Comments by "" (@snowcat9308) on "Cool Worlds" channel.

  1. We can't throw meteors into planets, so the dinosaurs weren't wiped out by a meteor! (???)
    3
  2. It's important to remember that terrestrial life is life "AS WE KNOW IT". I'm sure it would be very hard for terrestrial-esque life to live on anything but an "Earth Analogue", but that doesn't mean life can develop in other ways, based on elements other than carbon, adapting to conditions that we would write off as unlivable. That's not to say the universe is teeming with life, but I think it's a bit premature to take the Rare Earth Hypothesis and extrapolate that to "well no life can possibly exist anywhere than on an earth analogue".
    2
  3. I think there's something we can learn about potential intelligent civilizations from people who understand how civilizations work, but Hanson's words should be taken with a grain of salt. He understands how humans develop on ONE PLANET. Interstellar or intergalactic colonization is... a little bit different.
    1
  4. I would argue that "the inability to leave your home planet before your star swallows it" is a fatal adaptation.
    1
  5. Pink Floyd pfp checks out
    1
  6.  @dingickso4098  Well I mean they were a little older than we thought they could be, but the Panic! At The Disks paper isn't going to completely overturn our understanding of reality. It just means that the universe might be a little older than we first thought.
    1
  7. We do have a "First Universal Common Ancestor" for the record
    1
  8.  @sliglusamelius8578  That would be the first living organism, probably? I was just referring to the term "First Universal Common Ancestor" because it's something I'd heard before, and I thought it related to OP's comment xd. I mean, think about it. Unless life on Earth can draw its lineage back to two (or more) separate abiogenesis events, there would have to be a "first" organism that is the ancestor to all subsequent life on Earth.
    1
  9.  @sliglusamelius8578  The people who told you these terms are pseudoscientists who post papers in their own bubble, because actual scientific peer review reveals obvious faults in their hypotheses. The Theory of Evolution is consensus science and informs the entire field of Biology. Here's a fun question for you: When observing the fossil record, we see clear points where mass extinctions occur (because certain fossils of many species suddenly disappear from the record). After these mass extinctions, we can see new and different species, suggesting that new body plans are adapting to fill niches made vacant by a mass extinction. So, did God create new "kinds" after each mass extinction? I thought the Flood was the only 'mass extinction'?
    1
  10. ​ @sliglusamelius8578  1.) Terms like "special creation" and "micro evolution" were made up by creationists so that they can disguise their religion as science. Unfortunately for you, the wolf-in-sheep's-clothing act isn't going to work here, because we all have X-Ray vision. 2.) Abiogenesis isn't Evolution. Evolution describes genetic change over time, and how animals adapt to their environments. Abiogenesis describes the transition between non-living and living matter. Do you know what "demonstrably" means? Because now you have to demonstrate why Abiogenesis is "impossible", which is both unscientific and... impossible! 3.) And so we reach the end-stage of creationist brainrot. In a conversation about Abiogenesis, you're bringing up the Big Bang. Why? Because creationists insist upon calling cosmic events "Evolution" so it doesn't sound like they're denying all of science when they say "I don't believe in Evolution" (even though a complete denial of scientific consensus is the only way they can cling to a literal interpretation of a book their parents told them was good). If you think the Big Bang is somehow a violation of thermodynamics, maybe stop getting your science from Ken Ham and Kent Hovind.
    1
  11.  @CoolWorldsLab  Brother I'm trying to educate this guy and my comments keep disappearing. Are there any words I should be avoiding?
    1
  12.  @sliglusamelius8578  The people who told you words like "special creation" and "micro evolution" are pseudoscientists who exclusively post papers inside their bubble of religion-coded science, because they know that any actual scientific peer review would reveal huge faults in their reasoning. I recommend Forrest Valkai's "Scientist v Scientist" video, so you can see what it's like when actual scientists give some actual peer review to nonsense like what you just said.
    1
  13.  @mryellow6918  Unstable suns? What are you talking about? Do you know how big stars are?
    1
  14.  @lastchance8142  Are you an Origin of Life researcher, or does "no path to a functioning cell seem plausible" because it gives you a bad vibe?
    1
  15.  @mryellow6918  Okay, then you're missing my point. Just because we can't currently do it in a lab doesn't mean that the thing didn't happen. OP's comment suggested (to me) that they thought abiogenesis isn't a thing.
    1
  16.  @lastchance8142  I am not college-educated, so I can't argue about this on the same level as you. However, if you're interested in hearing about the actual progress we've actually made in the seven decades since Miller-Urey, I recommend Professor Dave Explains. He has educational videos on the Origin of Life, as well as response/debunk videos addressing people who think the whole thing is bogus (James Tour). At some point in the past, there wasn't life on earth. And then, at some point after that, there was. As far as science is concerned, the transition from 'life not being on Earth' to 'life being on Earth' was a natural one. Are you incredulous about Abiogenesis for scientific reasons? Do you have another explanation for how life began on Earth?
    1