Other Forms of Life (Evolution)

by dhw, Tuesday, December 09, 2008, 14:23 (5624 days ago) @ BBella

I've been away for a few days, and would like to thank David and George for giving us all these scientific facts and links in response to BBella's stimulating series of questions. I can't pretend to understand all the wikipedia "alternative biochemistry" possibilities, but the sheer variety is interesting in itself. Good to see David and George agreeing on the science, but perhaps I could make a couple of observations. - George to BBella: "I just go by the evidence. If you can come up with evidence of such beings I'm prepared to accept your hypothesis. Otherwise it is no better than fiction."
Fair comment. However, here is a dictionary definition of abiogenesis."The hypothesis that life can come into being from non-living materials." There is no evidence for this hypothesis. Ergo, no better than fiction? - David to BBella: "If life is present elsewhere based on our knowledge of the 92 elements, it must be carbon based as it is here."
In following up the idea of "other forms of life", I would be reluctant to exclude the possibilities raised much earlier by David's research into near-death and out-of-body experiences (not to mention BBella's own). It would be interesting to know what conclusions, if any, David draws from that research. - I would like to go back to a point raised by BBella's post of 4 December at 23.02, saying that this topic "needs to move out of the taboo level and onto a more acceptable level of discussion in higher places". You also quite rightly point out that the status of the God lobbies has "moved up to acceptable discussion, even to the point of having religious universities". - I think we need to differentiate between these "higher places", and also say "acceptable" to whom. Billions of dollars are being spent on looking for other forms of life, through research and space probes. No taboo there. I believe there is also a Centre for UFO studies in the States, though I'm not sure how "acceptable" that is in the eyes of the scientific community. For some scientists the idea of a god is taboo, whereas for others the sheer complexity of life suggests design, and then come all the questions about the nature of the designer(s). The drawback to your hypothesis from an explanatory point of view is that shifting the designer from a god to finite beings like ... but superior to ... ourselves only adds one more level of complexity. If chance made them, then chance could make us, but if they made us, who made them? Their defects may explain our defects, but we then need to explain their defects, which takes us back to square one. - However, that does not in any way exclude the possibility that the theory is correct. There was a whole series of books by Erich von Däniken, about extraterrestrial influence on the Earth, which became worldwide best-sellers, starting with Chariots of the Gods. As far as I know, most/some of his evidence was examined and refuted by scientists, and he himself was found guilty of fraud and embezzlement, which didn't exactly help his case, but that doesn't mean the argument is over. The scientific establishment will remain sceptical unless/until there is physical evidence. The religious establishments have made up their minds already on the subject of how we got here. Talk of "higher places" therefore puts together conflicting sets of values, depending on people's various beliefs, and I would imagine that, for instance, the majority of western scientists would not regard madrasas as "higher places". Nor would the Pope regard the Royal Society as a "higher place". Their reasons for scepticism (or non-acceptability) are different, and each to some extent cancels out the other. For those of us who are not committed to either set (and I think there are plenty of us), there are no "higher places", and other options remain open until we are convinced by the evidence. Perhaps, BBella, you could give us a pointer or two - relevant websites, for instance?