|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
A very basic question...
A very basic answer from another non scientist.
Firstly, I'm not sure you are right that people are using humans as the criteria for whether life can exist. At the moment the jury is still out on how life started in the first place. Was there a head start by means of organic molecules from space? Was it seeded from somewhere else or was there indeed divine intervention! I think from what I've read, the genetic records suggest that some life survived the cataclysms of Asteroid or comet impacts to some extent, and there is no' second start', although,as you say, you would need to excavate a lot of rock to be sure. I think the hypothesis is that conditions were right enough to start with, for long enough to get evolution going well enough for some to survive. The problem with the places we are seeing out there in space is that we do not fully understand their histories. In most cases we have never been there and no samples in pristine condition exist here. Mars meteorites are of course debris from impacts and may well have been molten when ejected. This is what makes Genesis and Stardust so important, as these are interstellar and old material, as it would have been in the very beginning. I mean, Europa has been in deep freeze for what appears to be a very long time, and goodness only knows about Titan. If anything exists in such stringent radiation and temperature conditions that lives, would we in fact recognise it as life? Only monitoring the conditions and trying to understand the natural processes will give any hint, I imagine. As for planets orbiting other stars, I think, and this is a personal view, that in many cases the lives of the stars is too short or variable to allow what WE know as life, to get going. Incidentally, some would say that the reason life here on Earth has to have sex and replicate that way in the main, is purely the need to both develop to a changing environment, and damage by oxidants and radiation over the lifespan. Surely the parts of our dna which attempt to repair it are there for good reasons. In some benign, unchanging environment, there would not be need for change, so we might find long lived but poorly developed life elsewhere. Just some thoughts. Brian -- Brian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email. graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them Email: __________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________ "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 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
A very basic question...
"Marcel Kuijper" wrote in message ... 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. Um, no. Wrong. Thanks for playing. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
A very basic question...
"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? Ah, we do it by keeping ourselves warm or cold. But we evolved to the point where we need to do that. Pretty much the limiting factor is probably water. Almost all life at some point appears to rely on liquid water. So that basically limits you to around 32F-212F. (give or take some for various things that can lower or elevate those points.) Now, there's some truly weird live forms that may not need liquid water, but not sure how they evolved and to what extent they're truly separate from the water cycle. Now, I suppose you could find live that relies on completely different processes, but would we recognize it? Do I believe in life elsewhere? You betcha! Where do you think we came from? Umm, if you're suggesting exogenesis, that simply pushes the question back to "where did that life evolve from?" Life started over after the dinosaurs and we are that life. Eh, it CONTINUED. A number of lifeforms survived that and other mass extinctions. 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. Well, considering that's not what most of them are saying, I don't think they're going to listen. Regards, Marcel |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
A very basic question...
There are many ways if it is macroscopic and not airborne.
We probably could recognize life in the clouds of Venus, if there is some, but it is difficult to explore there. Uhm... I have to disagree there. Life modifies the environment (see current geological theories regarding influence of litho bacteria and formation of ore deposits). I think we would spot the little devils even if they aren't macro. Do I believe in life elsewhere? You betcha! Where do you think we came from? Umm, if you're suggesting exogenesis, that simply pushes the question back to "where did that life evolve from?" There is no difficulty with a scenario which will lead to life from natural chemicals. We can now duplicate most of the process. We can create "life" from inert chemicals now, but it is easier to use products of cells to do it. No "we" can't create life yet. Just the building blocks (aminoacids). |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
A very basic question about perspective | Rick | Misc | 24 | June 26th 04 11:05 PM |
Basic astro photography question | Chris | UK Astronomy | 2 | March 7th 04 06:03 PM |
Basic Optics question | Martin Frey | UK Astronomy | 7 | January 10th 04 09:58 AM |
hey this is a basic question | Mike Henley | Astronomy Misc | 5 | November 1st 03 01:02 AM |