Life Beyond

[Quigly]

In a universe as big and old as ours, isn't it fair to assume that conditions for life have been met on another planet that has similiar experience as our earth? If so, would it be fair to assume that life would look similar to what we know as life here? If we were to find a body of mass that met all of these conditions (proximity to a sun), water, ect... but no evolved life, would that tell us anything relative to a creation of sorts?

[cosmictraveler]

find a body of mass that met all of these conditions (proximity to a sun), water, ect... but no evolved life, would that tell us anything relative to a creation of sorts?

But the planet you talk about has everything but animal life, if I am reading it right, so therefore the water , trees, sand and other geologic stuff were evoloved from something....right?

[D H]

In a universe as big and old as ours, isn't it fair to assume that conditions for life have been met on another planet that has similiar experience as our earth?
That's a reasonable assumption. Anything beyond that is pretty much conjecture. People have spun the Drake equation to indicate everything from an abundance to a paucity of intelligent life.
If so, would it be fair to assume that life would look similar to what we know as life here?
Similar in what sense? Ape-like, DNA/RNA-based, or something akin to but different from DNA but still based largely on carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen (CHON)? The first is the stuff of B-movie science fiction. Even assuming DNA/RNA is a bit of a stretch. There are nucleotides that are not used to form DNA or RNA, afterall. The final option is a reasonable hypothesis, as carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen are very common elements. Carbon and water chemistry are a bit anomalous. Life that is not CHON-based is again the realm of science fiction -- but at its not the chincy movie science fiction.

If we were to find a body of mass that met all of these conditions (proximity to a sun), water, ect... but no evolved life, would that tell us anything relative to a creation of sorts?
Now you are completely in the realm of conjecture. There is a huge gap between detecting the presence of an extrasolar Earth-sized planet and detecting whether it contains life. Astronomers are only now making baby steps to the detection problem. Give them a chance before conjecturing on the consequences of investigations that we do not yet know how to even begin to perform.

That said, you are talking about extrapolating from a sample size of one. That is always risky business.

[Ophiolite]

The first is the stuff of B-movie science fiction. .Or the conclusion of the much respected biologist Simon Conway Morris of Cambridge University. The persistent and widespread incidence of convergent evolution tends to support his views. He (and quite unimportantly, I) wholly reject Gould's quaint notion that the 'tape of life' would never play out the same way twice.

[Enmos]

In a universe as big and old as ours, isn't it fair to assume that conditions for life have been met on another planet that has similiar experience as our earth? If so, would it be fair to assume that life would look similar to what we know as life here?
Yes, I suppose that's reasonable.
Although the word 'similar' is a dangerous one ;)

If we were to find a body of mass that met all of these conditions (proximity to a sun), water, ect... but no evolved life, would that tell us anything relative to a creation of sorts?
No.

[quantum_wave]

..., would that tell us anything relative to a creation of sorts?This is where you have to decide. Are you going to decide that God would have to have sparked life on each planet where life might show up? Or are you going to decide that life is generative when hospitable conditions occur on any planet?

It might just boil down to a personal decision because we aren't far enough along in scientific discovery to answer that question and a creation answer is not scientific.

I am not saying that God didn't do it but if it required God then life here on Earth required God to perform too. Knowledge of creation being a fact here on Earth would mean that we had irrefutable proof that God exists. If God wanted us to have irrefutable proof why wouldn't God just appear to each of us in a burning bush and say, "I am God and I did it". Why waste all the time it would take for us to figure out on our own that it had to be God? We might never be able to come to that conclusion without a little burning bush here and there.

[Betrayer0fHope]

Given two identical Earths, odds are they will not look near identical several billion years later, letting chance take it's course.

[ConvexionFTW]

^ Yes but what if by chance, 2 different planets are created, but from billions of years of geographical change they end up becoming 'similar' in composition. Then, it is possible...

[kaneda]

If there are the necessary ingredients for life, whether from volcanic vents or cometary impacts, along with water and an atmosphere of course, in the Goldilocks zone, then no reason why life should not appear given sufficient time.

Life evolves to adapt to the planet it is born on so on an Earth like planet, Earth like life will appear.

[Quigly]

thanks for the responses. I personally think it would be cool to have life on other planets, just trying to figure out if the progression of evolution would be constant or more universal...given similar composition structure in the universe. It seems like there should be some constants and given a long ass period of time, you would think that some part of another planet in this huge universe is simlar and evolved enough to include plants, animals, and humans or maybe something more evolved. Again, conjecture, but do scientists feel that there is some constant in the universe?

