(June 19, 2014 at 11:42 pm)ignoramus Wrote: All life on earth share a similar design of gene code.
Same players, just different combinations

Therefore in the primordial soup, nature would have played with almost infinite possibilities of variations of these and other chemicals/molecules.

Only one genetic structure made it this far

The others cannot create what we call living

Nature has never stopped trying till this day

Therefore, under the laws of Einsteins Universe as we know it, any life on any planet must have the same gene structure

We are living proof that life exists on "other" planets

Therefore there "are" other life forms who not only are compatible with our gene code, but with all of natures diversity, may even look like us

We also have to assume that intelligence is not explicitly unique us

Therefore as time is relative, there is just as much possibility that these living beings have been around less than us or more ....a lot more.

Therefore "ET's" do exist. We just haven't made contact with any.

Therefore there may logically be a "chance" that they have visited our planet in the past.

Could it be possible that they "kick started" life on earth to give nature a helping hand.

I think you started going wrong at point 6. There is nothing to say that life eleswhere would have the same gene structure. In fact it is most unlikely that exactly the same chemicals and proteins would be used. There are many similar chemicals that are capable of doing the same jobs, but we have evolved using only a fraction of them.
I am just reading a book by John Maddox which discusses exactly that point. It is even thought that there were two types of very similar DNA coding at the beginning of life. The coding in Mitochondria is slightly different than normal cell DNA. It's possible that Mitochondria were independent bacteria that got absorbed by another and retained its own DNA. Also RNA is very similar to DNA, only one base chemical different, and is perhaps earlier than DNA.

I agree that the universe is possibly even teeming with life or conditions that would support life. But I don't agree that it would be like us . Point 7 is off the rails. We are not evidence of anything except ourselves

As far as is known Earth is in a dead zone extending for at least 50 light years in all directions. That is to say that there are no stars exactly like ours in that area that are known to have planets. http://www.atlasoftheuniverse.com/50lys.html

Even if those stars have planets and some have lifeforms chances are their environments would be toxic to Earth lifeforms. Considering the vast distances we will never know what's out there. But don't expect the worlds and humanoids of the typical sci-fi space movie.

Life has existed on Earth for billions of years but it only became slightly intelligent less than 100 years ago.

With time being relative and space being almost infinite, my logic tells me to side with the banker.

What you guys are effectively saying is that on a roulette wheel with almost infinite numbers on it, that there is no way that the"ball" "can", not "will" land on all of them eventually.

I find that illogical, that's all.

Also, whatever varieties of life, if I can say it that way, that may have been forming back in earth's early history, which ever form 'perfected' itself first would have absorbed the resources the others would have needed, so we are descendants of the first 'winners'.

Interesting to imagine perhaps a less clement world that had an inhospitable equatorial region (too hot!) and had northern and southern temperate belts form 2 different and non compatible life chemistries. I suppose, sooner or later the situation would change and the life forms would compete against each other, and the result would still be a world with a commonality in basic life form chemistry. But still interesting to work it out, and then maybe someday we find a world like that.

Hmm, the northern hemisphere of planet XCV-458 shows spectral signature of chlorophyll, but the southern hemisphere shows hemo-cyanozine . . .WTF ?!?!?!?!

Hey, it's a fun universe!

I fail to see how evidence that life only started once here on earth is evidence life only started once in the universe. At last best guess there are 60 billion planets in the universe capable of supporting life. http://www.space.com/21800-alien-planets...anets.html So even if the odds of spontaneous generation of life were a billion to one on each such planet. There would still be 60 planets with life.

Besides current models for the origin of life assume atmospheric conditions of earth that no longer exist.

60 billion to one!
Geez, we sure did hit the jackpot Martha...

(June 20, 2014 at 9:39 pm)ignoramus Wrote: 60 billion to one!
Geez, we sure did hit the jackpot Martha...

That's a fallacy. The odds of winning the lottery are long, but someone always wins. In the case of winning the spontaneous generation of life lottery, only the winners will be around to discuss it. We're here so we can marvel at our luck.

Besides the odds are probably much better than a billion to one.

No probs ...didn't mean to talk down to anyone...
Answer me this:

If there's billions of planets capable of sustaining life,
Doesn't nature always find a way? Or keep trying until she does.

Isn't this the actual definition of "capable"?
If nature couldn't create life on those planets capable of sustain life, then isn't it logical that those planets were never "capable"?

(June 20, 2014 at 10:47 pm)ignoramus Wrote: No probs ...didn't mean to talk down to anyone...
Answer me this:

If there's billions of planets capable of sustaining life,
Doesn't nature always find a way? Or keep trying until she does.

Isn't this the actual definition of "capable"?
If nature couldn't create life on those planets capable of sustain life, then isn't it logical that those planets were never "capable"?

What makes you think nature didn't?

Poster above disagrees that we are proof that life exists on other planets.
We are the "other" planet.