Is the planet "broken" and did that cause the evolution of predation?

Discussion in 'Biology & Genetics' started by Wexler, Jun 21, 2015.

  1. AlexG Like nailing Jello to a tree Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,304
    It's move than possible, it's inevitable. Suns much larger than the sun will burn out in 50 million years or so, not nearly enough time to form planet
    But it's only stars in the middle which can develop planets which can support life (life as we know it). Therefore the sun is not 'broken', it's just right.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Wexler Gadfly Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    115
    I just found this...it's about the weight not as much size.

    John Graham, an astronomer at the Carnegie Institution of Washington, explains.
    The length of a star's life depends on how fast it uses up its nuclear fuel. Our sun, in many ways an average sort of star, has been around for nearly five billion years and has enough fuel to keep going for another five billion years. Almost all stars shine as a result of the nuclear fusion of hydrogen into helium. This takes place within their hot, dense cores where temperatures are as high as 20 million degrees. The rate of energy generation for a star is very sensitive to both temperature and the gravitational compression from its outer layers. These parameters are higher for heavier stars, and the rate of energy generation--and in turn the observed luminosity--goes roughly as the cube of the stellar mass. Heavier stars thus burn their fuel much faster than less massive ones do and are disproportionately brighter. Some will exhaust their available hydrogen within a few million years. On the other hand, the least massive stars that we know are so parsimonious in their fuel consumption that they can live to ages older than that of the universe itself--about 15 billion years. But because they have such low energy output, they are very faint.

    So again, a spectrum of stars. The Sun is "average" within that spectrum...

    And, I never said the Sun was "broken" but the planet.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Wexler Gadfly Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    115
    Accumulating data suggest that the eukaryotic cell originated from a merger of two prokaryotes, an archaeal host and a bacterial endosymbiont. However, since prokaryotes are unable to perform phagocytosis, the means by which the endosymbiont entered its host is an enigma. We suggest that a predatory or parasitic interaction between prokaryotes provides a reasonable explanation for this conundrum. According to the model presented here, the host in this interaction was an anaerobic archaeon with a periplasm-like space. The predator was a small (facultative) aerobic α-proteobacterium, which penetrated and replicated within the host periplasm, and later became the mitochondria.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. AlexG Like nailing Jello to a tree Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,304
    Heavy stars are larger and brighter. You stated that one of the problems with the earth was a "mediocre energy source".
     
  8. Wexler Gadfly Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    115
    Yes...and so think about that broad spectrum concept again...

    1 out of 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars.

    So you are absolutely certain there is nothing "better" to support life out of 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000?
     
  9. Hipparchia Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    648
    In popular astronomy works, the sun is often described as an average star. This is misleading. The sun is much brighter than the majority of stars. Far from being a mediocre energy source it is well into the top quartile and has been pointed out were it much brighter its lifetime would be significantly shorter. It may well be close to the optimum size for the parent of a system with life.

    You then try to wriggle out by saying you didn't claim the sun was broken, only the planet. That won't work. You very clearly made the statement that one of the things broken about the planet was its mediocre energy source. You can't backtrack just because you've been shown to be wrong. Be honest and admit that, as far as its sun goes, the Earth is not broken.

    Now let's work through some of the other things you think are broken, one at a time. What do you consider the most broken thing about the planet? Let's start with that.
     
  10. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,637
    I don't think anybody is saying that. The point is that there is a vanishingly small possibility of a 'nirvana' planet that has no predators.
    Scientific American had an article a year or so ago about a 'super earth' that would be a better planet than earth for mankind and what that might look like.
     
  11. Wexler Gadfly Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    115
    Wriggle? Really? I stood, and stand, by it. Don't get all confrontational on me...this is a discussion.

    Mediocre = of only moderate quality

    On what's "broken" about the planet? Sure. Let's start with the Theia impact...that created some sort of core that we have no idea what it is made of or it's properties...that created the spin...that created the tilt and the wobble...all which created instability of surface environment.
     
  12. Wexler Gadfly Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    115


    An exoplanet (extrasolar planet) is a planet located outside the Solar System. The first confirmed detection of exoplanets was announced in 1992, with two planets found orbiting a pulsar. The first confirmation of an exoplanet orbiting a main-sequence star was made in 1995, when a giant planet was found in a four-day orbit around the nearby star 51 Pegasi. Some exoplanets have been imaged directly by telescopes, but the vast majority have been detected through indirect methods such as the transit method and the radial-velocity method. As of June 19, 2015, astronomers have identified 1932 such planets (in 1222 planetary systems and 484 multiple planetary systems).


    More than a thousand potential new planets have been found outside our solar system—nearly doubling the number of candidates discovered so far by NASA's Kepler space telescope, according to a new study.

    The fresh batch of Kepler Objects of Interest, or KOIs, emerged from an analysis of mission data gathered between May 2009 and September 2010.

    The data revealed 1,091 possible new planets, bringing the total count to 2,321—up from 1,235 candidates formally announced last February.

    (Also see "'Solar Systems' Common Across the Galaxy, NASA Probe Hints.")

