Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimbozu
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.
|
Yeah, I didn't say I agree; just running with his theory. However, as spontaneous generation theories go (and origin of organic matter, for that matter?...if it matters) the conditions were somehow perfectly balanced to produce the life forms we do know about. If evolutionary theories were true they certainly wouldn't be restricted to "our environment" or even the same exact list of chemicals, matter and elements present on earth. In fact, who's to say that the periodic table represents every element in the universe or even our solar system? I'm certain there are gases, metals, liquids, matter, or whatever that exist of which we know nothing about.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimbozu
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.)
|
Then why didn't a more suitable life form spontaneously generate as opposed to what is believed to have done so?
On the topic of the statistical odds, what do you make of the argument from the article?