PokeVideoPlayer v23.9-app.js-020924_
0143ab93_videojs8_1563605 licensed under gpl3-or-later
Views : 7,255
Genre: Education
Uploaded At Sep 6, 2024 ^^
warning: returnyoutubedislikes may not be accurate, this is just an estiment ehe :3
Rating : 4.935 (7/424 LTDR)
98.38% of the users lieked the video!!
1.62% of the users dislieked the video!!
User score: 97.57- Overwhelmingly Positive
RYD date created : 2024-09-10T06:56:52.033689Z
See in json
Top Comments of this video!! :3
If the probability of getting a planet with Earth-like conditions was one in a trillion, given the sheer size of the universe, there would still be millions of Earth-like planets scattered across the observable universe. This "goldilocks argument" might have had some sway before Hubble showed us how expansive the cosmos really are, but today it's just unconvincing.
We don't know the general conditions required for life. We know the conditions required for our particular strand of life, but we have no reason to suppose that our developmental pathway is the only one. Life on other planets might run on completely different chemistry, and may require a completely different set of conditions. As shown recently, liquid water can exist outside the habitable zone, in subsurface environments. Potentially, this means life could survive in these subsurface caves etc.
Our ecology is not tailored for our flourishing, rather we adapt to our ecology via natural selection to thrive within it. Imagine you have a population of foxes that live in a forest. Over time, the climate of the forest changes, average temperatures drop, creating a snowy environment. In this ecology, foxes with lighter fur, that can camouflage with their surroundings, are more successful in hunting prey. Subsequently, over several generations, lighter fur is selected for. Enough time passes and now all the foxes in the forest have white fur. Somebody comes along, observing this situation without all the facts, and concludes that the foxes' environment must have been designed to facilitate their flourishing. Obviously, this person has got cause and effect backwards.
|
One cannot say that there would be no life. If life is an emergent property of the environment, which evolution demonstrates. Then life could arise that would be suited to that environment.
The watchmaker argument fails simply due to comparison, I can compare a watch to something unmade. Show me an unmade universe.
Also, If the universe and the watch are both made, they are indistinguishable. Thus making the caparison moot again.
|
@croysha4259
2 months ago
Misconception is that if the sun was a "little" closer or further away we'd not have life.
We'd not have the life we have, but we move near a million miles distance between soltices. I've heard maybe we could go another million miles and barely notice but I think still that is a fine line
8 |