Billions of things make is possible for life on Earth. If not temperature, atmosphere, environment etc. Is it just coincidence that we can live so comfortably on this planet?
2006-12-18 13:58:47 · 19 answers · asked by Link 4 in Science & Mathematics ➔ Astronomy & Space
No. A creationist will tell you that the Earth was created to be perfect for life. An evolutionist will tell you that life evolved to fit the Earth, or that out of all the planets in the universe, life is here because Earth is suited for it. Either way, it's not a coincidence.
2006-12-18 14:01:48 · answer #1 · answered by Amy F 5 · 3⤊ 2⤋
Yes, it was random chance.
Think about it, if the chance of finding just the right conditions on a planet are one in 100 X 10^9 in our galaxy, and there are 100 X 10^9 galaxies in our known universe, then the expected number of life bearing planets in our universe is E(life) = P(life)(Nm) = 10^-11 X 10^11 X 10^11 = 10 X 10^10; where P(life) = 1/(100 X 10^9) = the probability of life in our galaxy, m = the average number of stars in each galaxy, and N = the number of galaxies in the universe.
P(life) = n/M = the number of life bearing planets (ours = n = 1) divided by the total number of stars (M) in the Milky Way, which is a guesstimate at 100 billion stars.
Note that this estimate for the probability of life assumes that our galaxy is a fair sample of the universe as a whole and it is also a conservative number because it sets n = 1 rather than some greater number. If n > 1, then the expected number of life bearing planets (E(life)) will go up proportionately. So, by assuming n = 1, we are assuming the worst case.
Also note we assumed that m = 100 X 10^9 stars for the average galaxy. So that Nm = the total number of stars in the universe = 10,000 X 10^18 stars = 10 X 10^21 stars where there is a remote chance for life.
Bottom line, when the number of stars is upwards to 10,000 X 10^18 = 10 X 10^21 stars in the universe, even the most slim of probabilities for life will yield large expected numbers of life bearing planets.
2006-12-18 14:37:14 · answer #2 · answered by oldprof 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No no chance at all. God did it!
In his 1981/4 book Evolution from Space (co-authored with Chandra Wickramasinghe), he (Sir Fred Hoyle) calculated that the chance of obtaining the required set of enzymes for even the simplest living cell was one in 10 to power 40,000. Since the number of atoms in the known universe is infinitesimally tiny by comparison (10 to power 80), he argued that even a whole universe full of primordial soup wouldn’t have a chance. He claimed:
The notion that not only the biopolymer but the operating program of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in a primordial organic soup here on the Earth is evidently nonsense of a high order.
Hoyle compared the random emergence of even the simplest cell to the likelihood that "a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein." Hoyle also compared the chance of obtaining even a single functioning protein by chance combination of amino acids to a solar system full of blind men solving Rubik's Cube simultaneously.
2006-12-18 18:10:42 · answer #3 · answered by St Lusakan 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
before each and everything, 9lives: the truth a Christian is criticizing the Evolutionary idea for being 'unproven' is actual hilarious. the truth you may rather ignore about thousands of years of medical understanding and discovery, and discover an 'smart very best being' to be more beneficial in all likelihood is bewildering. besides, the question reachable, i imagine actual the percentages are likely fairly slender, yet with the billions and billions of stars, planets and image voltaic platforms in our unbelievable universe, inspite of low odds you're staring at a marginally large style of possibilities. you may have a glance on the Kepler application; NASA is getting right down to coach the lifestyles of stated planets, even merely in our personal galaxy (a tiny tiny percentage of the completed.) really, I disagree thoroughly, and that i imagine it truly is rather small minded to imagine that a 'God' may make some thing of the universe thoroughly empty and concentration merely on our little planet. no matter if he did, you may imagine he may've made an more desirable activity of it, if it truly is all he's targeted on. Famine? conflict? On an almighty, omnipotent, all understanding being's personal unmarried planet? rather?
2016-11-27 19:12:21 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Link:
No, not at all. According to Carl Sagan, one of the better
authors of tis subject, there are approximately 55,000 Earth equivalent planets in our galaxy alone. So if we think about this,
there are millions ... possibly billions of planets out there in all the galaxies in space. We just have to figure out how to get to them first. Oh, and by the way, if you think we have a large planet ... think again. Scientists have found a planet in these star systems
55 Cancri, HD 38529, HD 37124 and HD 74156 ... Several Jupiter-class earth-planets. Jupiter-class planets are the size of Jupiter or multiple sizes of Jupiter. Earth is 1000 times smaller than Jupiter. You do the math...
2006-12-18 14:47:04 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I think this could not be true, because it is a perfect temperature for human beings. However, extraterrestrial organisms may exist at much, much higher or lower temperatures. This is already partially proved by scientists who have found microorganisms on the very bottom of the ocean, where the temperature is very low, as well as in / very close to volcanoes, where the temperatures are hundreds of degrees.
2006-12-18 20:50:23 · answer #6 · answered by here_4_ya 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I wouldn't call it chance.
But I wouldn't blame it on a 'perfect tempature' either. Life flourished during the ice ages. Life exists in Antarctica. Life exists at the bottom of the ocean around thermal vents hot enough to melt steel. Bacteria even cultured on the lense of one of our space craft left on the moon.
I'd say that it's less that Earth is 'such a comfortable tempature' as I'd say we've had 15,000 years to aclimate to it.
Nothing is coincidence, though.
2006-12-18 14:52:17 · answer #7 · answered by socialdeevolution 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It turns out that the temperature is right for life on earth.
If it had varied much from what it is life could have evolved but it may have looked quite different!
2006-12-19 02:40:32 · answer #8 · answered by Billy Butthead 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
There is a bit of chicken-egg here. Life evolved under pressure from the environment in order to optimally survive and procreate, so the conditions are what determined the characteristics of life.
2006-12-18 15:21:44 · answer #9 · answered by Jerry P 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Actually the life form evolved according to this climate and surroundings... However you can argue that why did not life forms adapt themselves to other planets in our solar system??? That is a very vital question and the answer to that question is still a mystery...
It is still a mystery as to how the first prokaryotic life forms were formed and how one branch of those chose to evolve and not just remain prokaryotic..You may call it natural selection or whatever, but the mystery remains.....
2006-12-18 14:27:34 · answer #10 · answered by Eshwar 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