Search results

Kapow! Take that.

Absolutely right. We don't know at all. I'm sceptical we'll ever know, likewise if there's life out there. As I've said I'm not dogmatic on the subject. I find the certainty from some perplexing.

?? But life on Earth has a single source adapted by evolution and environment, not billions of independently formed instances that have suddenly sprung up fully formed.

I think this is where I bow out of the conversation. We're all trying to discuss something as if we have a clue as to what's going on but we're only laymen. You're taking on experts in their field who devised this theory - true, your counter-argument is backed by equally renowned scientists but...

No, you don't have to make that assumption at all. Given the size of the universe and the number of parameters that something of that size and that mass and that structure throws up, there may well be too many conditions necessary for life to exist elsewhere. Let me put it another way - the...

Some renowned geologists and astrophysicists would agree with you whilst others would disagree. Having read the about the Rare Earth Hypothesis where it talks about the sheer number of conditions necessary I'm inclined to go along with the theory that we are alone. I'm not dogmatic about it but...

Well...it depends. The long established method for determining the number of planets with intelligent life was the 'Drake Equation' although very eminent scientists and critics (Michael Crichton, no less) think the margins of error are such that the equation is meaningless. It does have a fair...

It's called convergent evolution. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convergent_evolution#Animals Interestingly enough, it's not just animals but languages can exhibit the same thing. Finnish and Japanese, for example share many similarities. Weird or what?