Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Asteroid Belts and Planet Biohabitability

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Science Daily reports on a new study by Rebecca Martin of the University of Colorado which found that “Solar systems with life-bearing planets may be rare if they are dependent on the presence of asteroid belts of just the right mass.” The article reports,

They suggest that the size and location of an asteroid belt, shaped by the evolution of the Sun’s protoplanetary disk and by the gravitational influence of a nearby giant Jupiter-like planet, may determine whether complex life will evolve on an Earth-like planet.

This might sound surprising because asteroids are considered a nuisance due to their potential to impact Earth and trigger mass extinctions. But an emerging view proposes that asteroid collisions with planets may provide a boost to the birth and evolution of complex life.

Asteroids may have delivered water and organic compounds to the early Earth. According to the theory of punctuated equilibrium, occasional asteroid impacts might accelerate the rate of biological evolution by disrupting a planet’s environment to the point where species must try new adaptation strategies.

The astronomers based their conclusion on an analysis of theoretical models and archival observations of extrasolar Jupiter-sized planets and debris disks around young stars. “Our study shows that only a tiny fraction of planetary systems observed to date seem to have giant planets in the right location to produce an asteroid belt of the appropriate size, offering the potential for life on a nearby rocky planet,” said Martin, the study’s lead author. “Our study suggests that our solar system may be rather special.”

Moreover,

Martin and Livio suggest that the location of an asteroid belt relative to a Jupiter-like planet is not an accident. The asteroid belt in our solar system, located between Mars and Jupiter, is a region of millions of space rocks that sits near the “snow line,” which marks the border of a cold region where volatile material such as water ice are far enough from the Sun to remain intact. At the time when the giant planets in our solar system were forming, the region just beyond the snow line contained a dense mix of ices, rock, and metals that provided enough material to build giant planets like Jupiter.

When Jupiter formed just beyond the snow line, its powerful gravity prevented nearby material inside its orbit from coalescing and building planets. Instead, Jupiter’s influence caused the material to collide and break apart. These fragmented rocks settled into an asteroid belt around the Sun.

“To have such ideal conditions you need a giant planet like Jupiter that is just outside the asteroid belt [and] that migrated a little bit, but not through the belt,” Livio explained. “If a large planet like Jupiter migrates through the belt, it would scatter the material. If, on the other hand, a large planet did not migrate at all, that, too, is not good because the asteroid belt would be too massive. There would be so much bombardment from asteroids that life may never evolve.”

This discovery can be added to the constantly expanding list of factors that make our planet’s position in the Universe pretty special.