    What's more, "we have a statistical reason to think at this point that something like 90 percent of them are probably real planets," said study co-author Ronald Gilliland, an astronomer at Pennsylvania State University and a member of the Kepler team.

    So far, the Kepler team has confirmed the existence of 61 alien planets, including an Earthlike world that orbits its star at the right distance for life.



    It's only the beginning...
     
  13. Wexler Gadfly Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    115
    Since many have projected some sort of "morality", "creationist" and other sort of philosophy on my motivation for asking these questions...I offer this: look in the mirror, and consider your own biases in how you have answered...very Earth-is-the-center-of-the-Universe-like....that there is only one superior type of life form, planet or sun...etc...that Earth and the behavioral patterns of the life forms that came from this planet are the "only" way...

    Yet I have shown through documentation and evidence that:

    Life seems to be really "easy" to start based on resources, energy source and environment: England
    Multicellularity seems to be really "easy" to start based on response to threat...and that multicellularity is an enormous leap in advancement.

    That this planet is extremely hostile for life and has run out of resources, repeated.
    That this planet is an extremely unstable environment.
    That this planet's sun is "mediocre"...average, at best.

    That there are 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars
    That the potential for habitable planets are unfathomable.

    It really comes down to the math.
     
  14. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,637
    This is actually more about philosophy than science. Is the planet "broken"? This is a judgment based on how you think the planet should be. Is my computer broken, well it operates exactly how it was designed but I think it should do more stuff so, is it broken?

    The Theia impact created the moon which has a profound effect on the earth, with out that impact life may have gone no where. So that impact may be one of the reasons we exist. Did it 'break' the planet or 'fix' the planet. No one can say for sure, and it is only a philosophical question anyway. My philosophy is that the earth is exactly the way it is 'suppose' to be, otherwise it would be different.

    The only real issue I have with your concept is the idea of no predators - that seem completely unrealistic. Evolution without predators is a 'broken' evolution, if you like.
     
  15. Hipparchia Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    648
    Did you or did you not state that one of the ways in which the planet was broken was that it had a mediocre energy source? Let me help you out. Post #4, you said this

    It is very clear from that post that you consider the "mediocre energy source" to be one of the key aspects of our broken planet. But then in post # 62 you said this

    That, Wexler, is wriggling. It is intellectually dishonest. It is deceitful. If you choose to be deceitful, then I shall confront you with your deceit, otherwise an honest discussion is not possible.


    We have a very sound knowledge of the core composition and of its properties.What makes you think we don't? We have known its gross properties for several decades and are regularly refining our understanding of the details. Your objections appear to be based upon your own ignorance, rather than the knowledge of the geologists, geophysicists, geochemists, seismologists, planetologists and astronomers who have actually studied the problem.

    The Theia impact also created the moon. The moon contributes to the stability of the Earth and minimises the extent of the wobble. Without that stabilising effect of a giant moon the Earth's axis might wobble by the 60 degrees that Mars experiences.

    There is good reason to believe that instability of environment may have played a key role in the origin of life. It certainly plays a key role in the evolution of life.

    So, what's broken about any of that?
     
  16. Russ_Watters Not a Trump supporter... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,051
    Please define that better: what features are you referring to an in what way could they be made better? People assumed you meant size and power output, but maybe you didn't.

    (Not that I really think this is a serious thread anyway)
     
  17. Russ_Watters Not a Trump supporter... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,051
    I would say that slightly different: It is exactly the way it is 'supposed' to be, otherwise we wouldn't be here.

    That is called the "anthropology principle".
     
  18. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,637
    Right, but I am thinking along the lines of a more basic premise like, it is what it is, there is no 'suppose to be' to it. Shit happens.
     
  19. Wexler Gadfly Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    115
    ...or life may have evolved differently...in a more stable environment with more and different resources. We are going round and round...but the one thing we ALL agree on is that organisms on this planet start eating other organisms when the inanimate resources for life run out...or fail to provide enough energy to advance.
     
  20. Wexler Gadfly Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    115
    Yes.


    Yes.


    Sorry you do not see the distinction. My mistake.


    You stand by that statement? This is from this past February...

    http://time.com/3705594/inner-core-earth-planet-iron/

    There may be an 'inner inner' core at the heart of the planet

    Again, you are taking an incredibly Earth-centric-approach while ignoring the England evidence...watch that lectrue...and then consider that multicelluarity is a pivotal leap in evolution and seems to occur without the consumption of another organism.
     
  21. Wexler Gadfly Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    115
    Do you believe in scaling laws or the principles of self-similarity? Do you think it is at all possible that amongst 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars there might be some sort of principle of scaling?

    Just asking.
     
  22. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,637
    I do not agree with that at all. Not eating other organisms is a wasted opportunity that evolution is not going to miss.
     
  23. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,476
    No I don't think we do, actually.

    I think most people would consider that organisms started eating other organisms either (a) to grow and reproduce more efficiently or (b) to neutralise organisms that might threaten their wellbeing (immune response).

    "Fail to advance" suggests a teleological thought process that is not appropriate here.
     

Share This Page