Life did not die out on Earth, or on any particular environment where it previously thrived, in spite of major changes in temperature, composition of atmosphere, and multiple large scale disasters. This suggests life is very resilient. Every time life is wiped out in some part of Earth, it is quickly recolonized.
Be careful of anthropic bias here. Taken alone, the argument “life did not die out on Earth” is invalid because if it had, we wouldn’t be here. However, the second point, that when some evolutionary niche is wiped out it is quickly colonized, would seem to me to be valid, since it suggests systematic resilience to disaster.
I think my reasoning is valid even with anthropic principle. If life wasn’t resilient, we should expect by anthropic principle to have no major disasters in the past, not to have survived major disasters.
Be careful of anthropic bias here. Taken alone, the argument “life did not die out on Earth” is invalid because if it had, we wouldn’t be here. However, the second point, that when some evolutionary niche is wiped out it is quickly colonized, would seem to me to be valid, since it suggests systematic resilience to disaster.
I think my reasoning is valid even with anthropic principle. If life wasn’t resilient, we should expect by anthropic principle to have no major disasters in the past, not to have survived major disasters.
Voted up for correct use of an observational selection effect a.k.a. anthropic argument.