From: g_d_pusch_remove_underscores@xnet.com   
      
   fillup@herspace.com (P. Ussyliquor) writes:   
      
   > In order for life to evolve it needs billions of years of relative   
   > stability.   
   > Just being the right distance from the sun doesn't provide that.   
   >   
   > Earth has stability because it has:   
   > 1. a very large moon acting as a stabaliser to the planetary wobble.   
      
   This is still just a hypothesis; it has not been established.   
      
      
   > 2. a very large object (Juptier) that acts as a vacuum cleaner to suck   
   > up the majority of in-coming asteroids and comets.   
      
   This is still just a hypothesis; it has not been established.   
      
      
   > What percentage of their simulations have that?   
      
   Since it has not been established that _either_ of these conditions are   
   essential, this statistic is irrelevant.   
      
      
   > Also, since these simulations are based on data from our solar system,   
   > and almost exclusively our solar system (since we know almost nothing   
   > about other systems), OF COURSE it is going to predict systems similar   
   > to ours.   
      
   On the contrary:   
      
   1.)  They a based on fundamental physical first principle, astronomical   
      observations of many other protoplanetary disks, and a number of   
      simplifying assumptions.   
      
   2.)  The simulated systems only "resemble" ours in the most generic sense   
     immaginable --- i.e., they wind up with some number of "rocky" inner   
     planets, and some number of "gassy" outer planets, with orbits of varying   
     degrees of circularity.   
      
      
   -- Gordon D. Pusch   
      
   perl -e '$_ = "gdpusch\@NO.xnet.SPAM.com\n"; s/NO\.//; s/SPAM\.//; print;'   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)