National Geographic + Tony's commments

Strange Life*** See my version below (+ edits and grammar mistake to be corrected)

Are we alone on this universe? A question that is creating a lot of upheaval in the science world, as scientists are trying to come up with a definition of life to satisfy some of their inquiries, but even trying to describe life has led them to define it according to what they expect it to be or what are they trying to seek. According to NASA “Life is a self sustained chemical system capable of undergoing Darwinian evolution”. Whereas other scientists figured out their own meaning such as “Life is a chemical system able to replicate itself through autocatalysis and to make mistakes that gradually increase the efficiency of the autocatalysis”.
But even if we would like to follow NASA’s definitions to evolve, we will not be able to apply this to an individual organism, how can we know if that human being will have the ability to even evolve. Some scientist argued that if we try to explain what life is, it will be as if we want to define water when we did not even understood its components.
One distinct attribute that we will not even try to eliminate is water, as it is one of the major elements in any living thing. Moreover, one aspect of living things is having an inside and an outside, thus this feature must also be considered as a factor in the search for life definition.
In conclusion, life can be described according to the beholder, so each of us has a different definition of life which will suit our expectations.

Strange Life

'Are we alone on this universe' is a question that is creating a lot of upheaval in the scientific world, as scientists are trying to come up with a definition of life to satisfy some of their inquiries. However, even trying to describe life has led them to define it according to what they expect it to be or what are they trying to seek. According to NASA, “Life is a self-sustained [P]chemical system capable of undergoing Darwinian evolution”. While [WC] other scientists figured out their own meaning such as “Life is a chemical system able to replicate itself through autocatalysis and to make mistakes that gradually increase the efficiency of the autocatalysis”.
But even if we would like to follow NASA’s definitions to evolve, we will not be able to apply this to an individual organism, how can we know if that human being will have the ability to even evolve? Some scientists have argued [G] that if we try to explain what life is, it will be as if we want to define water when we did not even understood [G mistake] its components.
One distinct attribute that we will not even try to eliminate is water, as it is one of the major elements in any living thing. Moreover, one aspect of living things is having an inside and an outside, thus this feature must also be considered as a factor in the search for the definition of life.
In conclusion, life can be described according to the beholder, so each of us has a different definition of life which will suit our expectations.

Hmmm, er well, thank you Mouza! What exactly is the point you are trying to make? Is it that even the greatest scientists cannot explain the origin of life on this planet? As Shakespeare said, and I quote Hamlet, the tragic Prince of Denmark, "There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamed of in your philosophy". The meaning of this is that ...

IELTS is not just a matter of doing practice test after practice test like robots - spread your wings and soar like an eagle above the landscape of English. This preparation course is becoming a kind of linguistic assault course and some of you are definitely out of training, aren't you?

Rock on, sister power!

Well done for solving my riddle last night!

The terror has spoken!