Live data from Hacker News

A new theory sheds light on the emergence of life’s complexity

nautil.us

31–36 of 36 posts

Re: A new theory sheds light on the emergence of life’s complexity

#32
post #10
post #6

Heard this before. What do y'all think of this twist on "atheism vs intelligent design" debate? A wild swing from "life is improbable" to "life is almost certain". I think there's some major flaw in this reasoning. Otherwise, how do you explain Drake's equation? How come every planet we have seen so far doesn't have any form of complex life on it so far as we know? Here's what I think the flaw is: the more a planet h…

I don't think we have enough data to be sceptical about the presence of certainty of life on other planets. We've only found ~3,700 planets other than Earth - and only ~20 of those are near the size of Earth[0]. We couldn't even see those planets directly until very recently, so it doesn't seem certain (to me, a layman) that we could even identify Earth as having life, at the same resolutions. That's assuming that we…

What I am curious about is non carbon based lifeforms.

Re: A new theory sheds light on the emergence of life’s complexity

#33
post #6

Heard this before. What do y'all think of this twist on "atheism vs intelligent design" debate? A wild swing from "life is improbable" to "life is almost certain". I think there's some major flaw in this reasoning. Otherwise, how do you explain Drake's equation? How come every planet we have seen so far doesn't have any form of complex life on it so far as we know? Here's what I think the flaw is: the more a planet h…

>Here's what I think the flaw is: the more a planet heats up, the more it can radiate into space as infrared radiation.

What do you mean by that? The planet radiates exactly as much heat out as it absorbs from incoming starlight.

The only thing that change this parameter is the planet's albedo. Darker planets radiate away more heat because they absorb more heat. Even radiant forcing (from CO2 et al) doesn't change the equilibrium amount of infrared radiation escaping, just the surface temperature required to achieve radiant balance.

Note that increasing the surface temperature reduces the amount of thermodynamically useful energy (exergy) available to the biosphere, because it's like increasing the heatsink temperature of a Carnot engine.

Re: A new theory sheds light on the emergence of life’s complexity

#34
post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think we have enough data to be sceptical about the presence of certainty of life on other planets. We've only found ~3,700 planets other than Earth - and only ~20 of those are near the size of Earth[0]. We couldn't even see those planets directly until very recently, so it doesn't seem certain (to me, a layman) that we could even identify Earth as having life, at the same resolutions. That's assuming that we…

But, what does life have to do with an earth like planet? And when you study the history of the earth you come to realize that life as we know it today is the result of countless events, some of them catastrophic. As I understand it, if you simply shifted the location of Antarctica, that would change ocean currents, this effect weather, and so one. Life as we know it today might not exist if it weren't for Antarctica…

We started looking for planets that were in the life-supporting temperature range from their star, and have only recently begun looking at Earth-sized planets. There is an upper range to the gravity that we expect larger life to be able to form at, which means we have to limit the search somehow, to make a meaningful search.

Re: A new theory sheds light on the emergence of life’s complexity

#35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But, what does life have to do with an earth like planet? And when you study the history of the earth you come to realize that life as we know it today is the result of countless events, some of them catastrophic. As I understand it, if you simply shifted the location of Antarctica, that would change ocean currents, this effect weather, and so one. Life as we know it today might not exist if it weren't for Antarctica…

Life is much, much older than Antarctica. It's only about 25 million years old (per Wikipedia). Humans might not exist but life would be pretty much the same without it, insofar as there would be large critters and plants wandering about and eating each other.

Allow me to clarify. Life is a function of the broader ecosystem. Antarctica was an example of some we take for granted, but it has/has had an impact on the Earth's temps, weather, etc.

My broader point was that humans today have a fair number of random events to thank for having led to the human species. So it's not only a question of life (in the broader abstract) but also planet history.

Planets similar to earth? Probably countless. Those with a similar history is, I presume, significantly rare. Perhaps zero?

Re: A new theory sheds light on the emergence of life’s complexity

#36
post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But, what does life have to do with an earth like planet? And when you study the history of the earth you come to realize that life as we know it today is the result of countless events, some of them catastrophic. As I understand it, if you simply shifted the location of Antarctica, that would change ocean currents, this effect weather, and so one. Life as we know it today might not exist if it weren't for Antarctica…

We started looking for planets that were in the life-supporting temperature range from their star, and have only recently begun looking at Earth-sized planets. There is an upper range to the gravity that we expect larger life to be able to form at, which means we have to limit the search somehow, to make a meaningful search.

Ok. But a large less dense planet could have a similar mass to earth, and thus a similar gravity. Size really isn't the key KPI. Correct?

p.s. I understand the we have to start somewhere. Agreed. I was questioning, out loud, if we are perhaps asking the wrong question. That's all :)

Post reply on HN