Re: Evolution and other planets

From: Anthony Cerrato (tcerrato_at_optonline.net)
Date: 12/30/04 

Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2004 03:30:17 +0000 (UTC)

"deowll" <deowll@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:cqthlt$hrj$1@darwin.ediacara.org...
>
> "Matt" <matthew-cantrell@uiowa.edu> wrote in message
> news:cqo24o$1prk$1@darwin.ediacara.org...
> >
> > While I do believe there is life on other world's (Not
X-Files Style)
> > the chances of it being similar to here is slim to none.
Species here
> > evolved the way they did due to their environments. For
example
> > dinosaurs might still be roaming around if an asteroid
had not crashed
> > into earth a few million years ago. Most people think
that liquid
> > water is the key to life, however the the thermal vents
in the bottom
> > of the ocean have shown that life can thrive in even the
most
> > unhospitable of conditions (ie living of hydrogen
sulfide gases).
>
> They still have liqued water. They are most certainly
using surprising
> energy sources. I think I've read that about a third by
mass of all life may
> be living in crakes in rocks much of it completely
unaffected by us.
>
> > Species on this planet come and go everyday, many before
they are even
> > discovered (paradoxical yet true)While evolution is
thought to be a
> > very slow process which Darwin yanked from the geology
work of Charles
> > Lyell's concept of uniformitarianism, evolution can ocur
quite quickly
> > as in the case of punctuated equilibra where a dramatic,
sudden change
> > in the envirnoment creates an excess of resources where
species that
> > have the best natural selection capabilites can
flourish. (food,
> > nesting space less competition)If you are interested in
this take a
> > look at the work of Stanley Miller's groundbreaking work
in the 1950's.
> > Basicly he showed in a very simple experiment how the
building blocks
> > of life were formed from the environment that was
available when the
> > earth was at it's earlier stages. Cool Stuff.
> >
> >
> The question remains. How different is multicellular life
likely to be on an
> Earth like planet with metazoans? Earth has come up with a
great many
> answers but trying to come up with something radically
different that would
> work might be a challenge.

On the majority of near-Earthlike planets (which themselves
are likely rare,) multicellular life will probably never
even develop. Ward and Brownlee believe life is abundant,
but complex life is rare. There are good arguments for this.
The few exceptions will be very vulnerable to geophysical
and various other differences from planet Earth, no matter
if they are "similar." It is the so-called "Butterfly
Effect" from chaos theory--i.e., a small flap of the wing of
a butterfly in Asia can have ultimate gigantic effects on
the US with time. There are a googolplex number of
evolutionary paths available for life, even for near-Earths.
Some _may_ be "similar" to some extent to Earth's history,
but _most_ will not.
Anyway, bacteria or their analogs will always dominate the
galaxy. :) ...tonyC

> >
> > Perkowski wrote:
> >> Quick question...
> >>
> >> If life can possibly exist on other planets that are
similiar to
> > Earth,
> >> what are the chances of animal and plant life on those
planets
> > following
> >> the animal and planet life here on Earth?
> >>
> >> For example, could a planet somewhere in our galaxy be
the home
> >> of past creatures like the dinosaurs that appeared here
on Earth?
> >>
> >> All things being equal, would animals/plants on other
world follow
> >> the same evolutionary map that animals/plants on Earth
do?
> >>
> >> Joe Perkowski
> >
> >
>
>

Quantcast