Quote:
Originally Posted by morphyx
Good point. So, wouldn't it be realistic to logically assume the plausibility of finely tuned life forms existing on ANY planetary body including moons and stars? If life forms in fact "evolve" to the body mass' environment (as opposed to the inverse) there is no need for oxygen, water, vegetation, photosynthesis, etc. to necessarily be present since that would only apply to "our" life forms, right?
For example, a life form theoretically should have adapted to life on our moon that requires no oxygen, heat, water, or vegetation after all these billions of years. It certainly wouldn't be a life form that could survive on earth, but it would be a life form solely adapted to the moon; or venus; or mars;....or even the sun?
By the same logic, some sort of life form should have adapted to thrive and multiply in the gaseous formation of Jupiter?
|
How do we know it hasn't. If it is completely different from life on earth in every way possible, we would have no way of recognizing that it was life. When we look for life elsewhere in the universe, we look for life similar to our own, because we have to compare it with things that we know. Since we've only seen lifeforms that are carbon based, and need water to survive, we pretty much have to assume that all life is like this, or at least that this is a common form of life. Since other forms of life haven't seemed to spring up on other bodies in our solar system, we can also assume that life forms that COULD survive in those environments, are either impossible, or uncommon.
Anyways. We are, in NO uncertain means, NOT perfectly tuned to this planet. 71% of the earth's surface is covered in water. It would make much more sense if we spent 71% of our lives in water. It would make use of the resources we have to offer much easier. Also, the earth's atmosphere is 78% nitrogen, but our bodies don't use nitrogen to make energy do they? No, we use oxygen, along with like 45%(I pulled this number out of my ass, the other two % I looked up.) of all other life on earth. The most plentiful thing on earth is silicon, and yet we are constructed out of carbon. Does that make sense? Not to me.
Evolution doesn't create organisms perfectly suited for their environment, but organisms that are about as well suited to the environment they live in as all the other organisms on earth. A life form that is perfectly suited for earth could live in our out of salt, and fresh water, is constructed primarily of silica, and uses nitrogen, oxygen, and carbon dioxide to generate energy by reacting them with some silica food source. Nanobots, for example, would be "perfectly" suited for the environment (thats what Grey Goo theory is all about.)