Quote:
Originally Posted by Poita
Ah, I see. Organic molecules have long been known to be belting around in space, we had a meteorite with plenty aboard land in Australia during the year of my birth.
This article is an interesting read re that and other stuff related to the discussion.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...or-life&page=2
End of page 2 and start of page 3 talks about that directly, but the whole article is a good read. |
Hi Peter;
Ok .. read through that article.
Its a beauty ! Thanks very much for that contribution .. it gives a very good outline for the arguments behind the view of the implausibility of Abiogenesis.
The implications of the Abiogenesis line of thinking also appear to lead towards a universe which seems to favour the emergence of life. This would call for an explanation of some sort. If this were so, then I would think life would be very common in Habitable Zones throughout the universe. However, one cannot ignore the implausibility factor behind it all, which has been your point throughout this discussion.
I've mentioned in the other thread, the 'no exo-life' perspective is, in my view, as equally as valid as the alternative 'pro exo-life' view, and that both seem to be ultimately driven by beliefs … as opposed to science. I remain of that view.
One issue arising from this discussion is one of the integrity of the arguments:
i) If one is arguing the 'pro exo-life' view, one cannot abandon the implausibility factor, nor the consequent abundant exo-life implications. With this line of argument, accumulated evidence of non exo-life findings in HZs should not be simply ignored, (IMHO), as accumulated evidence
does eventually become a significant factor. When and how many non-findings, then becomes the question, for me.
ii) If one is arguing the 'no exo-life' view equally, one should not ignore the complete absence of an explanatory theory for the emergence of life on Earth (IMHO). There is none, from what I can see, and without it, one derives no guidance as to where to search for a second instance of life. The search is completely, hap-hazardly random, is guided equally by faith, and comes at an extremely high and ultimately unjustifiable cost.
iii) The third argument purely driven by faith .. 'we have no idea what life is .. therefore we don't know what we're looking for when we look for exo-life, … but it exists' … leads to the same problems as outlined in (ii) above.
This has been a most interesting thread (for me).
At the end of the day, "we are here" .. but before we "get over it", we should realise that justifiable statements of certainty are very few and far between.
Cheers