Do You Believe There Is Life On Other Planets?

[Dos Equis]

Particularly interested to hear from those who believe in the theory of evolution. 

[Deicide]

Particularly interested to hear from those who believe in the theory of evolution. 

As opposed to those that believe that god zapped life into existence with his magic powers and created 'kinds' of everything.  and thet Chimpanzees and Humans share 99% of the same DNA because god just made them that way. 

It is statistically likely that there is life on other planets somewhere; there are several billion planets. Some form of life may have arisen on one of them.

[beatmaster]

no doubt about it, millions of possible planets that could support life forms (is it in the bible ?.. lollllllll)

do they have a jesus or a god, or nothing, i mean if god is everywhere he must be there too!

[columbusdude82]

Beach Bum, the answer to your question can only be probabilistic. "Life results from the non-random survival of randomly varying replicators," says Richard Dawkins. Our form of life is based on DNA. Other forms of life, if they exist, will almost surely have a different kind of replicator.

Nevertheless, given that there are far more than a billion billion planets in the universe, then if you assign a very small probability (say, 1 out of 1 billion) to the event of life arising on a given planet, then you would still expect life to arise on about (1 billion billion) x (1/1billion) = 1 billion planets.

That is a strictly probabilistic arguments. It may be that life exists on only one planet (ours), or 10, or 764,934. For now, we don't know.

[loco]

Beach Bum, the answer to your question can only be probabilistic. "Life results from the non-random survival of randomly varying replicators," says Richard Dawkins. Our form of life is based on DNA. Other forms of life, if they exist, will almost surely have a different kind of replicator.

Nevertheless, given that there are far more than a billion billion planets in the universe, then if you assign a very small probability (say, 1 out of 1 billion) to the event of life arising on a given planet, then you would still expect life to arise on about (1 billion billion) x (1/1billion) = 1 billion planets.

That is a strictly probabilistic arguments. It may be that life exists on only one planet (ours), or 10, or 764,934. For now, we don't know.

Good post, columbusdude82, and props for answering the question intelligently without unnecessary derogatory remarks about Jesus and about Christianity!

[MCWAY]

Beach Bum, the answer to your question can only be probabilistic. "Life results from the non-random survival of randomly varying replicators," says Richard Dawkins. Our form of life is based on DNA. Other forms of life, if they exist, will almost surely have a different kind of replicator.

Dawkins needs to make up his mind, here. If it's random, it's not deliberate. If it's deliberate, it's not random.

If the latter is true (non-random survival), who is responsible for those replicators remaining alive?

If the former is true (randomly varying replicators), a display of such replicators doing their thing again would be nice.

[columbusdude82]

MCWAY, you want a display of how replicators (i.e. genes) vary randomly?

Ever heard of mutations?

[MCWAY]

MCWAY, you want a display of how replicators (i.e. genes) vary randomly?

Ever heard of mutations?

Sure have. Dawkins' claim, however, is that these replicators survived NON-RANDOMLY, which means someone deliberately played a hand in the process.

[columbusdude82]

Sure have. Dawkins' claim, however, is that these replicators survived NON-RANDOMLY, which means someone deliberately played a hand in the process.

False.

The term "non-random survival" refers to natural selection. It is non-random because it is unrelated to the random variation of the gene. It is determined by predators, parasites, and the gene's ability to enhance the reproductive power of the bodies it resides in.

[MCWAY]

False.

The term "non-random survival" refers to natural selection. It is non-random because it is unrelated to the random variation of the gene. It is determined by predators, parasites, and the gene's ability to enhance the reproductive power of the bodies it resides in.

None of which explains the origin of life, as Dawkins claims it does, but the variance of already-existing life.

[columbusdude82]

None of which explains the origin of life, as Dawkins claims it does, but the variance of already-existing life.

That's why it is called "evolution": it's about the evolution of living forms, not the origin of life!!!

[MCWAY]

That's why it is called "evolution": it's about the evolution of living forms, not the origin of life!!!

Origin of life is every bit a part of the equation (the one that evolutionists/atheists avoid like the plague).

And, Dawkins claims that "Life RESULTS from the non-random survival of randomly varying replicators." That is a reference to origin, not just continuation of existing life.

No matter how much you, Dawkins, or any other non-believer dances around the situation, the question inevitably arises, "Where did life begin". According to Dawkins, science has the answer. So, let's hear 'em.

[columbusdude82]

Well, go to your local library and do your research

[MCWAY]

Well, go to your local library and do your research

AWWWWW!!! What's the matter? Are you out of pithy Dawkins quotes, today? 

[columbusdude82]

No. I just don't discuss areas I don't know much about. "Orgin of life" falls under the heading of bio-chemistry, which I never took the time to learn.

But whatever the answer is, I don't see why the rise of DNA had to be any different than the rise of reptiles: non-random survival of randomly varying molecules

Just because I don't know how the DNA molecule came about doesn't mean we need to postulate God to explain it.

[Decker]

...
No matter how much you, Dawkins, or any other non-believer dances around the situation, the question inevitably arises, "Where did life begin". According to Dawkins, science has the answer. So, let's hear 'em.

Science has no definitive answer although Hawking has postulated a theory about something from nothing.

What have you postulated about the origins of the universe or life? 

Attributing our creation to God says nothing.  You can't even quantify God or describe God or know what God is in any meaningful way.

Pointing to a Biblical story as an explanation of how we got here is just pointing to a Biblical story as an explanation of how we got here.

It isn't true or false b/c it is an unfalsifiable story.

At least legitimate scientists admit that much of our existence (including our origins) is a mystery.

Your demagogic certainty in the Bible's stories does not change that mystery for those not buying into the Bible as the word of God. 

[MMC78]

Origin of life is every bit a part of the equation (the one that evolutionists/atheists avoid like the plague).

Science doesn't know yet.  There are several theories including an RNA basis for life.  But you're smarter then that and already know the answer is

JEEBUS