larger: too much hydrogen would convert to helium in big bang; hence, stars would convert too much matter into heavy elements making life chemistry impossible
if smaller: too little helium would be produced from big bang; hence, stars would convert too little matter into heavy elements making life chemistry impossible- gravitational force constant
if larger: stars would be too hot and would burn too rapidly and too unevenly for life chemistry
if smaller: stars would be too cool to ignite nuclear fusion; thus, many of the elements needed for life chemistry would never form- electromagnetic force constant
if greater: chemical bonding would be disrupted; elements more massive than boron would be unstable to fission
if lesser: chemical bonding would be insufficient for life chemistry- ratio of electromagnetic force constant to gravitational force constant
if larger: all stars would be at least 40% more massive than the sun; hence, stellar burning would be too brief and too uneven for life support
if smaller: all stars would be at least 20% less massive than the sun, thus incapable of producing heavy elements- ratio of electron to proton mass
if larger: chemical bonding would be insufficient for life chemistry
if smaller: same as above- ratio of number of protons to number of electrons
if larger: electromagnetism would dominate gravity, preventing galaxy, star, and planet formation
if smaller: same as above- expansion rate of the universe
if larger: no galaxies would form
if smaller: universe would collapse, even before stars formed- entropy level of the universe
if larger: stars would not form within proto-galaxies
if smaller: no proto-galaxies would form- mass density of the universe
if larger: overabundance of deuterium from big bang would cause stars to burn rapidly, too rapidly for life to form
if smaller: insufficient helium from big bang would result in a shortage of heavy elements- velocity of light
if faster: stars would be too luminous for life support if slower: stars would be insufficiently luminous for life support- age of the universe
if older: no solar-type stars in a stable burning phase would exist in the right (for life) part of the galaxy
if younger: solar-type stars in a stable burning phase would not yet have formed- initial uniformity of radiation
if more uniform: stars, star clusters, and galaxies would not have formed
if less uniform: universe by now would be mostly black holes and empty space- average distance between galaxies
if larger: star formation late enough in the history of the universe would be hampered by lack of material
if smaller: gravitational tug-of-wars would destabilize the sun's orbit- density of galaxy cluster
if denser: galaxy collisions and mergers would disrupt the sun's orbit
if less dense: star formation late enough in the history of the universe would be hampered by lack of material- average distance between stars
if larger: heavy element density would be too sparse for rocky planets to form
if smaller: planetary orbits would be too unstable for life- fine structure constant (describing the fine-structure splitting of spectral lines) if larger: all stars would be at least 30% less massive than the sun
if larger than 0.06: matter would be unstable in large magnetic fields
if smaller: all stars would be at least 80% more massive than the sun- decay rate of protons
if greater: life would be exterminated by the release of radiation
if smaller: universe would contain insufficient matter for life- 12C to 16O nuclear energy level ratio
if larger: universe would contain insufficient oxygen for life
if smaller: universe would contain insufficient carbon for life- ground state energy level for 4He
if larger: universe would contain insufficient carbon and oxygen for life
if smaller: same as above- decay rate of 8Be
if slower: heavy element fusion would generate catastrophic explosions in all the stars
if faster: no element heavier than beryllium would form; thus, no life chemistry- ratio of neutron mass to proton mass
if higher: neutron decay would yield too few neutrons for the formation of many life-essential elements
if lower: neutron decay would produce so many neutrons as to collapse all stars into neutron stars or black holes- initial excess of nucleons over anti-nucleons
if greater: radiation would prohibit planet formation
if lesser: matter would be insufficient for galaxy or star formation- polarity of the water molecule
if greater: heat of fusion and vaporization would be too high for life
if smaller: heat of fusion and vaporization would be too low for life; liquid water would not work as a solvent for life chemistry; ice would not float, and a runaway freeze-up would result- supernovae eruptions
if too close, too frequent, or too late: radiation would exterminate life on the planet
