'Alien life' may be found on Earth

did they probe fat boy? Did they find shyte for brainz?

I'm not surprised.
 
and we have to find signs of intellegent life on Earth. The search continues
 
Elimentals said:
But we have found it: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/02/AR2010120204183.html

So it has happened and probably many times, over and over... just one problem:
The life that already exist tend to kill crap that want to compete, you see we have a head start in the game so it kind of like letting a grown lion and a new born rabbit compete for the same food. The lion will always win.
Click to expand...

LOL, I thought the rabbit would be the food.:p]

In any event, your post just ended the debate, but of course people will ignore it and ontinue to say that there is only carbon based life.
 
Last edited:
Well there's still a lot of room for evolution to take place on the floors of the deepest oceans. Wonder what might pop up from them in a few thousands years.
 
HideInLight said:
Well there's still a lot of room for evolution to take place on the floors of the deepest oceans. Wonder what might pop up from them in a few thousands years.
Click to expand...

Oh evolution left us some funnies down there that's for sure. I cant find the link now but I do recall that they found some really odd life deep underwater near volcano vents living off the surfer. I would not be surprised of they come up "Alien" as well.

EDIT: aaah found it http://seawifs.gsfc.nasa.gov/OCEAN_PLANET/HTML/oceanography_recently_revealed1.html and http://seawifs.gsfc.nasa.gov/OCEAN_PLANET/HTML/ps_vents.html
 
Last edited:
Wait... so Apache is asking why life hasn't emerged again...

Apache how long do you think a delicious nutrient-filled collection of simple self-replicating amino acids or RNA would last against more complex forms of life?

EDIT: Also I still don't get the argument... life started once therefore it must have started a second time in the same place... what?

Even if you ignore all the myriad of environmental pressures this new life would need to overcome what with already developed life running around chowing down on delicious nutrients left, right and centre the core of the argument is totally illogical as the point about life developing a second time doesn't follow from the premise that life developed in the first place at all.
 
Last edited:
porchrat said:
Wait... so Apache is asking why life hasn't emerged again...

Apache how long do you think a delicious nutrient-filled collection of simple self-replicating amino acids or RNA would last against more complex forms of life?

EDIT: Also I still don't get the argument... life started once therefore it must have started a second time in the same place... what?

Even if you ignore all the myriad of environmental pressures this new life would need to overcome what with already developed life running around chowing down on delicious nutrients left, right and centre the core of the argument is totally illogical as the point about life developing a second time doesn't follow from the premise that life developed in the first place at all.
Click to expand...

Take your PD cap off, I just posted an interesting news article in CA.
 
Apache said:
Take your PD cap off, I just posted an interesting news article in CA.
Click to expand...
So I take it you don't want to actually address the points I've raised that are totally related to the article in question?

OK then. Anyone that is actually interested in this article care to comment while Apache goes and does something else?
 
Well I opened a can of worms yesterday.. which seems to be being studiously ignored by Apache...
 
Do you accept Evolution, or are you one of those Creationist type nutjobs.
 
porchrat said:
Wait... so Apache is asking why life hasn't emerged again...

Apache how long do you think a delicious nutrient-filled collection of simple self-replicating amino acids or RNA would last against more complex forms of life?

EDIT: Also I still don't get the argument... life started once therefore it must have started a second time in the same place... what?

Even if you ignore all the myriad of environmental pressures this new life would need to overcome what with already developed life running around chowing down on delicious nutrients left, right and centre the core of the argument is totally illogical as the point about life developing a second time doesn't follow from the premise that life developed in the first place at all.
Click to expand...

No, started elsewhere at a similar time. Then both would have had time to develop before interacting with each other.
 
B.O.F.H. said:
Do you accept Evolution, or are you one of those Creationist type nutjobs.
Click to expand...

In this thread, I am willing to discuss different trees of life developing over time independently of each other.
 
Ok, you answered my question.

You believe in a BS piece of crap that has no basis in reality or even in fiction for that matter.

Your opinion on this article is thus null and void.
 
B.O.F.H. said:
Ok, you answered my question.

You believe in a BS piece of crap that has no basis in reality or even in fiction for that matter.

Your opinion on this article is thus null and void.
Click to expand...

You are quite an engaging fellow.
 
Apache said:
No, started elsewhere at a similar time. Then both would have had time to develop before interacting with each other.
Click to expand...
Why would it need to have started elsewhere at a similar time? I'm still not following. What is there to suggest this?

As far as I can see abiogenesis is a field devoted to demonstrating potential methods of development of life by simulating ancient environments and observing the results.

Besides this guy is talking about life developing entirely different biochemistries to those we see in current organisms. Fundamentally different structures. Why would similar biochemical environments yield different biochemistries. The nature of atoms and their interactions don't change. Unless for example you have one organism developing in a non-aqueous environment and another developing in aqueous how are we going to get different fundamental biochemistries?

Until such a time as organisms demonstrating fundamentally different biochemistry from our own emerge or mechanisms are proposed for such a development I see the contents of this article as unsupported speculation.
 
Last edited:
porchrat said:
Why would it need to have started elsewhere at a similar time? I'm still not following. What is there to suggest this?

As far as I can see abiogenesis is a field devoted to demonstrating potential methods of development of life by simulating ancient environments and observing the results.

Besides this guy is talking about life developing entirely different biochemistries to those we see in current organisms. Fundamentally different structures. Why would similar biochemical environments yield different biochemistries. The nature of atoms and their interactions don't change. Unless for example you have one organism developing in a non-aqueous environment and another developing in aqueous how are we going to get different fundamental biochemistries?

Until such a time as organisms demonstrating fundamentally different biochemistry from our own emerge or mechanisms are proposed for such a development I see the contents of this article as unsupported speculation.
Click to expand...

The guy in the article is basically saying that if life started the way you say. Then why did it not start multiple times?

And from a creationists viewpoint, if it did not start multiple times then perhaps the ideas commonly held by the scientific community is incorrect. And so we need to look at creation as an alternative.
 
Apache said:
The guy in the article is basically saying that if life started the way you say. Then why did it not start multiple times?

And from a creationists viewpoint, if it did not start multiple times then perhaps the ideas commonly held by the scientific community is incorrect. And so we need to look at creation as an alternative.
Click to expand...

We dont have to as I already proven that it did, well at least twice, we have arsenic based life forms as well as life forms living off sulpher, what more do you need.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X