A very basic question...

Hello,

This is my first post here, so forgive me if these questions have been
asked before. (and I'm not a scientist)

Left and right we can read how lots of people speculate that a certain
planet or moon can not have any lifeforms on them because of extreme cold,
heat, or drought.
These assumptions are mostly based on speculations that intelligent
lifeforms or humanoids could not survive such harsh enviroments.

This puzzles me....haven't humans learned to adapt themselves to their
surroundings? Haven't we evolved in such a way that we can deal with the
elements? Haven't other lifeforms on this planet evolved in the same way?

If it were just ordinary humans making these claims I wouldn't think
anything of it, but when scientists start saying stuff like that I feel
anger swell up inside me. Lots of different scientists from lots of
different countries stand behind the same claim.

So what are they basing their claims on?
Why is it they throw humans into the equation whenever a new planet is
discovered?

Even a microscopic, single-celled organism is a lifeform and that is
basically where it all starts. Look at us! We're far from perfect, but
we've come a long way over the years.

Do I believe in life elsewhere? You betcha!
Where do you think we came from?

Life started over after the dinosaurs and we are that life.
It might even be possible that the asteroid that killed the dinosaurs was
carrying a microscopic, single-celled organism deep inside it and when the
dust settled, life began once again.
Maybe it was the asteroid after that, or maybe even the one after that.
If so, that microscopic, single-celled organism had to have come from
somewhere inside the universe. Maybe it even came from a universe outside
our own. Who knows for sure?

But until we get actual proof of that, it's my belief that scientists
around the globe should stop saying that life outside planet Earth is not
possible due to factors that we humble humans could not possibly endure.


Regards,
Marcel

Marcel Kuijper wrote:
snip
Life started over after the dinosaurs and we are that life.
It might even be possible that the asteroid that killed the dinosaurs was
carrying a microscopic, single-celled organism deep inside it and when the
dust settled, life began once again.
I'm not a expert biologist by any stretch but I believe that the
asteroid that caused the dinosaurs to become extinct didn't wipe out all
life on the planet. I think it's widely accepted that we actually
evolved from small mammals which survived and were then able to flourish
due to the lack of dinosaurs "ruling the world". Some of those in turn
evolved into apes and we evolved from them.

Apologies to anyone who believes in a God which created man is his own
image and not in evolution. I think there's enough scientific proof to
explain where man came from and after all this is a scientific newsgroup
not a religious one. Very off topic so I don't know why I bothered
writing it... I'll get my coat!

Kind of getting back to the point... isn't it that the "scientists" of
whom you speak widely believe that "life" cannot exist without liquid
water? I know that is based on life as we know it but anything else is
far beyond our knowledge and frankly a bit sci-fi as opposed to sci-fact.

Just my 2p.

--
Regards
Andy

Marcel Kuijper wrote in message
...

Hello,

This is my first post here, so forgive me if these questions have been
asked before. (and I'm not a scientist)

Left and right we can read how lots of people speculate that a certain
planet or moon can not have any lifeforms on them because of extreme cold,
heat, or drought.
These assumptions are mostly based on speculations that intelligent
lifeforms or humanoids could not survive such harsh enviroments.

This puzzles me....haven't humans learned to adapt themselves to their
surroundings? Haven't we evolved in such a way that we can deal with the
elements? Haven't other lifeforms on this planet evolved in the same way?

If it were just ordinary humans making these claims I wouldn't think
anything of it, but when scientists start saying stuff like that I feel
anger swell up inside me. Lots of different scientists from lots of
different countries stand behind the same claim.

So what are they basing their claims on?
Why is it they throw humans into the equation whenever a new planet is
discovered?

Even a microscopic, single-celled organism is a lifeform and that is
basically where it all starts. Look at us! We're far from perfect, but
we've come a long way over the years.

Do I believe in life elsewhere? You betcha!
Where do you think we came from?

Life started over after the dinosaurs and we are that life.
It might even be possible that the asteroid that killed the dinosaurs was
carrying a microscopic, single-celled organism deep inside it and when the
dust settled, life began once again.
Maybe it was the asteroid after that, or maybe even the one after that.
If so, that microscopic, single-celled organism had to have come from
somewhere inside the universe. Maybe it even came from a universe outside
our own. Who knows for sure?

But until we get actual proof of that, it's my belief that scientists
around the globe should stop saying that life outside planet Earth is not
possible due to factors that we humble humans could not possibly endure.


Regards,
Marcel

Are you related to Gerald Kuiper ( 1905-1973 ) ?

"paul nutteing" wrote in message
...
Marcel Kuijper wrote in message
...

Hello,

This is my first post here, so forgive me if these questions have been
asked before. (and I'm not a scientist)

Left and right we can read how lots of people speculate that a certain
planet or moon can not have any lifeforms on them because of extreme
cold,
heat, or drought.
These assumptions are mostly based on speculations that intelligent
lifeforms or humanoids could not survive such harsh enviroments.

