Well, I honestly think that you deliberately misapply the mediocrity principle here. The correct application would be to compare our planet with other goldilock planets, our solar system with other star systems or the Milky Way with other galaxies. There's no indication that one would discover any significant…

Hence 'in a way special pleading', no offense.

Well, should we really be the one species that has already made it through the filter we would have just the questions that we discuss here. Case of anthropic principle, maybe.

I realize that we could be the one species that has already made it through the filter and that will make it to the stars. But in a way that's special pleading, bordering on the fallacious, and not so interesting as a hypothesis.

I understand, I just don't think that behavioral tendencies really can qualify as absolute filters, regardless of level of generalization. I realize that this is just an opinion, but it doesn't seem reasonable to assume that 100% of civilizations would fail to survive the pitfalls you mention before colonizing even…

A Great Filter would need to eradicate/ground/silence 100% of all civilizations, since it takes just one species to get through and the galaxy would long have been colonized. Alleged suicidal tendencies of civilizations, like technological/ecological disaster, development and deployment of WMDs and such simply can not…

There are special threads for your kind, why don't you had over and waste time and bandwidth there? I'm done with you.

Pathetic.

You actually did not and I'm unsurprised you can't deliver.

Octopi serve as dolphin condoms since forever, but Big Condom keeps a lid on it.

Pray tell, what is the connection between abiogenesis/panspermia (3.5 billion years ago) and the processes mentioned in this article (1.9 billion years ago) that you keep babbling about?

Umm, number 8 is totally clear, it shows, just as it says, the number of active temperature stations over time, differentiated between daily, monthly and GHCN monthly data.

Well, why not stick to simpler, more clear-cut examples. It should be easy to disprove the idea that the 'W' key on my Mac never works, for instance. Observe the beginning of this post and, voilà, idea disproved, error margins be damned.

Oh, I understood your little 'paradigm' well enough, I just happen to disagree with it. For starters, processes that started 1.9 billion years ago hardly say anything about 'the very beginning'.

"In science, ideas can never be completely ... disproved". That might be true for many ideas, but surely not for all, right?

Clearly the inspiration for this.

The article is about the rise of multicellular life, not the origin of life.

The fact that panspermia displaces abiogenesis doesn't by default discredit it as an hypothesis. Surely not to a degree that would legitimate your ridicule.

Ah, you are correct, didn't see that.

Yeah, but was it dead or alive?