if too distant, too infrequent, or too soon: heavy elements would be too sparse for rocky planets to form- white dwarf binaries
if too few: insufficient fluorine would exist for life chemistry
if too many: planetary orbits would be too unstable for life
if formed too soon: insufficient fluorine production
if formed too late: fluorine would arrive too late for life chemistry- ratio of exotic matter mass to ordinary matter mass
if larger: universe would collapse before solar-type stars could form
if smaller: no galaxies would form- number of effective dimensions in the early universe
if larger: quantum mechanics, gravity, and relativity could not coexist; thus, life would be impossible
if smaller: same result- number of effective dimensions in the present universe
if smaller: electron, planet, and star orbits would become unstable
if larger: same result- mass of the neutrino
if smaller: galaxy clusters, galaxies, and stars would not form
if larger: galaxy clusters and galaxies would be too dense- big bang ripples
if smaller: galaxies would not form; universe would expand too rapidly
if larger: galaxies/galaxy clusters would be too dense for life; black holes would dominate; universe would collapse before life-site could form- size of the relativistic dilation factor
if smaller: certain life-essential chemical reactions will not function properly
if larger: same result- uncertainty magnitude in the Heisenberg uncertainty principle
if smaller: oxygen transport to body cells would be too small and certain life-essential elements would be unstable
if larger: oxygen transport to body cells would be too great and certain life-essential elements would be unstable- cosmological constant
if larger: universe would expand too quickly to form solar-type stars"
How do you know that?To me, that doesn't make much sense because God only created this universe and didn't create aliens.
How do you know that?To me, that doesn't make much sense because God only created this universe and didn't create aliens.
.
God did not create aliens? And if there be a deity, you know this how?LOL About 34 things that we really don't know about.I'm not denying or attacking anything.Well of course we have no other evidence. Yet. But we do have a pretty good grasp of how chemistry and biology work as they pertain to the creation of life. We're learning more every day.
But now I see where you're going with this. Science has nothing to do with it. You have an old book that tells you what's what.
.
No you dont see where I am going. Your own religion prevents that. You have been inculcated by a book yourself into a faith in the unprovable Mediocrity Principle and Drake Equation (with lots of help from science fiction writers). You see any questioning of these bedrock beliefs of yours as presenting an opposing religion/philosophy. Or at the very least you misunderstand my motives.
I can make it plainer. Either we discuss the science or we discuss the philosophical questions the science leads us to. But here and now I am only discussing science with no hidden "gotchas" waiting. There are philosophical implications to this but wanting to avoid these implications is no reason to deny plain facts is it?
But...sticking to science...there is no reason to believe in extraterrestrial life. Such a belief has no empirical basis. In fact quite the opposite. As you say we learn more every day and one of the most astounding discoveries recently is how quick life began on earth. It did not take billions of years. It didn't even take a billion years. It apparently didnt even take a half billion years. It may not have taken even 100 million years. And it only happened once (by evidence).
If you deny this you attack all settled science of biology and evolution because we base it all on common descent. That life originated once is so settled that there isn't even a competing theory to consider.
And Earth is in a place we *know* to be conducive to life. So why would you expect anything different on Europa?
I admit, I don't know. But I'm definitely curious.
You, on the other hand, think you have it all figured out.
.
I think you're being open minded about it, but for life elsewhere would be difficult. Maybe if life from Earth went elsewhere (panspermia). There is the possibility of colonization of humans, too.
The fine tuning facts would have to be overcome for life elsewhere. Those I've highlighted in green probably would apply for life on other planets. Re: #4. Earth's moon and Mars have no magnetic field. Thus, solar wind has come in and disrupted their atmosphere.
"Fine Tuning Parameters for the Universe
I would think if we had to survive, then it's better to build space stations and live there for the time being until new technology could develop.