[kaneda]

Life need not be as we know it. Hal Clement wrote of worlds with hundreds of G forces. There has long been talk of life on hot worlds based on silicon instead of carbon. Some authors have talked of life on cold worlds, gas giants, atmospheres like Venus, etc. We don't know the limits of conditions that life might exist under.

[StrangerInAStrangeLa]

There could be extremely similiar, similiar, different, extremely different or all those types of life out there. I suspect there's some of all those. We have no way of knowing at this time & place.
Extremely similiar conditions don't necessarily mean the results will be the same. If there were long ago an exact duplicate of Earth which since has been hit with fewer asteroids & comets, life there could be very different.
We don't know what the conditions for life are. We know what it seems to be for life on Earth.
1111

[i321]

Or the conclusion of the much respected biologist Simon Conway Morris of Cambridge University. The persistent and widespread incidence of convergent evolution tends to support his views. He (and quite unimportantly, I) wholly reject Gould's quaint notion that the 'tape of life' would never play out the same way twice.
I read Simon Conway, and I think he goes overboard -- and Gould is right. Similar environment forces similar appearance only in some special cases. Sharks, dolphins and ichthyosaurs all look alike, but that's because a) fast hunting underwater imposes unusually limiting restrictions, and b) because they all are vertebrates, thus sharing the same body plan to begin with. Squid are also aquatic predators, and are similarly streamlined, yet no one would mistake a squid for a dolphin.

If you look at history of life on Earth you will see some adaptations (camera eyes, sonar, poison, flight, chewing, one-way digestive tract) which evolved independently and a number of times, and some others (quadrupedal body plan, vertebrate jaw, feathers, inner ear, Hymenoptera tail stinger) which appeared only once. I think it is a good bet that the former are "universals" likely to exist in completely unrelated biospheres, while the latter are "parochials", unique to Earth. Animals on other planets will almost certainly have some mechanism to break food into small chunks for faster processing, but that mechanism may look nothing like our jaws. Aquatic hunters will look like torpedoes with fins, but will not necessarily have brain in front, or squid tentacles either. Savannah dwellers will have good protection from desiccation and ultraviolet light*, but not necessarily four limbs, let alone two arms and two legs.

*And even that is unnecessary if the planet orbits a red or orange star.

[DwayneD.L.Rabon]

In a universe as big and old as ours, isn't it fair to assume that conditions for life have been met on another planet that has similiar experience as our earth? If so, would it be fair to assume that life would look similar to what we know as life here? If we were to find a body of mass that met all of these conditions (proximity to a sun), water, ect... but no evolved life, would that tell us anything relative to a creation of sorts?


Quigly,.. Within are local group of 155 stars, (meaning those stars that are closest to us) The are a estimated 17,281 Planets.
Of those 153 Stars 6 of them have enough organization to make complext life that is more advanced in preformance that what we see on earth.

Solar system have different stages of development which changes their ability to form complext life based on prime kinetic motion of chemistry (the rate of chemeical reactions at a constant). As a Result 92 of the 155 stars could potentially form complext life simular to ours, where not all of them would be equal in preformance but simular, of the 92 solar system 9 could potentially exceed the preformance that we see on earth and 6 are at preformance levels above ours.

The earth ranks in at number 7 in preformance within our local group of 155 stars, but over time as other solar systems develope we could end up coming in with a rank of 15 in preformance.

The 6 stars that ar more advanced than us are within 20 light years, so if we could travel at near light speed it would be a 20 year travel time. none the less some are even closer.


DwayneD.L.Rabon

[Read-Only]

Quigly,.. Within are local group of 155 stars, (meaning those stars that are closest to us) The are a estimated 17,281 Planets.
Of those 153 Stars 6 of them have enough organization to make complext life that is more advanced in preformance that what we see on earth.

Solar system have different stages of development which changes their ability to form complext life based on prime kinetic motion of chemistry (the rate of chemeical reactions at a constant). As a Result 92 of the 155 stars could potentially form complext life simular to ours, where not all of them would be equal in preformance but simular, of the 92 solar system 9 could potentially exceed the preformance that we see on earth and 6 are at preformance levels above ours.

The earth ranks in at number 7 in preformance within our local group of 155 stars, but over time as other solar systems develope we could end up coming in with a rank of 15 in preformance.

The 6 stars that ar more advanced than us are within 20 light years, so if we could travel at near light speed it would be a 20 year travel time. none the less some are even closer.


DwayneD.L.Rabon

Rabon, you have absolutely NO facts to base those silly numbers upon!!!

Just more worthless garbage from the little Garbage Kid.:rolleyes: