Quote:
|
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're referring to carbon based life forms as ourselves, then you need more than just the "right" distance. Otherwise, the term "habitable" is purely subjective.
Quote:
|
If you give me a habitable planet and billions of years I will “bet” on life emerging and diversifying.
|
We aren't so sure how life began here in the first place. How can you confidently proclaim the same mechanisms will occur elsewhere without even first understanding properly our own origins?
Besides, you have a habitable planet right here to make your bet. Why aren't there any other unique "life" other than ourselves (ourselves being all animals, plants, microscopic life forms that all share a same common genetic structure). Let's say for a second you elliminate all DNA based lifeforms (virii included) on earth, what are you left with? Why hasn't "lightning struck twice" on our planet's long, habitable history?
Quote:
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.
|
I'm not disagreeing with you that there is likelihood of life elsewhere. What we disagree is just
how likely. As I posted previously, I think if you modify the drake equation to take into account all variables that would cause the "spark of life" as we know/define it, you'll see the probability for likelihood plummet far more than what the original equation indicates.
Quote:
|
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 adap
|
I disagree. I don't believe given a set of conditions, life MUST come, like an inevitable chain reaction. Given a set of hospitable conditions, life MAY emerge and that is a huge "MAY" dependant on a set of variables that changes even under the same ideal conditions. This is why we don't see or have collective evidence of any other unique carbon based life forms on planet earth.
We would be better off trying to find signs of "intelligence" in the universe rather than try to define what biological life is elsewhere in the universe.
Quote:
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.
Reply With Quote
|
That may explain the link between Mars and Earth if life (whether current or ancient) is ever found there. Bacteria by itself however, are still complex organisms composed of genetic structures that share a common DNA link with all other life on planet earth. I still don't think you realize the enormous variables required that would bring rudimentary carbon based life into existence even under the same set of conditions.