Comments
...This might sound surprising because asteroids are considered a nuisance due to their potential to impact Earth and trigger mass extinctions. But an emerging view proposes that asteroid collisions with planets may provide a boost to the birth and evolution of complex life... ...According to the theory of punctuated equilibrium, occasional asteroid impacts might accelerate the rate of biological evolution by disrupting a planet’s environment to the point where species must try new adaptation strategies...
Too bad dinosaurs didn't survive and Godzilla isn't real; and too bad he doesn't rise up out of the sea every once in a while to fling commuter trains around and burn a few cities. We might have already developed interstellar space travel. Darn the luck!jstanley01
November 10, 2012
November
11
Nov
10
10
2012
02:54 PM
2
02
54
PM
PST
Of Gaps, Fine-Tuning and Newton’s Solar System - Cornelius Hunter - July 2011 Excerpt: The new results indicate that the solar system could become unstable if diminutive Mercury, the inner most planet, enters into a dance with Jupiter, the fifth planet from the Sun and the largest of all. The resulting upheaval could leave several planets in rubble, including our own. Using Newton’s model of gravity, the chances of such a catastrophe were estimated to be greater than 50/50 over the next 5 billion years. But interestingly, accounting for Albert Einstein’s minor adjustments (according to his theory of relativity), reduces the chances to just 1%. http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2011/07/of-gaps-fine-tuning-and-newtons-solar.html Milankovitch Cycle Design - Hugh Ross - August 2011 Excerpt: In all three cases, Waltham proved that the actual Earth/Moon/solar system manifests unusually low Milankovitch levels and frequencies compared to similar alternative systems. ,,, Waltham concluded, “It therefore appears that there has been anthropic selection for slow Milankovitch cycles.” That is, it appears Earth was purposely designed with slow, low-level Milankovitch cycles so as to allow humans to exist and thrive. http://www.reasons.org/milankovitch-cycle-design Does the Probability for ETI = 1? Excerpt; On the Reasons To Believe website we document that the probability a randomly selected planet would possess all the characteristics intelligent life requires is less than 10^-304. A recent update that will be published with my next book, Hidden Purposes: Why the Universe Is the Way It Is, puts that probability at 10^-1054. http://www.reasons.org/does-probability-eti-1 Linked from Appendix C from Dr. Ross's book, 'Why the Universe Is the Way It Is'; Probability for occurrence of all 816 parameters ? 10^-1333 dependency factors estimate ? 10^324 longevity requirements estimate ? 10^45 Probability for occurrence of all 816 parameters ? 10^-1054 Maximum possible number of life support bodies in observable universe ? 10^22 Thus, less than 1 chance in 10^1032 exists that even one such life-support body would occur anywhere in the universe without invoking divine miracles. http://www.reasons.org/files/compendium/compendium_part3.pdf Hugh Ross - Evidence For Intelligent Design Is Everywhere (10^-1054) - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4347236bornagain77
November 5, 2012
November
11
Nov
5
05
2012
02:28 AM
2
02
28
AM
PST
The Privileged Planet http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zj7F9gkFNi4r2d3
November 4, 2012
November
11
Nov
4
04
2012
11:52 PM
11
11
52
PM
PST
Marvin Lubenow writes in "Bones of Contention: A Creationist Assessment of Human Fossils" (1992; revised edition 2004): "In the early 1970's, when it became obvious that we had a more than adequate sampling of the fossil record, the grim reality dawned that those transitional fossils were not to be found. The punctuated equilibria model of evolution was then invented to explain why they were not found. However, it is imperative to emphasize that the punctuated equilibria model does not remove the need for transitional fossils. It just explains why those transitions have not been found." "Certainly, the punctuated equilibria theory is unique. It must be the only theory ever put forth in the history of science which claims to be scientific but then explains why evidence for it cannot be found."r2d3
November 4, 2012
November
11
Nov
4
04
2012
11:51 PM
11
11
51
PM
PST
Eric: Thus we should not expect to see evidence for it, and that is precisely what we see (or rather, don’t see)! I find that this retreat into the 'invisible' is part and parcel of the liberal mind (And my contention is that this is really what drives what's wrong with science these days: not "political correctness" but "scientific correctness). They criticize those who believe because they believe in an Invisible God, yet they're always running off into the realm of the invisible. Just one stunning example, if you remember: The Iranian release of hostages on the day Reagan was elected. The Democrats argued that the "fact that there wasn't any evidence of any involvement of the Reagan people was all the more reason for investigating it." The proof that something was wrong was that they couldn't see it! Amazing!PaV
November 2, 2012
November
11
Nov
2
02
2012
11:32 AM
11
11
32
AM
PST
Kantian Realist: In light of the fact that punctuated equilibrium has nothing to do with mass extinctions, asteroid-induced or otherwise, I’m wondering what else this article gets wrong. Gould thought that part of what causes the "punctuation" is the rapid growth of species, which he thought would only happen when there was plenty of room in an ecosystem for many new species. It's an ecological argument. (Of course, I'm not convinced by it.)PaV
November 2, 2012
November
11
Nov
2
02
2012
11:24 AM
11
11
24
AM
PST
tjguy @7: What does that have to do with ID?Eric Anderson
November 2, 2012
November
11
Nov
2
02
2012
08:05 AM
8
08
05
AM
PST
Does the ID camp accept the existence of a Kuiper belt and the invisible Oort cloud as a valid argument to show how comets can still be in existence today after billions of years of cosmological evolution?
Wait. You mean we're inferring an unseen cause? We can't do that. That's not allowed. We need some independent evidence for an unseen cause.Mung
November 2, 2012
November
11
Nov
2
02
2012
06:51 AM
6
06
51
AM
PST
Does the ID camp accept the existence of a Kuiper belt and the invisible Oort cloud as a valid argument to show how comets can still be in existence today after billions of years of cosmological evolution? Just curious.tjguy
November 2, 2012
November
11
Nov
2
02
2012
06:15 AM
6
06
15
AM
PST
KN @5: I had the same initial reaction. I think what they are trying to say is that asteroids might quickly alter the environment, which would then provide conditions for a punctuated equilibrium event (not necessarily referring to to the extinction part, but to the remaining organisms left in a rapidly changing environment). My favorite part about punctuated equilibrium is that it is one of those ideas based on a lack of physical evidence. Namely, we don't see the graduated fossil record Darwin expected; that expected evidence, largely, does not exist. So our new punctuated theory is that the evidence shouldn't exist, because, you see, evolution occurs too quickly to leave evidence. Thus we should not expect to see evidence for it, and that is precisely what we see (or rather, don't see)! :)Eric Anderson
November 1, 2012
November
11
Nov
1
01
2012
11:07 PM
11
11
07
PM
PST
According to the theory of punctuated equilibrium, occasional asteroid impacts might accelerate the rate of biological evolution by disrupting a planet’s environment to the point where species must try new adaptation strategies.
In light of the fact that punctuated equilibrium has nothing to do with mass extinctions, asteroid-induced or otherwise, I'm wondering what else this article gets wrong. It does not bode well for the state of science journalism that such a glaring error made it into print.Kantian Naturalist
November 1, 2012
November
11
Nov
1
01
2012
11:00 PM
11
11
00
PM
PST
JoeCoder- Look at it from a materialistic PoV. Water is a requirement and the only way to get enough it, from that PoV, is via asteroids, comets and meteors. That said, the lack/ absence of an asteroid belt of mass X could just mean it has been depleted- water already delivered.Joe
November 1, 2012
November
11
Nov
1
01
2012
06:39 PM
6
06
39
PM
PST
They suggest that the size and location of an asteroid belt, shaped by the evolution of the Sun’s protoplanetary disk...
Evolution without reproduction? Might as well say that individuals evolve throughout their lifetimes.Joe
November 1, 2012
November
11
Nov
1
01
2012
06:34 PM
6
06
34
PM
PST
Asteroids would not exist without intelligent design.Mung
November 1, 2012
November
11
Nov
1
01
2012
05:40 PM
5
05
40
PM
PST
Asteroids may have delivered water and organic compounds to the early Earth. According to the theory of punctuated equilibrium, occasional asteroid impacts might accelerate the rate of biological evolution by disrupting a planet’s environment to the point where species must try new adaptation strategies.
I don't feel this really helps the ID position as typically argued here. Slow news day?JoeCoder
November 1, 2012
November
11
Nov
1
01
2012
05:13 PM
5
05
13
PM
PST

Leave a Reply