- strong nuclear force constant
if larger: no hydrogen would form; atomic nuclei for most life-essential elements would be unstable; thus, no life chemistry
if smaller: no elements heavier than hydrogen would form: again, no life chemistry- weak nuclear force constant
if larger: too much hydrogen would convert to helium in big bang; hence, stars would convert too much matter into heavy elements making life chemistry impossible
if smaller: too little helium would be produced from big bang; hence, stars would convert too little matter into heavy elements making life chemistry impossible- gravitational force constant
if larger: stars would be too hot and would burn too rapidly and too unevenly for life chemistry
if smaller: stars would be too cool to ignite nuclear fusion; thus, many of the elements needed for life chemistry would never form- electromagnetic force constant
if greater: chemical bonding would be disrupted; elements more massive than boron would be unstable to fission
if lesser: chemical bonding would be insufficient for life chemistry- ratio of electromagnetic force constant to gravitational force constant
if larger: all stars would be at least 40% more massive than the sun; hence, stellar burning would be too brief and too uneven for life support
if smaller: all stars would be at least 20% less massive than the sun, thus incapable of producing heavy elements- ratio of electron to proton mass
if larger: chemical bonding would be insufficient for life chemistry
if smaller: same as above- ratio of number of protons to number of electrons
if larger: electromagnetism would dominate gravity, preventing galaxy, star, and planet formation
if smaller: same as above- expansion rate of the universe
if larger: no galaxies would form
if smaller: universe would collapse, even before stars formed- entropy level of the universe
if larger: stars would not form within proto-galaxies
if smaller: no proto-galaxies would form- mass density of the universe
if larger: overabundance of deuterium from big bang would cause stars to burn rapidly, too rapidly for life to form
if smaller: insufficient helium from big bang would result in a shortage of heavy elements- velocity of light
if faster: stars would be too luminous for life support if slower: stars would be insufficiently luminous for life support- age of the universe
if older: no solar-type stars in a stable burning phase would exist in the right (for life) part of the galaxy
if younger: solar-type stars in a stable burning phase would not yet have formed- initial uniformity of radiation
if more uniform: stars, star clusters, and galaxies would not have formed
if less uniform: universe by now would be mostly black holes and empty space- average distance between galaxies
if larger: star formation late enough in the history of the universe would be hampered by lack of material
if smaller: gravitational tug-of-wars would destabilize the sun's orbit- density of galaxy cluster
if denser: galaxy collisions and mergers would disrupt the sun's orbit
if less dense: star formation late enough in the history of the universe would be hampered by lack of material- average distance between stars
if larger: heavy element density would be too sparse for rocky planets to form
if smaller: planetary orbits would be too unstable for life- fine structure constant (describing the fine-structure splitting of spectral lines) if larger: all stars would be at least 30% less massive than the sun
if larger than 0.06: matter would be unstable in large magnetic fields
if smaller: all stars would be at least 80% more massive than the sun- decay rate of protons
if greater: life would be exterminated by the release of radiation
if smaller: universe would contain insufficient matter for life- 12C to 16O nuclear energy level ratio
if larger: universe would contain insufficient oxygen for life
if smaller: universe would contain insufficient carbon for life- ground state energy level for 4He
if larger: universe would contain insufficient carbon and oxygen for life
if smaller: same as above- decay rate of 8Be
if slower: heavy element fusion would generate catastrophic explosions in all the stars
if faster: no element heavier than beryllium would form; thus, no life chemistry- ratio of neutron mass to proton mass
if higher: neutron decay would yield too few neutrons for the formation of many life-essential elements
if lower: neutron decay would produce so many neutrons as to collapse all stars into neutron stars or black holes- initial excess of nucleons over anti-nucleons
if greater: radiation would prohibit planet formation
if lesser: matter would be insufficient for galaxy or star formation- polarity of the water molecule
if greater: heat of fusion and vaporization would be too high for life
if smaller: heat of fusion and vaporization would be too low for life; liquid water would not work as a solvent for life chemistry; ice would not float, and a runaway freeze-up would result- supernovae eruptions
if too close, too frequent, or too late: radiation would exterminate life on the planet
if too distant, too infrequent, or too soon: heavy elements would be too sparse for rocky planets to form- white dwarf binaries
if too few: insufficient fluorine would exist for life chemistry
if too many: planetary orbits would be too unstable for life
if formed too soon: insufficient fluorine production
if formed too late: fluorine would arrive too late for life chemistry- ratio of exotic matter mass to ordinary matter mass
if larger: universe would collapse before solar-type stars could form
if smaller: no galaxies would form- number of effective dimensions in the early universe
if larger: quantum mechanics, gravity, and relativity could not coexist; thus, life would be impossible
if smaller: same result- number of effective dimensions in the present universe
if smaller: electron, planet, and star orbits would become unstable
if larger: same result- mass of the neutrino
if smaller: galaxy clusters, galaxies, and stars would not form
if larger: galaxy clusters and galaxies would be too dense- big bang ripples
if smaller: galaxies would not form; universe would expand too rapidly
if larger: galaxies/galaxy clusters would be too dense for life; black holes would dominate; universe would collapse before life-site could form- size of the relativistic dilation factor
if smaller: certain life-essential chemical reactions will not function properly
if larger: same result- uncertainty magnitude in the Heisenberg uncertainty principle
if smaller: oxygen transport to body cells would be too small and certain life-essential elements would be unstable
if larger: oxygen transport to body cells would be too great and certain life-essential elements would be unstable- cosmological constant
if larger: universe would expand too quickly to form solar-type stars"
Those 34 are from the atheist scientists which they found when studying the BBT. And I suppose it's why they think there is more chance for multiverses because then the fine tuning facts won't get in the way. To me, that doesn't make much sense because God only created this universe and didn't create aliens.
