A lot of questions! We evolved from bacteria because it was more advantageous. I'll start it off by copying what I wrote in another debate Bacteria may be more resistant and hardy, but by becoming more complex and evolving, they are able to use more resources as energy. Bacteria produce by asexual reproduction, binary fission. We reproduce by sexual reproduction, which is basically a copy of a chromosome from both parental cells, which form a new cell that has a chromosome from each parent. Due to this, you will see a higher penetrance of mutation in the population, but we have a second copy of the gene to repair the damage that is done if a mutation is deleterious. But if they are helpful, they tend to increase within that population. Because of sexual reproduction, organisms such as yeast and us have a greater adaptablitiy, compared to asexual reproduction, where you're basically making clones. If the environment becomes unfavourable for one of those organisms, it would be unfavourable for all the organisms, because they are essentially identical clones. So unlike us, the only genetic change bacteria get is from mutation, which occurs randomly in a population. unless there is some great environmental pressure, that mutation might appear or disappear quickly. If there is some selection pressure that makes the mutation advantageous, to the point that you would die, the entire population of bacteria would die except for those which have that specific mutation. It is much more chaotic than humans. You could have a whole colony of bacteria, and suddenly reduce it to a few cells, if any, that had a rare advantageous mutation to protect it. This does work out well for bacteria, but in the evolutionary past, as organisms became more complex, asexual reproduction just wasn't as efficient or effective anymore. But it does work, that's why bacteria still exist today, and have existed for billions of years. Errr...next question! I meant to say, there may not be enough selection pressures for them to evolve. I can't say that there aren't, but you can't say that there is. Simply because we haven't found life on another planet yet. Well, we still don't know how life originates, we just know that there are some planets out there that can support life. And yeah, my original point is that it is more likely that alien life would be primitive. If you consider that the earliest bacterial fossil was found 3.7 billion years ago, and the earliest human fossils found were 195,000 years ago, bacteria have been along 19000 more times longer than we have, who have not mastered space travel yet. So it is more likely that if life did exist elsewhere, it would be bacteria, and not beings who are more intelligent than us. The main theory of extraterrestrial life that might exist is based on the same chemistry as Earth, that we need nitrogen, carbon, oxygen and hydrogen, which are all very reactive. Carbon can form a large varieties of structures, making it ideal for the complex structures needed to from living cells. Complex lifeforms get energy by breaking down strong covalent bonds between carbon and oxygen. Living tissue is made up of amino acids, which is made up from those four chemicals, and amino acids have been found in meteorites. If you're saying that aliens might be totally different to us, in what way? If you're saying that they could be silicone based, silicone is more limited in the things it can do. Silicone atoms are larger than carbon atoms, and do not form certain bonds readily compared to carbon bonds, such as double and triple covalent bonds, which are important for a biochemical system. And silicone molecules are generally more unstable, while carbon is 10 times more abundant in space than silicone. On Earth however, is more silicon abundant than it is carbon abundant. And we're all carbon based, so it seems that from what we are, that carbon is more suitable than silicon to support life. And I'm basing my theories on the evidence that I see from the planet, as well as extraterrestrial evidence. There have been carbon based molecules, such as amino acids found in meteorites from outer space, which are the building blocks for our muscles and proteins. When you say that aliens might be totally different to us, that's a theory, and one that's been used in such fictional mediums as Star Trek. I'm not saying it isn't possible, but it is more unlikely. If you believe that we're the only sentient beings in the entire universe, there's about as much proof for extraterrestrial life as there is that God exists. It is your faith, applied to a different matter.
I can't argue with your theories, because fact of the matter is, there is really no way for us to know, and seeing as a debate is about opinions, I have to appreciate yours. I really like how you put it, and it makes a lot of sense, but my opinion is that aliens will be evolved. I can't say like humans, because we can't say that for sure, but I don't think they will be primitive. I find that highly unlikely. I mean, an elevator to space? where in space? to a planet? if it's just into space, what would the point be? when you get off you would just drift around and probably not be able to get anywhere. and if to a planet, what would the point be?
i would prefer not to say anything is impossible considering the possibility of technological advances. However currently i think that having such an elevator would not lead to anywhere, as you have said. But in future it might lead to a space station?
we have already discovered bacteriums from other planets...and its only a matter of time before we find another imtellegnt bieng.
This reminds me of something-the definition of aliens. What are aliens exactly? are they just aliens from another planet or must they have a certain degree of intelligence? Like willisthnm said, there are already sightings of bacterium in other planets. so are these considered as aliens? Well to me, aliens are beings from another planet that must have a certain degree of intelligence.
true, it might, but an elevator into "space", not to anything specific in space is what was implied... which would be a little bit pointless Alien just means something foreign. so if you're talking about something alien, it could refer to bacterium, but if you're talking about alien beings, then they would have to have some sort of intelligence and be slightly more evolved than bacterium.
I think aliens could be considered a lifeform of any sort from a planet other than Earth. But uh.. these aliens won't be that fancy once they interact with us earth people more. I mean, what's keeping them so mysterious is the fact of whether they exist or not, right? Anyways, I believe aliens exist.. I guess. Probably watching too much of that Japanese animation, Sergeant Frog.. which features 5 alien frogs that are forced to live one earth for a period of time. It's funny, though, that animation. Who knows, maybe our real aliens might be turning themselves invisible with their technology; just so we can't see them. ...Who wants our polluted earth anyways? Lol.
We have not found life from another planet. Structures that resemble bacteria were found in a meteorite, and the results are inconclusive. There is still arguments on whether or not they were actual bacteria. Essentially, there is no conclusive evidence that bacteria was found from that meteorite. And if life was found on another planet, regardless of how complex, it would still be considered alien.
Yeah, I never disagreed with you on that point. And I don't know why people are starting to use the word "bacterium". Bacterium is the singluar, bacteria is the plural. Someone used the word bacteriums...and that just doesn't exist.