Extraterrestrial-sm is a theory of life on Earth, which states that Microorganisms from an asteroid collided with the Earth, and, in contain with our eco-system, flourished. This could explain how life came to be on earth.
This theory has recently found new evidence, as found in This article. It states that water has been found on an asteroid. As well all know, water leads to life.
As I said before, how can you possible know it would take huge amounts of time to create these technologies, as you have no idea how smart or resourceful said aliens could be.
You can't just "become" intelligent enough to create these technologies as it would require the process of evolution; potentially millions more years than what we've already experienced.
The water can't just disappear.
It would disperse into space.
And what the hell do you mean the universe isn't that old? It's PLENTY old. As I said before, outs is one of the youngest solar systems in the galaxy.
Evolution takes time, technology takes time, what's not on your side; time.
There's plenty of time, you just have to use it right. As you said it would disappear in the atmosphere. The atmosphere wouldn't let it escape and the Earth happens to have gravity. And when you say it could take millions more years than we've already experienced, it could have also taken a lot less time than we've experienced. How many times do I have to say this? YOUCAN'TCOMPARETHETIMEITTOOKUSTOEVOLVETOTHETIMEITWOULDTAKEOTHERSPECIES.
Because you know absolutely nothing about the other species or how they evolved. It's like proving a hypothesis. You do the experiment multiple times and the same outcome happens every time, then you can pretty much same it's right. But since we only have one evolution time line to work off of, how can we possibly know that it is representative of all evolution time lines?
Because you know absolutely nothing about the other species or how they evolved. It's like proving a hypothesis. You do the experiment multiple times and the same outcome happens every time, then you can pretty much same it's right. But since we only have one evolution time line to work off of, how can we possibly know that it is representative of all evolution time lines?
Because it can't occur at extremely fast rates; it isn't possible.
Actually, there are two theories of evolution, one being punctuated equilibrium, which states that evolution happens in short bursts and not slowly over time. And it is completely possible. Also, what if evolution created an intelligent species earlier than it for us. Like millions of years earlier. Than, even with the same time frame, they would be far more advanced.
You also must take in the account that we were not the first species living on the planet, as there were the dinosaurs, witch lived for far longer then we currently have been living, millions of years. If another species had that amount of time and the intelligence of around a human then they should easy surpass us.
Well possum I'll try to succeed where Samy has failed, though I don't think I'll make much of a dent in your willful ignorance to something call "logic". Now, there's this wonderful thing called The Average of Probabilities. Based on this we determine how LIKELY things are to happen. Considering intelligent life on other planets in VERY VERY UNLIKELY. Life that is super advanced? That is so astronomically unlikely we can't even comprehend it. Now you've been telling Samy he can't compare our evolution to others, well then I ask why? And I further ask, what gives your arguement any credit if you have nothing to solidify it with what we already know?
How about this: They also say that the chances of DNA forming at random on Earth were astronomical, but that is widely accepted as fact. And, in accordance to you saying that the chances are, as you say, "VERY VERY UNLIKELY", you are just plain wrong. With the universe being as big as it is, the chances are actually astronomical that there ISN'T another advanced species. And as to the reason you can't compare evolutions, it is simply because how can you possible compare one thing that you know very little about to something else that you're not even sure has happened?
Considering intelligent life on other planets in VERY VERY UNLIKELY.
Where did you get this information?
--------------------------
And possum is getting his idea that water on this planet was brought from asteroids is a legitimate theory that is circling around. Here is an excerpt from the article: âWhat weâve found suggests that an asteroid like this one may have hit Earth and brought our planet its water,â said astronomer Humberto Campins of the University of Central Florida, the lead of one of the two separate teams that reported similar findings April 28 in Nature.
While there is plenty of debate around how Earth got its oceans, this new evidence suggests some of the water came from extraterrestrial sources. Hereâs how it may have happened: More than four billion years ago, after a massive collision between Earth and another large object created the moon, our planet was completely dessicated. Then, during the Late Heavy Bombardment period that followed, during which lots of asteroids hit Earth, the ice that the objects carried became our store of water.
Read More http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/04/ice-on-an-asteroid/#ixzz0mvmINrvm
if this isnt the main thought of how life came to be what is? (besides religiousely) I want to believe but there is so much evidence as to not and so little as to
Abiogenesis is the leading theory. Basically certain compounds came together under certain conditions resulting in self replicating molecules. We have already been able to create an RNA molecule using even more basic compounds and similar conditions thought to have existed on Earth when life first developed.
Well possum I'll try to succeed where Samy has failed,
While I think he's barking up the wrong tree about a more advanced species creating us, possum has made a few good points. I'll try to highlight.
In response to samy: the asteroid thing is science, read a textbook or something.
YOU CAN'T COMPARE THE TIME IT TOOK US TO EVOLVE TO THE TIME IT WOULD TAKE OTHER SPECIES.
Because you know absolutely nothing about the other species or how they evolved.... But since we only have one evolution time line to work off of, how can we possibly know that it is representative of all evolution time lines?
This is correct since we have nothing to compare to we can't compare them. Though this also makes the assumption that they would be more advanced equally void.
Actually, there are two theories of evolution, one being punctuated equilibrium, which states that evolution happens in short bursts and not slowly over time. And it is completely possible.
Yes the observation of the Nylon eating bacteria for example has demonstrated that drastic evolutionary changes can take place much faster then we originally thought. There are a number of factors that effects the rate at which a species evolves. If it has to deal with more environmental changes. How fast it reproduces allowing for more generations in a shorter frame of time. Extraterrestrialy life starting sooner even if just by a few million years then our own planet. Just to name a few.
Also, what if evolution created an intelligent species earlier than it for us. Like millions of years earlier. Than, even with the same time frame, they would be far more advanced.
This is also possible. Though I would like to add evolution doesn't necessary result in a more advanced species just a species better adapted to it's environment. So even taking all of these things into account biologically they could still end up on par with us. Technologically they could also suffer numerous set backs. Think if that species were to run into several dark ages or a planetary catastrophe knocked them back to a near stone age level. We can only speculate on these matters.
