The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
If we're looking for places that do/could or have supported extraterrestial life, than why, when we send missions to places such as Mars, etc, do we search for Nitrogen, Carbon, Oxygen, Hydrogen + water. Is it becaasue we are looking for life the same as ours, or simply similar life.
Who is to say that life throughout the universe thrives on the same things as we do, for all we know they could breathe a form of phosphorous, if they breathe at all.
Let's look at history, and the theory of Evolution, Humans evolved from apes which ultimately evolved from single celled organisms and over the years there were natural events such as volcanoes, asteroids, weather events, etc. In order to survive these events and to feed off of different things, we had to adapt in order to survive the climate, etc. The theory of natural selection, humans have had to adpat in order to stay alive, if we hadn't we would not be here today. Even nowadays us humans still have the remnants of our evolution, sharp teeth, hair on arms, an appendix originally used to digest plants.
So why do our scientists assume that life on other planets has not also evolved or are still evoliving, why should they be any different from us. In order to survive on their world, ET's may of had to adpat and evolve from single celled organisms just like us. Could it be that we merely wish to find a suitable planet which could be colonised and changed through science to make it similar to earth. Are we really thinking forward to an earth empire, similar to that of the British Empire, owning 1/3 of the known universe.
Who is to say that life throughout the universe thrives on the same things as we do, for all we know they could breathe a form of phosphorous, if they breathe at all.
Let's look at history, and the theory of Evolution, Humans evolved from apes which ultimately evolved from single celled organisms and over the years there were natural events such as volcanoes, asteroids, weather events, etc. In order to survive these events and to feed off of different things, we had to adapt in order to survive the climate, etc. The theory of natural selection, humans have had to adpat in order to stay alive, if we hadn't we would not be here today. Even nowadays us humans still have the remnants of our evolution, sharp teeth, hair on arms, an appendix originally used to digest plants.
So why do our scientists assume that life on other planets has not also evolved or are still evoliving, why should they be any different from us. In order to survive on their world, ET's may of had to adpat and evolve from single celled organisms just like us. Could it be that we merely wish to find a suitable planet which could be colonised and changed through science to make it similar to earth. Are we really thinking forward to an earth empire, similar to that of the British Empire, owning 1/3 of the known universe.
Shepps 123 wrote:
> If we're looking for places that do/could or have supported
> extraterrestial life, than why, when we send missions to places
> such as Mars, etc, do we search for Nitrogen, Carbon, Oxygen,
> Hydrogen + water. Is it becaasue we are looking for life the
> same as ours, or simply similar life.
>
> Who is to say that life throughout the universe thrives on the
> same things as we do, for all we know they could breathe a form
> of phosphorous, if they breathe at all.
I'd have thought the answer to this was fairly obvious.
There may well be a life form in the universe that breaths eg phosphorous but how do we search for them? Its a form of life we've never encountered. We dont know what it needs, what environment it could live in or if we could even identify it as life at all.
We've only got our definition of life. We know our requirements for existing and have a fairly good idea of whats required for our type of life to begin. So its a reasonable place to start searching. What else can we do really? Pick elements at random and theorise some life form might require it, I doubt we'd achieve much in those circumstances. We'd probably end up staring at rocks all day wondering if they're really a life form we cant understand/perceive. :)
> If we're looking for places that do/could or have supported
> extraterrestial life, than why, when we send missions to places
> such as Mars, etc, do we search for Nitrogen, Carbon, Oxygen,
> Hydrogen + water. Is it becaasue we are looking for life the
> same as ours, or simply similar life.
>
> Who is to say that life throughout the universe thrives on the
> same things as we do, for all we know they could breathe a form
> of phosphorous, if they breathe at all.
I'd have thought the answer to this was fairly obvious.
There may well be a life form in the universe that breaths eg phosphorous but how do we search for them? Its a form of life we've never encountered. We dont know what it needs, what environment it could live in or if we could even identify it as life at all.
We've only got our definition of life. We know our requirements for existing and have a fairly good idea of whats required for our type of life to begin. So its a reasonable place to start searching. What else can we do really? Pick elements at random and theorise some life form might require it, I doubt we'd achieve much in those circumstances. We'd probably end up staring at rocks all day wondering if they're really a life form we cant understand/perceive. :)
Not at all. Earth is the Only planet which we know of in the universe whcih can support Humans. That doesn't mean that different species couldn't have adapted to fit their own climate.
Adapting to their own surroundings is exactly what I said to my science teacher, but he wouldn't have it!
I was trying to explain that other life forms may have adapted to live in extremly cold or hot temperatures. This was because we were told that Earth was the only planet with a temperature that life form could live in.
Sorry, I'm blabbing now...
I was trying to explain that other life forms may have adapted to live in extremly cold or hot temperatures. This was because we were told that Earth was the only planet with a temperature that life form could live in.
Sorry, I'm blabbing now...
If we're looking for places that do/could or have supported extraterrestial life, than why, when we send missions to places such as Mars, etc, do we search for Nitrogen, Carbon, Oxygen, Hydrogen + water. Is it becaasue we are looking for life the same as ours, or simply similar life.
Who is to say that life throughout the universe thrives on the same things as we do, for all we know they could breathe a form of phosphorous, if they breathe at all.
Let's look at history, and the theory of Evolution, Humans evolved from apes which ultimately evolved from single celled organisms and over the years there were natural events such as volcanoes, asteroids, weather events, etc. In order to survive these events and to feed off of different things, we had to adapt in order to survive the climate, etc. The theory of natural selection, humans have had to adpat in order to stay alive, if we hadn't we would not be here today. Even nowadays us humans still have the remnants of our evolution, sharp teeth, hair on arms, an appendix originally used to digest plants.
So why do our scientists assume that life on other planets has not also evolved or are still evoliving, why should they be any different from us. In order to survive on their world, ET's may of had to adpat and evolve from single celled organisms just like us. Could it be that we merely wish to find a suitable planet which could be colonised and changed through science to make it similar to earth. Are we really thinking forward to an earth empire, similar to that of the British Empire, owning 1/3 of the known universe.
Who is to say that life throughout the universe thrives on the same things as we do, for all we know they could breathe a form of phosphorous, if they breathe at all.
Let's look at history, and the theory of Evolution, Humans evolved from apes which ultimately evolved from single celled organisms and over the years there were natural events such as volcanoes, asteroids, weather events, etc. In order to survive these events and to feed off of different things, we had to adapt in order to survive the climate, etc. The theory of natural selection, humans have had to adpat in order to stay alive, if we hadn't we would not be here today. Even nowadays us humans still have the remnants of our evolution, sharp teeth, hair on arms, an appendix originally used to digest plants.
So why do our scientists assume that life on other planets has not also evolved or are still evoliving, why should they be any different from us. In order to survive on their world, ET's may of had to adpat and evolve from single celled organisms just like us. Could it be that we merely wish to find a suitable planet which could be colonised and changed through science to make it similar to earth. Are we really thinking forward to an earth empire, similar to that of the British Empire, owning 1/3 of the known universe.