Poll do you think there is life out there

Do you think there is


  • Total voters
    59
From what I've skimmed, this thread has become a huge biology lesson.

Of course there is life, so many galaxies, all expanding infinitely, and life does not have to be complex at all.
 
Threads in the off-topic forum going off-topic? Unprecedented! :P
 
If theres some form of life out there, wether it be primitive or it looks like us. It is going to be a massive discovery, scientists will yell at NASA to send a probe, churchs will do what churchs do best, the military will want to send a armed probe there to see if there dangerous.
But we cant know, people can have there thoughts and UFO believers can do whatever they do, until we can go out there and look, we wont know.
If there isnt life out there, it's sure a waste of space, but that just makes earth more important.
I think theres life out there, i dont believe there've already visited us.
Life will look like what there planet allows them to, our gravity allows us to stand up right.
A planet with heavier atmosphere would have life thats smaller or stronger, gas giant life maybe even floats in the sea of gas.
Thanks.
Ryan.
 
I wouldn't see the discussion as "going off topic". More of a slight detour to try to define what we mean by "life" here on earth before looking for it out there. ;)
 
I wouldn't see the discussion as "going off topic". More of a slight detour to try to define what we mean by "life" here on earth before looking for it out there. ;)

And thats constantly changing with new Extemofiles being discovered every time a politician lies (thats every 50 seconds:P)
 
And thats constantly changing with new Extemofiles being discovered every time a politician lies (thats every 50 seconds:P)

It's a little more than that. Perhaps 5.0... anyway... back to the subject.

Aliens are here and they're running our countries. Now where's me tin foil hat?
 
Life is life, regardless of how complex it is. And I would say that bacteria has colonised pretty much every land mass on the planet inhabited by other life forms - and did so long before any of us did!

I'm talking about animals, not bacteria or some such other lifeform.

And some animals could survive many things that would kill humans in seconds, using nothing but their own evolutionary adaptations - they don't need to resort to technology.

It does not matter how the animal survives, just that it survives (or not).

Having a major effect on the climate can't be classed as being a "successful" trait - we are also a profoundly short sighted species in that we can see the harm that we are doing, but are leaving it ridiculously late to do anything about.

Being in great enough numbers with profound enough activities to cause such harm, yes. That is successful.

As for profoundly changing the animal fauna, I suspect many other species have done that throughout the existence of life on the planet. The introduction of a non-local species will often have a profound effect on local species.

Please name a single animal species that has caused as many animal genera to go extinct as Homo Sapiens.

No serious human biologist / paleoanthropologist plainly claims that humans are animals.

So, that would make you the only serious human biologist/ paleoanthropologist?

Humans are not completely different but yet party significantly: hidden ovulation for example, which makes it almost impossible for both human genera to realize fertility. Well, breasts indipendent from lactation, the colour of the nipple-region as well as the size of the areola is something that is unique among mammals. Just to name a few things.

Which are just species traits, not defining characteristics that isolate H. sapiens from the rest of the animal kingdom. There are many similar species-specific adaptations in other animals.

hidden ovulation for example, which makes it almost impossible for both human genera to realize fertility.

Both human genera? I thought Homo was the only one for the last few million years...
 
It does not matter how the animal survives, just that it survives (or not).

Indeed. So you would agree that there are many other species that are better at surviving than humans?

Being in great enough numbers with profound enough activities to cause such harm, yes. That is successful.
...
Please name a single animal species that has caused as many animal genera to go extinct as Homo Sapiens.

You have a very strange definition of "successful", if you include a species' ability to destroy its own habitat and wipe itself out, or to wipe out other species.
 
Indeed. So you would agree that there are many other species that are better at surviving than humans?

Animal species? Perhaps small invertebrates such as tardigrades, yes.

You have a very strange definition of "successful", if you include a species' ability to destroy its own habitat and wipe itself out, or to wipe out other species.

Humans haven't wiped themselves out... yet. ;)

No, I'm saying the ability of the species to do that stems from their success.
 
Recent estimates place the number of galaxies at around 500 billion. I would think that without ANY qualifications the answer is yes there is life out there. I would also so venture to state that the probability of carbon life in our technology range is also a undeniable yes.
 
You have a very strange definition of "successful", if you include a species' ability to destroy its own habitat and wipe itself out, or to wipe out other species.

We are just babies already strong enough to break our toys - but not yet smart enough to be able to repair them or make anew. It's just a path of development, and we are in the middle of it.
 
Every organism has polluted and destroyed its environment causing extinction of other species. Then a new species evolves to fill that new "polluted" environment. After all, thats why we have oxygen to breathe...it was created by photosynthesis as toxic pollution to other early organisms and now, much later we cant live with out it.
 
Both human genera? I thought Homo was the only one for the last few million years...

I think he means Genders, not Genera. (the other genus of humans would be Australopithecus?)

Anyway, hidden ovulation has benefits for the woman. If the man has no way of knowing when a woman ovulates, then it means he has to stick around throughout the whole cycle instead of only coming around to sleep with her at ovulation time (i.e. he has to keep her happy ALL the time, which means bring home food all the time, etc.).

Second, if the woman is unaware of her own ovulation, and if she is sleeping with more than one man, then it takes the decision of which man's sperm will fertilize her away from her brain and give it to the egg itself--and the egg knows more about which sperm have good genes than the brain does, since her brain cares more about which man is more fun to live with/sleep with.
 
hen it takes the decision of which man's sperm will fertilize her away from her brain and give it to the egg itself

err... Isn't that strictly regulated by the concept "first to the finishing line"? I never heard that an egg-cell would be discriminative about which sperm to let in...
 
err... Isn't that strictly regulated by the concept "first to the finishing line"? I never heard that an egg-cell would be discriminative about which sperm to let in...
I'm not sure how it relates to adult genes, but I know that there is a genetic defect which causes a man's sperm to be unable to penetrate the egg.
 
Back
Top