>>725227218
nothing really
we don't quite have good enough instruments to consistently detect earth-like planets around larger k-type and g-type stars (orange and yellow dwarf respectively) which are the most stable type of stars by a fair margin
the planets we detect around smaller stars unfortunately have as issue that red dwarves are incredibly inconsistent in terms of energy output, with variations in intensity as big as 20%, by comparison our sun has a maximum variation of less than 1%, which renders them far too unstable for any earth-like planet
there's also the tidal locking issue, you need a larger star, most likely a g-class star or else a large k-class and a planet with a significant moon, to avoid that, and tidally locked planets come with their own whole host of issues
but around those stars we've only found "super earths" which are likely to, if they have surface water, have far too much surface water, being entirely ocean worlds or worse, high pressure greenhouse atmosphere worlds, neither of which is conductive to complex life
And also, and this is a rather critical point, we've not found any star with a remotely earth-like planet which has an abundance of phosphorous, and that one unfortunately is incredibly easy to do through basic spectroscopy
finally the issue is, how earth-like are earth-like planets
again here we run into the issue that earth is unique, through it's highly specific origin where it's initial atmosphere and surface were completely ejected due to a collision with another planet, the aftermath of which also created our moon, and the second crust and atmosphere were formed after, in part due to comet bombardments
we have no idea how significant that event was, but if it's the only way to naturally get an earth-like atmosphere on an earth-mass planet, we suddenly run into a very real issue that earth-like planets are exceedingly rare
