Can we put some pond scum on the moon, or mars and hope to evolve human beings and earth creatures?

Question

Why not, according to evolution it worked here?

GLH you leave alot of unknowns. Hard science is axiomatic--it is measureable--predictable--etc. You think I am dumb but I studied biology under Dr. Bernard Hartman, and even he could not explain how the first living atom formed. And despite your decorations----NEITHER CAN YOU. So dont try to appear so smarter than thou.

Answer 1

I think we should start with rocks so it will be exactly like the Big Bang Theory. Supposedly it rained on the rocks, formed mud and humans sprang from that. I don't know if any scientists have found the "missing rock".

Answer 2

Evolution is not teleological; there's no fixed end point that creatures are inexorably drawn toward. Humans aren't the acme of evolution; we're not even all that special outside of that notably expansive intellect.

Given that there is no atmosphere on either the Moon or Mars, and Mars is significantly farther away from the Sun, the pond scum would probably simply die. And death before reproduction is the only way to fail to evolve.

Answer 3

it's the transition from inorganic chemicals to self-replication w hich is the crucial step. Pond scum is already life. With a copy of a copy of a copy etc etc for half a billion years errors creep in. Thereby we get diversity amongst pond scums. Some may evolve into intelligent life ....... and yet others may end up like you!

Answer 4

i imagine evolution has hit a useless end for people, a minimum of. organic decision doesn't impression people anymore, this is now all about synthetic decision. till the completed international adopts some type of fascist regime, i do not believe of synthetic decision will impression us too a lot both. "Are the evolutionists declaring that once 4.5 billion years it truly is the great evolution can do? what's next?" Evolution has no "objective". It doesn't settle on at the same time as to stop and at the same time as to commence. it really is a organic procedure.

Answer 5

Yes... when are you leaving?

You obviously have no concept or understanding of evolution at all. No doubt you've already stopped reading my answer but for those with open and enquiring minds:-

The answer is no because one of the principles of evolution is that at every single step in the evolutionary process accident and random events dictate the kinds of mutations, changes and adaptations living things undergo. So even if you were to re-run evolution on Earth it is highly improbable that humans or anything like humans would result.

And why pond scum? The living things you find in pond scum include multicellular organisms, perhaps larval stages of insects and other "advanced" organisms. Pond life is highly complex and not at all like the first, much simpler living things such as bacteria or self-replicating strands of RNA which are generally believed to have been the first living things to evolve.

In addition, conditions on other planets are different. There would be no point introducing organisms from this planet onto another unless we also changed the planet sufficiently to enable them to survive. When life first appeared on the Earth conditions were very different to those that exist today - there was no oxygen in the atmosphere for one thing. The creatures that evolved did so under conditions of a reducing atmosphere, high pressure and temperature that enabled billions of reactions to take place for billions of years. The self-replicating RNA that was produced and which became the core of the first bacteria was a product of those conditions. This production of RNA only had to happen once in all those reactions in all that time. Given such numbers even the most imporobable event (which this is not) becomes an eventual certainty.

For the process of evolution to operate on another planet the conditions do not necessarily have to be indentical but certain factors would make it more likely - such as liquid water, heat, a variety of carbon-, nitrogen- and phosphorus-based compounds (which it has been demonstrated will spontaneously synthesise into amino acids, the building blocks of proteins).

Even if conditions were exactly identical to those on the early Earth, evolution is highly unlikely to re-run exactly as it did on Earth because chance mutations play such a major factor.

Nevertheless, from studies of evolution on our own planet it seems that certain evolutionary processes are more likely than others:-
Eyes have evolved independently at least 40 times
Echo location has evolved at least 4 times
Flapping flight has evolved several times
A process of harnessing the Sun's energy seems highly likely as most (but not quite all) life on this planet is ultimately dependant on such a process

Thus we could safely assume that if evolution managed to take hold on another world, whether spontaneously or from some sort of seeding experiment it seems highly likely that the resulting organism would have some sort of eye, which in turn implies a nervous system and brain to process the received information. This in turn carries further implications regarding encephalisation, neural transmission, information handling and so forth.

UPDATE: If you're that smart you'd know that there is no such thing as "a living atom". Atoms are inert. Even large molecules such as RNA and DNA are not regarded as living (and there is considerable dispute over viruses because they don't satisfy all the standard criteria for life - they do not exhibit movement, growth, respiration or excretion).

You also have a strange view of science - scientists recognise that some events are random and unpredictable, for example the radioactive decay of any one atom of an isotope is entirely unpredictable as to when it will take place and only becomes predictable and "axiomatic" when a very large number of atoms are looked at collectively. Evolution is unpredictable in much the same way - as demonstrated in the Kaufman thought experiments.

[and studying under a famous scientist does not mean you're in any way as clever as he is... how many Nobel Prizes do YOU have? How many scientific papers have you written? I'm not interested in the organ grinder; it's his monkey who asked the question].

Do you mean H. Bernard Hartman? An expert on the biology of laboratory animals hardly qualifies as an expert in evolution... I doubt if he knows what a genome is any more than you do

Answer 6

I think that you really know this question is ridiculous.

Edit: They'd be moon creatures.