Life on Earth

No, not at all. Water and land have far far more in common than land and space.
To begin with, they nicely overlap: wetlands, marshes, mangrove forests etc.
Both have water, oxygen and food in relative abundance.
An organism will have to device some sort of launching mechanism to get to space. And why would they go there ? Earth is a far more friendly place than space, no evolutionary benefits in going to space.
Space has ultra low concentrations of water, oxygen and food. There is no gravity and massive radiation. Life will have to adapt to that almost instantly as they cross the 'atmosphere barrier'.
I'm not saying it impossible, we don't know.. but it seems very unlikely.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I have to agree with Enmos; not impossible, but not very likely, either.

And from my own perspective, if such a creature exists - whether sentient or not - would we even recognise it as a life form if we found one? Something that does not breathe anything we can discern, does not require water in any form we can detect and moves by some feature we don't understand. Communicate? We don't even know if it's alive.

And it's probably looking at us thinking the equivilent.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

What about life evolving within a dust/gas cloud where the particle density is high, the temperature if often suitable for liquid water, and there are abundant organic molecules?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Could be, who knows.. :shrug:

 

You know it is possible. Life could exist in the vacuum of space.

That life is made from carbon is an Earth side observation. It is not like we can say we have looked you know. "We looked at this rock that fell from space" is not very insightful.

That it needs water is fine either way, it could use something else but water is not that scarce. The rings of Saturn are lined with water. But there should be no doubt that if water is involved the creature would have to have a way to hold onto it for a very long time periods of time. Also, you would not likely catch these creatures in any area other than nebulas and places dense enough to have materials for their bodies.

Space is just a little too big to worry about running into anything. Thus propulsion would be important. The ability to move to a point like a star. There are a few options. 1, they could hold mass in one form or another and jet it for propulsion. 2, they could collect light like a solar panel and let out charged bursts. Combined with small amounts of matter for a charged matter they could store millions of years worth of mild propulsion.

All this takes one thing into account, it would be a slow life. They would have to live for a very long time and years would go by like seconds.

Also there is another form of life. Earth like too. Like a spore that hibernates. Proof of this is in things like frogs that were found after some millions of years trapped in rock and hopped away after the rock was split open. They did not live long, but it is still proof of fact that a life form could hibernate for unbelievable amounts of time.

 

There are to many unknowns to assert that it is possible.
Do you have links to those frog stories ?

 

ya, allot of it was just a guess. No real facts based on real life forms. But I liked it.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

And on the frogs, sorry, I am older then the Internet and so is that story.

 

Ah ok..
The frog story seems a fairy tale to me, if it were real it would give some important new insights.

 

On page 205-206 of Arthur C Clarke's Mysterious Universe, it has the story of frogs being found in limestone my miner's and quarrymen.
The Brighton Museum has a mummified toad that was found in a flint nodule, and there is a pic of it in the book.

It says a frog can't live more than 2 yrs like this. Millions?? Not in a million years.

 

I found this article, it sheds some light the phenomena. The things it describes seem plausible, however I think frogs and other amphibians may survive a few years in ways described by this article but certainly not a million or even a hundred.

"Left to its own devices, commonsense might never have solved the riddle of rock-entombed animals. We might still be guessing, still be telling tales and wondering to
ourselves what this strange anomaly from nature's aberrant fringe could possibly mean. Yet the resources of science aren't so easily exhausted, as shown by William Buckland, a naturalist who lived in Oxford over a century and a half ago. Buckland had heard plenty of tales about frogs and toads being set free from inside stones. But he wasn't content just to collect anecdotes, listen to third-hand gossip or speculate idly on the basis of say-so. In the spirit of Galileo, he chose to experiment, to try to bring the mystery out into the open,=. And so he embarked on what now seems like an incredibly eccentric piece of research. He placed twelve live toads in cavities that he'd made in sandstone rocks, twelve more in cavities in limestone rocks, and then sealed the entrances with slate and clay. Exactly one year later, he prized open the rocks, looked inside – and made a remarkable discovery. Although every one of the toads in the impervious sandstone was dead, most of the others were alive and two had actually put on weight. With the help of a microscope, Buckland quickly found out why. Inside some of the limestone cavities, he discovered traces of minute insects. Evidently, it was upon these that the surviving toads had kept themselves adequately nourished.

So part of the mystery had been cleared up. But there was still the puzzling question of how. without human intervention, frogs and toads managed to get inside rocks in the first place. A clue to help solve this came from a hollow flint nodule found at Lewes, in Sussex, England, in 1899. When the nodule was broken open it yielded an entire mummified toad. Beforehand, the rock had seemed completely sealed. But after the discovery of the toad, a close examination showed that in fact the rock harbored the fragile remains of a vase-like fossil sponge. This provided a narrow passageway from the outside world to one end of the nodule. Presumably, the fossil tunnel had allowed the entry of a small toadlet which, in damp conditions, could have survived contentedly by hopping in and out of its new-found home to feed. At some point, the toad must have grown too large to get out, its shelter became its prison, and its continued survival depended on insects being drawn into its dank and odorous surroundings.

It would be surprising if anyone, in the history of the human race, had actually seen an animal enter a hollow stone and become imprisoned. Nevertheless it now seems clear how this biological equivalent of a ship-in-a-bottle can come about. In the majority of cases where frogs and toads are found inside rocks the most reasonable explanation is that there are small fissures through which the creatures entered while still young. Even tiny channels could allow a single egg to float in. Then, if there were a larger space at the end of the channel, the animal could grow and mature by feeding on the meager rations which trickled in from the outside world.

In other instances, there might be a different explanation. The frog found by the sapphire miner, for instance, turned out upon examination at the state museum in New South Wales to be of the water-holding kind known as Petodactylidae. These are native to the arid regions of Australia and, between periods of rain, they burrow into mud, often for as long as two years or more, covering themselves with a membrane to reduce water loss. In fact, although it seems disgusting to our squeamish tastes, they were often used by aborigines during droughts as handy source of liquid refreshment. The "rock" found by the sapphire miner was in reality a mud-ball that had been baked cement-hard during a prolonged dry spell.

As to why imprisoned amphibians should die so quickly when set free, this isn't so difficult to surmise. The sudden exposure to fresh air and light after a lifetime spent inside a damp, dark hole would probably be enough to kill the animal through shock alone."
http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/F/frogs_in_stones.html

 

Some microbes and simple animals have the ability survive after being desiccated and reanimate when water is added (sea monkeys). Having no water in your system would increase your chance of survival in space because it eliminates the problem of ice crystals bursting the cell walls.
A bigger problem is cellular damage due to cosmic radiation. We don't have a good way to shield from it in space and it may be what keeps complex life stuck in the Earth-Moon system.

 

Anything is possible but just not probable when it comes to finding this to be

true or not