Hi Craig & All,
Quote:
Originally Posted by CraigS
Yep. Spot on Suzy !
What's more, the molecular sequences we've observed in DNA are self-similar, repeated over and over amongst species and, especially within the same species. So too, are the macro features of all species across all species on Earth. The processes which control them whilst unimaginably complex, are also ultimately based on the very simple mathematical rules of chemistry and physics.
This leads to the recognition that life can be described as an element of a fractal pattern .. the hallmark of a chaotic process.
Chaotic processes are totally dependent on the initial environmental conditions from which they ultimately emerge. However, not only do we know that the DNA patterns we recognise as leading to life emerge, but equally so, do chaotic patterns which go nowhere (in terms of resulting in life).
Even if the same conditions as we had on primordial Earth exist elsewhere, it can be proven mathematically that we still can't predict what the outcome might be.
This means that we can't even say (with any scientific basis):
i) that a planet in the 'Habitable Zone', with environmental conditions like Earth once had, will result in life.
Nor can we say:
ii) that a planet in the 'Habitable Zone', with environmental conditions like Earth once had, will not result in life.
But we can say with 100% mathematical assurance:
iii) that the chances of life emerging on a planet in the 'Habitable Zone', with environmental conditions like Earth once had, are entirely unpredictable.
Classic stuff, eh ?
This is what I see when I look at the pictures Bart posted.
No matter how many photographs of orbiting exo-planets and host stars they publish, there is only one thing which can be said with 100% assurance:
The implications of those photos, in terms of the possibility of life emerging on the exo-planets, is entirely unpredictable.
Comments welcome.
Cheers |
Agree 100%
Add to that, that even if life did arise, there is no guarantee of complex life and from that, no guarantee of animal life and from that, no guarantee of intelligent life -- in fact quite the opposite.
As I've said before I have no emotional baggage with this subject I neither "want to believe", nor do I "want to dis-believe".
But If I were a betting man I'd be inclined to think that the number of civiisations out there in our galaxy is a single digit number, more likely a small single digit number and might well end up being ... 1 (i.e. us -- alone).
If I'm wrong -- I'm completely fine with that and it has no effect on my world (galactic, Universal) view. No matter which way you argue the toss, there is no empirical evidence that there are in fact other civilisations out there at this stage.
Best,
Les D