This puzzles me....haven't humans learned to adapt themselves to their
surroundings? Haven't we evolved in such a way that we can deal with the
elements? Haven't other lifeforms on this planet evolved in the same way?

If it were just ordinary humans making these claims I wouldn't think
anything of it, but when scientists start saying stuff like that I feel
anger swell up inside me. Lots of different scientists from lots of
different countries stand behind the same claim.

So what are they basing their claims on?
Why is it they throw humans into the equation whenever a new planet is
discovered?

Even a microscopic, single-celled organism is a lifeform and that is
basically where it all starts. Look at us! We're far from perfect, but
we've come a long way over the years.

Do I believe in life elsewhere? You betcha!
Where do you think we came from?

Life started over after the dinosaurs and we are that life.
It might even be possible that the asteroid that killed the dinosaurs was
carrying a microscopic, single-celled organism deep inside it and when
the
dust settled, life began once again.
Maybe it was the asteroid after that, or maybe even the one after that.
If so, that microscopic, single-celled organism had to have come from
somewhere inside the universe. Maybe it even came from a universe outside
our own. Who knows for sure?

But until we get actual proof of that, it's my belief that scientists
around the globe should stop saying that life outside planet Earth is not
possible due to factors that we humble humans could not possibly endure.


Regards,
Marcel

Are you related to Gerald Kuiper ( 1905-1973 ) ?

And are you wearing a belt ?

"Andy Dix" wrote:

I'm not a expert biologist by any stretch but I believe that the
asteroid that caused the dinosaurs to become extinct didn't wipe out all
life on the planet. I think it's widely accepted that we actually
evolved from small mammals which survived and were then able to flourish
due to the lack of dinosaurs "ruling the world". Some of those in turn
evolved into apes and we evolved from them.

Truth is, we don't know for sure.
Evolution did it for us, but how far back did it really go?
Did we start over completely from scratch or from small mammals?

But that's not even that important.
The question is: could life exist outside our own planet?
Scientists say no. I say most likely to a steady yes.


Kind of getting back to the point... isn't it that the "scientists" of
whom you speak widely believe that "life" cannot exist without liquid
water? I know that is based on life as we know it but anything else is
far beyond our knowledge and frankly a bit sci-fi as opposed to sci-fact.

Exactly!
"Based on life as we know it" and "far beyond our knowledge" sum it right
up.

It's nothing more than a guessing game.
Thruth of the matter is that we'll never know for sure.
We're stuck to examining asteroid-dust, moon rocks and some day sand from
Mars.


Marcel

Marcel Kuijper wrote:
Hello,

This is my first post here, so forgive me if these questions have been
asked before. (and I'm not a scientist)

Left and right we can read how lots of people speculate that a certain
planet or moon can not have any lifeforms on them because of extreme cold,
heat, or drought.
These assumptions are mostly based on speculations that intelligent
lifeforms or humanoids could not survive such harsh enviroments.

This puzzles me....haven't humans learned to adapt themselves to their
surroundings? Haven't we evolved in such a way that we can deal with the
elements? Haven't other lifeforms on this planet evolved in the same way?

One thing that isn't speculation is that chemical reactions become
extremely slow at lower temperatures. That is why deep freezes work (and
they are positively balmy compared to interstellar space).

A lot of chemistry necessary for life requires liquid solvents.
Chemistry in solids quickly becomes diffusion limited (pretty effects)
look up Liesgangs rings. Despite this a few things do live in rocks.

If it were just ordinary humans making these claims I wouldn't think
anything of it, but when scientists start saying stuff like that I feel
anger swell up inside me. Lots of different scientists from lots of
different countries stand behind the same claim.

So what are they basing their claims on?

You might find Barrow & Tiplers book "The Anthropomorphic Cosmological
Principle" an interesting if difficult read for a non-scientist.

It discusses some of the more well founded evidence together with
conjectures about what is plausible.

But until we get actual proof of that, it's my belief that scientists
around the globe should stop saying that life outside planet Earth is not
possible due to factors that we humble humans could not possibly endure.

That isn't quite what they said. To be honest I think life in LN2 or
even liquid methane is pretty unlikely - neither of them are good enough
solvents. Super critical CO2 or NH3 and you might stand a chance. Liquid
water is by far the best solvent for life as we know it.

Water ice is special. It is one of only a handful of materials where the
solid phase floats on the liquid, slows heat loss and prevents it all
freezing solid. Most solids are denser than their liquid phase, sink to
the bottom and stay there allowing the entire bulk the solidify.

You might get a more complete answer in sci.astro but it could also
attract the lunatic fringe of abducted by aliens tin foil hat types.

Regards,
Martin Brown

"paul nutteing" wrote:

Are you related to Gerald Kuiper ( 1905-1973 ) ?

