Quote:
Originally Posted by Exposed
I'm willing to bet "life" on other planets is exceedingly rarer than we would like to believe, and possibly non-existent within a finite universe (at least in terms of how we choose to define "life").
The problem with the Drake equation that's quite popular is that I think it's too broadly defined. Given how incredibly complex the basic building blocks of "life" is, the probability of the same biological mechanisms repeating even under the same environmental conditions is very, very slim.
Even the simplest single cell organism is incredibly complex. DNA is not a simple structure.....to suggest that every carbon molecular process elsewhere in the universe even under similar earth like conditions will coalesce into what will eventually be the helix structure of DNA>genes>single cell organisms (and beyond) is probably statistically far beyond the scope of the drake equation. That's not to say it's impossible, I'm just saying if all the variables were properly take into consideration you might find the chance of life occurring is statistically one of out a number possibly more than the number of stars in the known visible universe.
I'm not saying "life" doesn't exist elsewhere. I think our definition of life is too narrow and the type of life we're looking for we may never find. (carbon based, oxygen/water/temperature environmental prerequisites, the notion of single or multi cell organism, etc). Just because you have water & oxygen on a planet with ambient temperature & pressure as ours, doesn't mean life MUST form. All life on planet earth (plants and animals) can be traced back to a common ancestor. There isn't a single carbon based life form on our planet that's outside of that ancestral history, which would be quite common if these earth-like conditions were in fact a needed prerequisite. Likewise, who's to say Venus (or any other planet/location that we consider "hostile" in environment) can't be a catalyst for "life" in the future that utilizes a totally different set of environmental conditions?
|
After the first huge stars formed in our expanding universe and produced a complex of nuclei, the density of the matter that went into the building of subsequent stars was more and more diverse. Star formation from the dust expelled by early gaseous stars increased the likelihood of planet formation around new smaller slower burning stars.
Give me a star with a range of planets and some will be at the right distance to accommodate life. If every subsequent star that formed planets in this manner had a high likely hood of habitable planets, there could be more such planets than there are stars.
If you give me a habitable planet and billions of years I will “bet” on life emerging and diversifying.
Given the apparent likelihood of habitable planets around a higher than expected number of stars, and given trillions and trillions of stars in billions and billions of galaxies, and billions of years I am coming up with my own conclusions.
My bet is that life is far from rare in our expanding universe.
Given billions and billions of iterations of the repetition of life on planets with changing conditions that accompany the formation and development of hospitable environments, life will come, and life will adapt.
The migration of life across a universe like ours is not solely dependent on emergence originating in each habitable location either. The cataclysms that occur even in a quiet universe like ours
will shatter bed rock and distribute the tenacious bacteria across any given distance given enough time IMHO.