Is the Earth a living creature?
137892
In a sense, the biosphere (the "layer" of the planet that includes all living beings) is a living creature. It's a complex biological system and it has homeostatic (balance-keeping) mechanisms that maintain life as we know it, while it continues to evolve.\nJames Lovelock, an environmentalist and researcher, is the author of the "Gaia Theory". In the 1970s he proposed the hypothesis that the Earth behaves as if it were a superorganism, made up from all the living things and their non-living environment. He argued that many global phenomena are controlled by the interaction of biological, chemical and physical processes. \nIn this sense, the Earth (Gaia, the name of the Greek goddess of the Earth) is alive. Lovelock's ideas have contributed a new view to the study of biosphere complexity. Read "The ages of Gaia" if you can, it's an enjoyable book! \nEven if you don't agree with this idea, I think it's beautiful, and could help people to realize the importance of taking care of our planet.
1026905
You have a very convuluted question.  However I would say all living things are part of the biosphere.   Bio = life.
300329
I dunno, but they shouldnt be..theyre living creatures too
116858
it confirms mine.  Being wiccan/pagan I believe that the earth is a living, breathing being that is growing and changing.  Pangea is proof of that.  While the earths growth and changes take longer than the lifespan of humans it does happen.
351610
yes it is alive and is the structural and functional unit of all living organisms and sometimes called the "building blocks of life"
366640
Well if you mean in terms of humans.  It would probably begin to recycle itself, Cars would rust, buildings would crumble from weathering, Animals would again flourish back home. and everything we thought about how to live would have to start from scratch if you believe in evolution.  But then again, earth has been destroyed about 30 times, from the results of asteroids, meteors, ice age and drought. but life did find a way right?... \nNow if you mean Earth completely empty of life all over animal or plant...  well then it would probably look like mars or a moon void of life and boring. with some clouds i guess.. Hope i answered correctly to your terms.
43014
No. The Earth's moon is terrestrial, meaning it has a rocky surface.
715942
the radius of the Earth 6375.654784689 Km. There are many living things on it and it will not be ever counted exactly.
193198
While it might be possible that some of these creatures exist, it certainly can't be said to be 'probable'.\n\nWe are still finding new species of mammals and birds all the time.  Genetic studies have even shown us that some of the critters we thought we knew are more diverse than we thought.\n\nRecently it was discovered that the species we know as the African elephant is in fact two species, a savannah species and a forest species.  So we have 'found' one of the largest species of land mammal just in the last few years.  Another study found that there was a population of the Bactrian camel (the one with two humps) that was actually a separate species too.\n\nSo it is possible that there may be some critter hidden off in the deep forest somewhere that we've never seen before.  But the chances of something like Bigfoot/Sasquatch remaining undiscovered in the rather well explored forests of North America are rather low.\n\nThe best chance for new, exciting and incredible discoveries are in the seas.  We really have barely scratched the surface in our exploration there, and there could be all kinds of new, even huge and exciting finds down there.\n\nJust in the last few years, the Megasquid was described, whose body is larger than that of the Giant Squid (although the tentacles aren't as long), actual live footage of the Giant Squid was finally taken, and Coelacanths were found off the coast of Indonesia, 10 000 km from where it was thought was the only place they existed.
997050
Sure there are. There are many as-yet undiscovered species within out own world. Remember also, that we are but one of thousands of "species" living on the earth. While not provable at this point, given the vastness of our universe, it is likely that there are other forms of life elsewhere. I'd not imagine "little green men" as much as simple-cellular forms.
398736
No. It is part of the natural world of which we are a part.
20974
Even among biologists, there is some debate about what constitutes being "alive", mainly because of viruses. There are four main criteria which are generally accepted. A living organism should:\n\nHave some kind of metabolism (processing "food" into "waste")\nGrow, change or evolve in its lifetime and generations\nInteract with its environment\nReproduce\n\nI would add to this that living things should have a determinate lifespan (that is, they die) and they should use DNA or RNA as a genetic template.
449205
Earth is the only place in the universe where life is absolutely known to exist, and some scientists believe that biospheres might be rare. The planet's lifeforms are sometimes said to form a "biosphere". This biosphere is generally believed to have begun evolving about 3.5 billion (3.5×109) years ago.\n\nThe biosphere is divided into a number of biomes, inhabited by broadly similar flora and fauna. On land, biomes are separated primarily by latitude. Terrestrial biomes lying within the Arctic and Antarctic Circles are relatively barren of plant and animal life, while most of the more populous biomes lie near the Equator.\n\nThe Earth consists of several atmospheric, hydrologic, and many geologic layers. Its components are the atmosphere, the hydrosphere, the crust, the mantle, and its core. The biosphere is a tiny layer in this composition and is usually not considered part of the physical layers of the Earth.
224294
Wow, I do NOT think so.  Every time a life form on earth has been introduced into a different environment, it is almost always (and maybe always) a mistake.  Some examples:  kudzu in the South for erosion control; rabbits in Australia; European sparrows displacing native sparrows in North America.  I realize we are not close to Enceladas, but let's let it develop life on its own.
713725
Well, that's very interesting cuz if u think about it, if it's NOT alive but creates life (plants) than how could something dead create life???  How long could earth possibly live/survive without that glorious light?  Is the earth alive? Hmmmmmmmmmmm\n\nVery thought provoking, I'll have to put this question on my watch list!  It is an eternal source of power tho (like God).  So my answer must be yes than:o]
838820
Hi. I do not think so. It may be possible that life forms unimagined may exist (I'd be surprised if they didn't) but they would still need to be based on something other than vacuum.
141516
The only planet we know of that has life is earth. Based on that very limited knowledge we can only estimate that earthlike life forms would have had great difficulty evolving in the worlds, in and out of the solarsystem, that we know of today (new planets are discovered almost daily). It is probably possible for terrestrial organisms to survive and maybe even prosper if introduced to some shielded and protected water rich enironments on the other worlds described above but there is a great difference between merely surviving and evolving. Life requires very special environments and conditions for a very long period of time, hundreds of millions of years, to evolve. We cant say for sure that those conditions were ever present on any world other than earth. But once life is born on a world it is extremely hard to extinguish completely as it would constantly evolve to adapt to changing environments. Life has nearly ended on earth many times as environments changed but has always bounced back. So if there was life on any other world in our solarsystem it would be so plentiful by now that we would have found traces of it in their atmospheres or in their soils. But we havent.