ADN

Im just wondering something, they are constantly looking for life on mars. They are looking for evidence for a water source to sustain life.

But if there is another form of life how is it that they know that life on mars would have the same chemical build up as us humans and that they would need water as a source of life as we do?

If there was life on mars its just my opinion but they would have a completly different chemical make up and maybe they wouldnt require water as a source of life.

What does everyone think?

When they found living forms building up by the termal sources on the sea floor in high dephts (high pressure, no light at all), the conclusion was that life can be built by the presence of hot water only. Whole life is carbon based and needs oxygen to live. That's the premises.

QUOTE(mpisho @ Oct 7 2006, 04:03 AM) When they found living forms building up by the termal sources on the sea floor in high dephts (high pressure, no light at all), the conclusion was that life can be built by the presence of hot water only. Whole life is carbon based and needs oxygen to live. That's the premises.

exactly, mpisho,

H2O and heat are the greatest indicative requirements of organic carbon-based life as far as science has discovered. Water is as far as we know, the crucial blood of the precipitative system of the biosphere. No water, no physical life form we could begin to understand the mechanisms of. No Heat, no way for the water to cycle through the precipitative cycle.

I think they came to the conclusion that water existed on mars at one time and life may have developed. If they can find a pocket of water that still exists mabey some basic form of life will have survived along with it.

But really what is to say that the life form on another planet would be carbon based ?

I agree with the fact that if it was carbon based then it would require water and heat, however if it wasnt carbon based then dont you think that looking for water might just be a waste of resources.

Saying that though, I know there is no indication that there is another form of life other then carbon based.

But I'm just wondering why is it that they are constantly just looking for a carbon based life form?

I am guessing that the reason is that as life has been studied in its various forms, life as we know it could not exist in any other way..

However, what about a 'Doomsday' effect..?

I say that in reference to the comic book character that killed Superman...He was made in such a way from scientists creating tissue on a hostile planet and throwing it outside...Each time, the tissue died quickly, or was killed...They would take whatever remained from the tissue, and clone it again...Repeating the process until at some point, the tissue became resolved...

It eventaully killed everything on the planet, including the scientist...One thing that killed it could not kill it again...

So maybe, over the course of time, a new kind of life form could be built on something similar...The gradual loss of heat and water could initiate a change in dependency and chemical makeup, as it does for creatures living on the bottom of the ocean that have no sunlight...

Maybe, but all the living creatures known to man (incliding bacteriae)live in various conditions (high pressure, no air, extreme temperatures), so, they do not live in what we would call friendly enviroment. Yet, they are all carbon based. And what about the teory that life on planet Earth itself came from outer space (asteroid carrying bacteriae - the simplest form of life))?

If that was the case, who knows how many asteroids crashed into earth with different life forms that were not carbon based and could not survive in this atmosphere?

A, your "Doomsday Effect" theory reminds me of the film evolution. How another form of life form crashes into earth as that theory about the start of life with the whole asteroid thing and how quickly they evloved from not being able to breathe in this atmosphere and so forth to being able to soar through the skies.

I think Deepak brings up an interesting point. The universe is massive. We learn something new about it everyday. Who's to say all lifeforms have to be carbon based? Unfortunately, we'll probably never know...

QUOTE(Kramer @ Oct 11 2006, 10:18 AM) I think Deepak brings up an interesting point. The universe is massive. We learn something new about it everyday. Who's to say all lifeforms have to be carbon based? Unfortunately, we'll probably never know...

Never say never.....


That seems like a trolling comment, but I am serious. Who's to say that Newton's Laws of Physics would describe the universe for all eternity? That was the case a hundred years ago....


Our current understanding of biology is that all known lifeforms are carbon-based. Key word is current....