18 ms·
> You're assuming something. Maybe something like "a world with water has high probability of life emerging". That is a massive assumption. With what else I ad
by bmitc 3y ago
> You're assuming something. Maybe something like "a world with water has high probability of life emerging". That is a massive assumption.
With what else I added: a rocky planet with water, an active molten metal core, and in the habitable zone. It is indeed my understanding that life on such a planet is quite probable. Life is described as "not hard" given such conditions. And Mars was such a planet.
It is also my understanding that Mars absolutely had large bodies of water. Basins, waterfalls, etc. have been discovered that could have only been formed via large, flowing bodies of water. And this would have been during a time where Mars' core was still active and the Sun was hotter, making Mars warmer than it is now.
- AnimalMuppet 3y ago> It is indeed my understanding that life on such a planet is quite probable. Life is described as "not hard" given such conditions. Yeah, see, that's an assumption. And "not hard" is very far from a universally-accepted evaluation of the odds for that situation. So, when someone like me comes along who doesn't buy the assumption, can you provide a foundation for it that is stronger than "yes, I assume it" or "everyone knows"?
- bmitc 3y agoI know what an assumption is. > can you provide a foundation for it that is stronger than "yes, I assume it" or "everyone knows"? That's not really an accurate portrayal of my argument. But here's sources I know of. * Origins of Life course on Complexity Explorer * The Origin and Nature of Life on Earth: The Emergence of the Fourth Geosphere * Every Life Is on Fire: How Thermodynamics Explains the Origins of Living Things