E.T. Exists!!!

Thanks again to Pro for engaging in this marvelous debate. Now to win: 1. The Pro rightly points out that the existence of life proves conclusively that this universe supports life. The point of my bringing up the unlikelihood of our current universe is to fore-echo the unlikelihood of life within that universe. For example, it is unlikely that I will win the lottery, no matter how many times I play. If I do win it, it is unlikely I will do so twice. And if I do happen to win it twice, it is unlikely that I will be struck by lightning during my second win. And even if I am struck by lightning on my second win --- an incredibly unlikely event --- it is even more unlikely that I will be attacked by a dapper honey-badger during the process. But even if I win the lottery twice, am struck by lightning and bitten by a honey-badger while turning in my second ticket, it is inconceivably unlikely that the honey-badger, a natural loner, would have a partner in crime, leading to violence at the paws of two dapper honey badgers will being toasted alive to grease by lightning. To summarize, my argument rests upon unlikelihood, and lack of probability, and an improbable event within another improbable event is doubly improbable. Moving on to the more pressing issues (and I am in total agreement with the Pro's 1-4 conditions of life-bearing planets, and wouldn't dream of refuting them): 2. The Miller-Urey experiment uncovered that over 20 different amino acids necessary for life could arise from conditions which occurred on the early earth. However, for life to arise requires more than the mere presence of amino acids, however charming they might be. The amino acids must form into a highly complex protein chains, at the very least, and these chains are unlikely to form in a purely aquatic mileau. Unless you can demonstrate the steps which would lead to the highly complex chain in an environment equivalent to early earth conditions, the entire theory remains untenable. The best sounding theory I remember having read is micro-crystal scaffolding as found in soft clay structure being what determined the initial shape of these chains, but there is by no means a scientific consensus that this is the best theory. http://www.sciencedaily.com... If the clay-scaffolding idea is correct, then life would require a planet not only able to support the amino acids, but also a planet with the right type of clay. And, even then, the right chains of protein must have been formed, somehow became self-replicative, and not have been destroyed. The list goes on. Even the "metabolism first" theory of life's origins --- which seems very promising to this mind --- has not been demonstrated with any degree of certainty. Quoting Robert Shapiro: "The small molecule (metabolism first) approach to the origin of life makes several demands upon nature (a compartment, an external energy supply, a driver reaction coupled to that supply, and the existence of a chemical network that contains that reaction). These requirements are general in nature, however, and are immensely more probable than the elaborate multi-step pathways needed to form a molecule that can function as a replicator. . . . They have not yet demonstrated the operation of a complete cycle or its ability to sustain itself and undergo further evolution. A 'smoking gun' experiment displaying those three features is needed to establish the validity of the small molecule approach." That 'smoking gun' experiment is still yet to come." http://www.uncommondescent.com... Suffice to say, to determine the probability of other intelligent life in the cosmos, we would have to know: ay) how many life-supporting planets (or moons) there are, bee) how many of these planets possess the necessary mineral and atmospheric conditions to support life cee) how many of these planets are old enough and have the right conditions for life to have evolved to an intelligent stage dee) what the likelihood is of life arising at all on a planet with the necessary conditions (it is theoretically possible that a plant could have the conditions, and life simply not arise) But we can be certain of the following: I. A universe which supports the conditions of life as we know it inhabits an incredibly small spectrum of potential variables, making the life anywhere in the multiverse extremely unlikely (though not impossible) [also, the multiverse theory is, to my mind, the theory which makes life most probable.] II. The origin of life itself is not yet understood, but all experiments and theories currently point to it being a quite difficult and rare scenario. The primordial soup/RNA world hypotheses would mean that life is incredibly improbable, whereas the "metabolism first" hypothesis would, at the outset, seem to make it more probable than the former theory, but still highly improbable. Yet, even so, there is no conclusive proof for any of these theories, which does not speak well of their likelihood (though it must be admitted that one of them, or something like them, did happen at least once). http://en.wikibooks.org... http://sandwalk.blogspot.com... Many who think that life is a fairly common event in the universe seem to equate the arising of life with other common natural processes. If we do find that life arises easily within certain conditions, I would be the first to concede that these conditions are likely to appear in many places throughout the universe and, time-wise, life is therefore likely. Yet at present there does not seem to be any evidence that life is an "easy" occurrence. Out of the various theories we have about the origin of life, all have gaping holes in them. I would say that the view that life, as a freak accident, arose in one planet and then gave rise to intelligent beings who seeded other planets with life (panspermia) is a more plausible basis for life being present throughout the universe rather than life arising on multiple planets, separately. Yet as there is no evidence for this theory I must believe, with great sorrow, that our consciousness-producing earth is Rare --- at least until further evidence. Now, keep in mind that I do not say that intelligent extra-terrestrial life is impossible. I only state that it is improbable considering what we currently know of science. The burden of proof is on me to state why it is reasonable to conclude that life is highly improbable, and the second, equally awesome burden of proof is on the Pro to give us something which would persuade us of life's likelihood on a scientific basis. I hope I have done so. To summarize, when the Pro writes that "That's 60 different places in the galaxy where intelligent life, at least as advanced as us, are likely to exist", my argument is that all our current evidence points to life arising out of an insanely improbable and Snicketaean series of unfortunate events and, if that is the case, then we can reasonably go to sleep tonight safe in the safe assurance that we are alone, that life is meaningless, and our tortured little flash of life is an awful exception to the majestic, blind rule. http://www.youtube.com... If I am wrong, may my face be bitten off by the celurean space-panthers of Io.