Earth May Be Unique In The Universe

[Jedidiah]

Don't expect too much understanding of an ignorant kid.

[rogue06]

In all of known nature chaos (fractal relationships) rules. All clouds, maple leaves, and snow flakes look like clouds, but no two clouds, maple leaves, and snow flakes are identical. All rocky planets look like rocky planets, but no two rocky planets will be identical.

IIRC, the no two snowflakes are alike has recently been disproved.

[shunyadragon]

IIRC, the no two snowflakes are alike has recently been disproved.

I doubt it.

[Secular Liberation]

'Not sure what exoplanets have to do with this(*), but I have encountered Fundie Christians (e.g., our own "Jorge") who poo-poo the notion of exoplanets (and even the Oort Cloud!) for some strange reason.

But, I don't think the OP's link has anything to do with the extreme Biblical literalist view of original "perfection".

My comment stands on what exactly "unique" mean wrt Earth.

(*) ETA: I mean what the discovery of exoplanets has to do with refuting the claim of special creation of intelligent species. ???

That's my mistake, I should have said unique. Mostly when I'm arguing Earth-based science like this it's conservative Christian sites.

[Poor Debater]

Indeed. For galaxies at z=0 (that's us) their estimate is .0048 terrestrial planets per solar mass around FGK stars, and 2.1 terrestrial planets around M stars. So what appears to be unusual about our solar system is the rather large number of 4 terrestrial planets around a G star. But for the galaxy as a whole, we're still talking 100 billion terrestrial planets, more or less.

But, since there is only 1/200 chance of a G star holding ONE terrestrial planet, the chances of it holding FOUR terrestrial planets are (1/200)^4, or 1 in 1.6 biiion, a number in the same order of magnitude as the number of G stars. So in that sense, we may be unique, or nearly so, in this galaxy anyway.

The interesting upshot is that if there are other civilizations doing exoplanet detection, our solar system would be on the "top ten list" of interesting places to look at more closely. (Or explore, if they have the technology). The fact that we haven't been visited (yet?) implies that intelligence in the galaxy is quite rare. So we may indeed be unique. In any case, the interesting recent idea to search for ET very close to the ecliptic, where others could see US, merits action. Since the ecliptic is tilited w.r.t. the galactic plane rather sharply, the number of others who could see us probably isn't very high.

[Wally]

The fact that we haven't been visited (yet?) implies that intelligence in the galaxy is quite rare.

Or maybe it proves they are really intelligent.

[Christianbookworm]

Or maybe it proves they are really intelligent.

Smart enough to avoid situations where they would need to send infant refugees to our planet?

[37818]

IIRC, the no two snowflakes are alike has recently been disproved.

I doubt it.

What has be proven is in the earliest part of the formation of snowflakes there can be two or more alike. But still holds true to fully formed snowflakes, no two are alike.

[shunyadragon]

What has be proven is in the earliest part of the formation of snowflakes there can be two or more alike. But still holds true to fully formed snowflakes, no two are alike.

This is not proven (science does not prove anything). Each snow flake forms around a piece of dust. None of these would be the same particularly dust particles. Yes, on micro scale initial crystal formation has been observed as the same, because the snow flake is based on the nature of the geometry of a snow flake is angles that molecules of water molecules bond when frozen, but beyond the initial bonding on the molecular level there are too many divergent possibilities for two to be the same. It may be true that the very initial stage the crystals forming may be the same, but this rapidly fails as the crystals grow, and again the dust particles would not be the same.

This is true of all natural fractal models, even those artificially generated by computers. The initial conditions of formation could be the same or vary similar, but the variables in the fractal models take over, and alas no two are the same.

[Sparko]

This is not proven (science does not prove anything). Each snow flake forms around a piece of dust. None of these would be the same particularly dust particles. Yes, on micro scale initial crystal formation has been observed as the same, because the snow flake is based on the nature of the geometry of a snow flake is angles that molecules of water molecules bond when frozen, but beyond the initial bonding on the molecular level there are too many divergent possibilities for two to be the same. It may be true that the very initial stage the crystals forming may be the same, but this rapidly fails as the crystals grow, and again the dust particles would not be the same.

This is true of all natural fractal models, even those artificially generated by computers. The initial conditions of formation could be the same or vary similar, but the variables in the fractal models take over, and alas no two are the same.

In a lab they can make ice crystals that are about 99.9% identical

http://www.snowcrystals.com/identica...nedSCsmall.mp4