I think I get what you're saying, Danno. Life on Earth does fit the circumstances that we see here almost perfectly, but it's such a close fit that on even a planet similar to Earth, the small differences would be enough to create totally different life, right?
I think my big difference with you guys is that I think there is no such thing as a "Perfect fit" for a life form to it's environment. Darwinian evolution, by nature, works off of random mutations, and when one proves beneficial, it sticks around. So, yes, life is specialized, but not customized- it does have advantages, but it isn't perfect, so there is room for difference. It's impossible to say that a completely different set of organisms couldn't still form the same ecosystem that we have now. Same machine, different parts, so to say. So, even on a planet EXACTLY like Earth, life could've evolved differently, according to my theory. Not to mention all those small but important variations real planets could have from Earth, or even major differences. Who knows?
The argument is wether or not life like ours is a standard in the universe. I'm just saying that, if there are a trillion different possibilities for a life form out there (and that's probably an underestimate), that means life like ours has a one-in-a-trillion shot, and all the other 9 billion, 9 million, 9 hundred and nintey-nine thousand, nine hundred and ninety-nine are possibilities in the "other" category. To put it another way, if we were racing horses, Sydney, even if yours is pretty fast on one kind of terrain, I still have almost a trillion other horses on my side, and just as many different tracks that are slight variations to yours to race you on, we have to race every single one of them, and you can't lose even once, because you're saying that your horse will win EVERY TIME. It's just not likely.
|