Statistics? You want statistics?
In 1968, Professor Harold Morowitz, a physicist at Yale University, published the book "Energy Flow in Biology". Along with other physicists and mathematicians, he had become concerned about the casualness with which some scientists studying the origins of life were assuming that unlikely events must have occurred. These scientists were making assumptions without any attempt to rigorously investigate the probability of such events. Morowitz presented computations of the time required for random chemical reactions to form a bacterium -- not an organism as complex as a human being, not even a flower, just a simple, single celled bacterium. Basing his calculations on optimistically rapid rates of reactions, the calculated time for the bacterium to form exceeds not only the 4.5 billion year age of the Earth, but also the entire 15 billion year age of the universe.
What is even more astonishing, is that life appeared almost immediately on Earth. The oldest sedimentary rock dated is 3.3 billion years old which shows rod shaped single celled organisms with them, discovered by Elso Barghoorn and JW Schopf of Harvard.
And this is just what is found as evidence in the sedimentary rock. There is no reason life may not have developed earlier.
God did not create aliens? And if there be a deity, you know this how?
Statistics? You want statistics?
In 1968, Professor Harold Morowitz, a physicist at Yale University, published the book "Energy Flow in Biology". Along with other physicists and mathematicians, he had become concerned about the casualness with which some scientists studying the origins of life were assuming that unlikely events must have occurred. These scientists were making assumptions without any attempt to rigorously investigate the probability of such events. Morowitz presented computations of the time required for random chemical reactions to form a bacterium -- not an organism as complex as a human being, not even a flower, just a simple, single celled bacterium. Basing his calculations on optimistically rapid rates of reactions, the calculated time for the bacterium to form exceeds not only the 4.5 billion year age of the Earth, but also the entire 15 billion year age of the universe.
What is even more astonishing, is that life appeared almost immediately on Earth. The oldest sedimentary rock dated is 3.3 billion years old which shows rod shaped single celled organisms with them, discovered by Elso Barghoorn and JW Schopf of Harvard.
And this is just what is found as evidence in the sedimentary rock. There is no reason life may not have developed earlier.
Proffessor Morowitz made an assumption that is unnecessary and too stringent. The first life does not have to be something with the complexity of a bacterium. It was found that RNA can replicate itself. It is simpler than DNA and more of a candidate for abiogenesis. Secondly primordial cell walls do not have to be the more complex cellulose, but can be formed from fatty acid bubbles which have been found to have the capability of splitting. Fatty acids are more easily formed in the primordial earth.
It is still statistically small, but think of the improbability as a poker game where everyone is dealt a royal flush. If there are billions of card games going on for millions of years, the improbability becomes an almost certainty.
Synthetic primordial cell copies RNA for the first time
God did not create aliens? And if there be a deity, you know this how?
From the Book of Genesis. Here's an infograph:
God did not create aliens? And if there be a deity, you know this how?
From the Book of Genesis. Here's an infograph:
Day One
Day 5,000,000,000,000