Sorry to disappoint you, Paul.


Marcel

Marcel Kuijper wrote:
If it were just ordinary humans making these claims I wouldn't think
anything of it, but when scientists start saying stuff like that I feel
anger swell up inside me. Lots of different scientists from lots of
different countries stand behind the same claim.

It's an assertion that is open to falsification, and is therefore a
scientific assertion. Thus it is entirely appropriate for scientists to
make it.

The counter assertion, that some hitherto unknown form of life may live
somewhere, is not open to falsification and is therefore entirely
unscientific; it is pseudoscience (and, consequently, would be out of
place in anything purporting to be to do with science).


Best,
Stephen

Remove footfrommouth to reply

--
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ Stephen Tonkin | ATM Resources; Astro-Tutorials; Astro Books +
+ (N51.162 E0.995) | http://astunit.com +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

"Martin Brown" wrote:

A lot of chemistry necessary for life requires liquid solvents.
Chemistry in solids quickly becomes diffusion limited (pretty effects)
look up Liesgangs rings. Despite this a few things do live in rocks.

But doesn't this apply to life as "we know it"?
If we evolved in a certain way to survive on Earth's gentle surface, don't
you think
that other, more toxic, planets harbour different lifeforms that evolved
differently
than we did because they have to survive on a more harsh surface?
Isn't that how it works?

Mercury is deadly to us, but do we know for sure that there isn't anything
living
deep inside the planetcore? Something that got used to whatever gasses there
are on that planet?

I'm a broad-minded individual and teachers have always considered me to be a
pain in the ass. Now so many years later, in my late thirties, my ideas and
theories
are still here and stronger than ever. I'm not a nutjob, but I can't just
sit here and
agree that there is no life outside of planet Earth.
If we can't even get a man past the moon, what gives anyone on this planet
the
right to assume that we are alone in this galaxy, universe and beyond and
publish
that into the media for everyone to read?
Do we have the perfect planet? I seriously doubt that, but it suits us fine.


You might find Barrow & Tiplers book "The Anthropomorphic Cosmological
Principle" an interesting if difficult read for a non-scientist.

That's what people said about "The Orion Mystery" by Bauval & Gilbert.
But in my experience nothing is too difficult to read.
IQ doesn't have anything to do with science. Attitude, however, does.


It discusses some of the more well founded evidence together with
conjectures about what is plausible.

I'm sure my local bookstore can order it for me so I can take a look at it.
Thanks for the tip.


But until we get actual proof of that, it's my belief that scientists
around the globe should stop saying that life outside planet Earth is
not
possible due to factors that we humble humans could not possibly endure.

That isn't quite what they said. To be honest I think life in LN2 or
even liquid methane is pretty unlikely - neither of them are good enough
solvents. Super critical CO2 or NH3 and you might stand a chance. Liquid
water is by far the best solvent for life as we know it.

"Life as we know it"...there it is again!
It's funny how that keeps coming back.
That's my whole point right there and that, together with all sorts of
chemical
abbreviations, is what scientists report to the media and what everyone else
reads in the papers and listens to on the news.

I've heard people say: "These scientists are the kind of people that
publically
back up Darwin and refute God, they've studied this stuff and obviously know
a thing or two about chemical reactions. If they say that there's no life
elsewhere,
then it must be true."

Personally I laugh at people like that, the ignorant amongst our species.
I'm looking for just one scientist (astronomer, biologist, chemist,
astronaut,
bio-chemist) that has it in him/her to say: "Ya know, we just don't know for
sure
and we won't know for sure for a very long time to come."


You might get a more complete answer in sci.astro but it could also
attract the lunatic fringe of abducted by aliens tin foil hat types.

I first posted this message in sci.space.news and it got haulted by the
moderator.
That's Usenet for ya!
That reminded me of bibleclass long ago, when I said "No no...Adam & Eve
came
after Homo Hablas.".
I had to go see the principle two minutes later. :-)


Marcel

In message , Andy Dix
writes
Marcel Kuijper wrote:
snip
Life started over after the dinosaurs and we are that life.
It might even be possible that the asteroid that killed the dinosaurs
was carrying a microscopic, single-celled organism deep inside it and
when the dust settled, life began once again.
I'm not a expert biologist by any stretch but I believe that the
asteroid that caused the dinosaurs to become extinct didn't wipe out
all life on the planet.

It didn't come close. It didn't come as close as the Permian extinction,
which is thought to have wiped out 95% of species alive at the time.
Almost all types of plants survived, and I don't know of any major types
that became extinct (corrections welcomed, as usual). It's now known
that grass existed in the Cretaceous and presumably survived. It didn't
wipe out the crocodiles, and that is a bit surprising, AFAIK. It wiped
out the ammonites, but not the nautiloids with a different lifestyle.
Sharks survived, though individual species and higher probably did not.
Birds survived. And so on.