It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by junglejake
I would assume that the atmosphere would probably consist of largely nitrogen, since it's such an innert gas, and then oxygen or something just as corrosive corresponding on the periodic table.
Bold words, now I have to back them up
Our atmosphere used to consist largely of nitrogen and carbon dioxide. If you'll note, the nitrogen levels theoretically have not changed, as is apparent through archiology, rocks, etc. Not many life forms, if any, are nitrogen dependant here on earth. But they were carbon dioxide dependant. Life here on earth started pretty slowly, with just some random bacteria doing their thing. Slowly the bacteria started to form simplistic multicelled organisms which were content just to exist. Then something happened.
A single celled organism advanced into algae. Now life was in trouble. It was fairly content to stay as it was, dependant on the 28% carbon dioxide atmosphere of earth. But the algae were doing something bad. They were processing the carbon dioxide into O2. Pure oxygen. Oxygen is an extreamly corrosive gas, and most of the multi-celled lifeforms couldn't take this, and started to die.
However, the oxygen had a very unexpected side effect. The organisms which didn't die adapted. And quickly (in evolutionary terms). Compared to the time it took the original single celled guys to form multi celled organisms, it was a mere second before these oxygen adapted life forms developed the multi celled lifeforms. They advanced at an astonishing rate. It wasn't long before plankton was roaming the seas.
But the algae still flourished, they could utilize a smaller amount of carbon dioxide than the multi celled creatures, and continued, even though they had depeleted the carbon dioxide levels to about 14% of the atmosphere. And the plankton were helping. When they processed the oxygen, they would "exhale" CO2, maintaining a balance in the atmosphere.
A synergy had been found, and life began to flourish. It wasn't long before we had fish, then triassic dinosaurs, and eventually mammals. Intelligence capable of utilizing it's intelligence has only been apparent in the creatures which inhaled this volitile gas, oxygen.
Thus, in a way, oxygen spawned intelligence capable of acting on it's intelligence. (I wish oxygen would teach me to spell) And all this time, the nitrogen stayed the same.
So in summary, I think there would be an oxygen atmosphere, because the next step would be sulfur, which isn't a gas, at least at typical temperatures. At the temps it would take to turn sulfur to a gas, you would have to be a little bit closer than Mercury (the planet, not the element) to the sun, which would strip the atmosphere away, anyway. And just forget selenium.
As for the nitrogen, we have the same problem. The next step would be postassium, which would be stripped from the atmosphere before becoming a gas. It's possible that a noble gas could make up the majority of the atmosphere, but life here finds those to be toxic. Something pre "8" on the table excluding lithium could possible be used, but I don't know, because I don't know much about their chemical properties.
Sorry for being so long winded, I've done a lot of research into xenobiology.
Originally posted by Kalistenics
Well i would compare theories with you but you seem to have come to the exact same conclusion as me.
Originally posted by heelstone
we humans obviously know that if a planet can sustain higher forms of life, it would most likely be very similar to ours. Mostly water with a gaseous atmosphere. I also strongly believe that life can form and thrive almost anywhere in the universe, but that life may be of a lesser order depending on climate and availability of sustinance be it animal, vegetable, or mineral. Basically life can be on any planet of all shapes and sizes, but to have a planet with large multicellular organisms would likely require near-earth circumstances.
I sincerely doubt that intelligence can be derived from simple organisms. While our only example is of life here on earth, I would suspect that life starts out fairly similarly in all areas of the universe. From nothing to something. That something likely requires a mesh of cells to create cognitive ability much as it does here on earth. If life on another planet is too extreme for anything larger than single celled organisms to thrive, then I doubt greatly that intelligence could be spurred.
Originally posted by junglejake
But then, who's to say inteligence has to be generated by brains such as those which developed here on earth? Would it not be possible for a single celled organism to be sentient, even inteligent? If you believe no, please explain...
Originally posted by heelstone
I would have to read more about something like that. For one thing, plants don't have sensory organs like animals do. No eyes or ears, and especially no processing center like a brain. Also a plant is not a single celled organism. Its multicellular albiet not exactly as unified in purpose as animal cells.
it by no means follows that a brain is indispensable to consciousness. . . . If then, at the top of the scale of living beings, consciousness is attached to very complicated nervous centres, must we not suppose that it accompanies the nervous system down its whole descent, and that when at last the nerve stuff is merged in the yet undifferentiated living matter, consciousness is still there, diffused, confused, but not reduced to nothing? Theoretically, then, everything living might be conscious. In principle, consciousness is co-extensive with life. -- Mind-Energy, Lectures and Essays, pp. 7-8; quoted in Plant Autographs and Their Relationships, "Response of Inorganic Matter," ch. viii.