are or were populated with life......Smallcock said:I pray that they find undeniable evidence of life. Imagine beneath the lake bed they find fossils of ancient animals? That would be mind-blowing. It would basically be proof that out there in outerspace lots of other planets are populated with life.
Our bodies are a large percent water and some scientists are still convinced our ancestors were not monkeys, they were FISH.Smallcock said:while the world is like 90% water, the most intelligent creature wound up being a land animal....
I kind of disagree with your statement that we are the most intelligent creatures on the planet.Smallcock said:I've always wondered how on another planet similar to earth it'd be cool if "humans" (ie. the most intelligent creatures on the planet) actually evolve as water creatures rather than land animals. It's pretty interesting that while the world is like 90% water, the most intelligent creature wound up being a land animal. The odds would suggest just the opposite. It'd be a very different place if we were actually creatures limited to living in water.
Actually, the main difference is that we have reasoning....monkeys and ants can create tools with a bark from a tree.tboy said:We just happen to have evolved to the point where we can create tools.....
Yeah, but obviously not everyone of our species has that ability lol.....PurpleMonkey said:Actually, the main difference is that we have reasoning....monkeys and ants can create tools with a bark from a tree.
Otters routinely use rocks as anvils to open shellfish. Chimps use levers, hammers and digging tools.PurpleMonkey said:Actually, the main difference is that we have reasoning....monkeys and ants can create tools with a bark from a tree.
but only pittsburgh has a TODD gill....*hehehehe*Compromised said:Otters routinely use rocks as anvils to open shellfish. Chimps use levers, hammers and digging tools.
Whales hunt in pods and assign roles to individual animals and co-ordinate attacks.
All life on this planet, whether dinosaurs, yeast or primates originally swam in the muck. Humans have both gills and a tail during gestation.
Thats true since I'm a PiscesPurpleMonkey said:Our bodies are a large percent water and some scientists are still convinced our ancestors were not monkeys, they were FISH.
There were a lot of GREAT LINES in that film.tboy said:are or were populated with life......
One of THE best lines I ever heard in a movie was from the movie Contact with Jodie Foster.
It went something like "with all the billions upon billions galaxies, with billions of planets, if we were the ONLY ones out here, wouldn't that be an awful waste of space"????
Priceless.....
Compromised said:Humans have both gills and a tail during gestation.
Well, just remember one thing small....that even water borne creatures STILL breathe oxygen....they just filter it out of the water.....Smallcock said:It doesn't matter, here's the point I was making: it is curious that the species that is most creative and that has the highest developed reasoning skills evolved on land rather than water since there are a gazillion more species in water and the world is 90% covered in water. Rudimentary statistics says such a species would have developed in water - but, this logic may be faulty.
Now, it would be pretty cool to find a species elsewhere (since it doesn't exist on earth) that shares our reasoning skills but is a 100% water species, just as we are 100% air breathing species.
I believe there are more species on land than on water. I expect you also need to look at the diversity of the environment. On top of that, it is hard to read a book underwater. Your logic is faulty.Smallcock said:It doesn't matter, here's the point I was making: it is curious that the species that is most creative and that has the highest developed reasoning skills evolved on land rather than water since there are a gazillion more species in water and the world is 90% covered in water. Rudimentary statistics says such a species would have developed in water - but, this logic may be faulty.
What makes you believe there are more species on land than in water?Garrett said:I believe there are more species on land than on water. I expect you also need to look at the diversity of the environment. On top of that, it is hard to read a book underwater. Your logic is faulty.