Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Well pardon [language filter] me.Okayyyyyyy.... Let me break it down for you since you either missed my previous post entirely or you did not understand it. I already covered the ALH 84001 meteorite. Here is my previous post.
"I could not find any literature reviews over hypotheses involving life from Mars going to earth on the Science Direct database.
I'm assuming you are talking about the ALH 84001 meteorite which supposedly contained fossilized bacteria and other chemicals thought to be produced by life only. As far as I can tell, these claims have never been verified or taken very seriously in the scientific community."
The ALH 84001 meteorite was thought to contain structures from fossilized bacteria. This has never been validated nor widely accepted by the scientific community. NASA itself denied the results. Here is a quote from NASA regarding the ALH 84001 meteorite:
"NASA is a scientific and technical agency committed to a culture of openness with the media and public. While we value the free exchange of ideas, data, and information as part of scientific and technical inquiry, NASA cannot stand behind or support a scientific claim unless it has been peer-reviewed or thoroughly examined by other qualified experts. This paper was submitted in 2007 to the International Journal of Astrobiology. However, the peer review process was not completed for that submission. NASA also was unaware of the recent submission of the paper to the Journal of Cosmology or of the paper's subsequent publication. Additional questions should be directed to the author of the paper." - Dr. Paul Hertz, chief scientist of NASA's Science Mission Directorate in Washington"
Moving on. You seem to not know the difference between a theory and a hypothesis.Your second "source" is nothing more than a scientific hypothesis.
Your third "source" is a hypothesis, as well. It is a researcher trying to find life on Mars. The researcher himself states "It's a long shot". He then states IF life is found and IF it is related to us, life could have come from Mars. That is NOT a theory. That is a hypothesis, at best.
So let me tell you this: I already posted where I looked for sources, it was Science Direct, a huge scientific database. This database has no scientific literature regarding life on Earth coming from Mars (Granted, I only looked for about an hour but searches get less and less relevant the further you go). You completely missed the point of my posts.
Lastly, you are getting your "sources" from Google. Sorry, but you are the one that does not know where to look for your sources. Though I respect the Discovery Channel, it is hardly a source for actual scientific literature. This is clearly evident due to their misuse of the word "theory". If you require aid looking for actual scientific literature I would be happy to help.
What about the National Geographic Channel?
Are you saying all those documentaries about the universe and geology and evolution isn't actual science?
Well pardon [language filter] me.
Evolution "said" no such thing.Conditions have to be optimal for evolution to take place.If they are not, evolution would not take place.
Not necessarily.Other planets that support life may not go through drastic extremes in their environments.
Europa may have life,and it is constantly under a thick layer of ice.
If the conditions of a planet allow cells to survive, this means that they allow cells to survive. That doesn't mean they allow the survival of more complex organisms, like animals or plants.If a planet allowed cells to survive, then the condition is optimal. And evolution will take place.
This depends on how you define type of life. If you define bacteria as one type of life, then I'd say we'll probably find just this one type. If you define different bacteria as different types of life, then we'll find several types.So, would we find one type of life or many types of life in the water of Europa?
Nope, it was all natural.
But yet we are not dead.
If a planet allowed cells to survive, then the condition is optimal. And evolution will take place.
So, would we find one type of life or many types of life in the water of Europa?
If the conditions of a planet allow cells to survive, this means that they allow cells to survive. That doesn't mean they allow the survival of more complex organisms, like animals or plants.
You're right, evolution will take place, but that doesn't mean bacteria will necessarily become animals. It just means the bacteria will evolve.
This depends on how you define type of life. If you define bacteria as one type of life, then I'd say we'll probably find just this one type. If you define different bacteria as different types of life, then we'll find several types.
I still don't agree with you. For me, evolution doesn't mean that bacteria will necessarily turn into animals. It just means they will become better at survival and procreation; if that means they will stay bacteria, then they will stay bacteria.He he he ... I wish some people will read this one.
Sorry, but that was what I said in a long debate sometime ago.
I still don't agree with you. For me, evolution doesn't mean that bacteria will necessarily turn into animals. It just means they will become better at survival and procreation; if that means they will stay bacteria, then they will stay bacteria.
The difference between the two of us is that I use the term correctly.
I still don't agree with you. For me, evolution doesn't mean that bacteria will necessarily turn into animals. It just means they will become better at survival and procreation; if that means they will stay bacteria, then they will stay bacteria.
The difference between the two of us is that I use the term correctly.
I still don't agree with you. For me, evolution doesn't mean that bacteria will necessarily turn into animals. It just means they will become better at survival and procreation; if that means they will stay bacteria, then they will stay bacteria.
The difference between the two of us is that I use the term correctly.
That would explain why humans are not animals. We are obviously better than other life forms. We even drive them out of their own environment and occupy it.Animals are not any better than other life forms, it all comes down to adaptation to your environment.
That would explain why humans are not animals. We are obviously better than other life forms. We even drive them out of their own environment and occupy it.
That would explain why humans are not animals. We are obviously better than other life forms. We even drive them out of their own environment and occupy it.
That wasn't your opinion at all! Your opinion was that, as long as we see no animals, evolution is wrong!That is why I said that I do expect to find plants and bacteria on other planets. But no animals.
Humans fulfill all the criteria to count as animals.That would explain why humans are not animals.
Except for rats, which still live with us. And cockroaches. And flies.We are obviously better than other life forms. We even drive them out of their own environment and occupy it.
Check.1. A multicellular organism of the kingdom Animalia,
Check.differing from plants in certain typical characteristics such as capacity for locomotion,
Check.nonphotosynthetic metabolism,
Check, check, CHECK!pronounced response to stimuli, restricted growth, and fixed bodily structure.
I thought we were over this already.Animals do not wear clothes.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?