Why hasn't life evolved on other planets?

what u dont know is that what is right cant b but one fact but also what is wrong is also one life

what exist is the opposite to what live, that is why u have one god that pervert monster all the ways of hi life at the end of existing rights destructions, that u of course enjoy worshippin and adore as u share same adn free means of one will

that is why u reason life out of bacterias, the thing left over others that start living by knowin how to use else destructions as possible way to live

im not a scientist obviously but i can speak over ur scientific views

the sun is fire so obviously left out of destructions while that present is what allow existence to appear being real when it is too far from by enjoyin the reflection of the idea to reproduce in abstraction of livin minds
that is how also u adore and worship the sun as the one source reference of life ways

in truth all and any is free result bc free value in fact, so zero equal zero only

so what u mean by willin to justify life cannot b

positiv freedom is a fact of freedom values but it stays freedom which is nothing objectively

now existence is a different thing which only can b since it is existin present

existence base is the way to free itelf from else freedom presence, so what is objectively left bc of that
the only way to free itself from else freedom is to realize self freedom value so it cant b but different then else freedom and the only way to realize this is by considerin objectively else freedom existin value where self freedom is related to in objective and true terms

wat i say is fundamentally opposed to what u say but it doesnt mean any revolution nor evolution at all
it means as it shows how truth exist necessarily as it objectively look being first
so what gonna win at the end is it truth existence or invented life from killin true existence, what i guess u mean by love ur supra reason justification to all evil livin that u stand alone witnessin being true of urselves

well i guess u have to prove more ur life mayb it can survive with ur powerful pervert gods, but for me it is definitely sure that truth is being more then ever on a platform that u cant see while it only exist really and still freely

so at the end we can just say that the difference between the two opposites life and existence is simply the fact that one is willin and the other is being honest in admittin objective else facts existence in objective manners

so the will is necessarily one life at the start since it is subjective totally investin all the free energy to mean it real that by the contact with others wills that abstraction of one life reality get a shape of being present with all the hypocrit turns and pervert issues in being real by usin else as if it is oneself will, objectively existin

while admittin what u know being present by givin points to objectively is the freedom value that will exist as it is the exclusive existence in absolute objective terms results of all ends as a reality of present free values

The minimum requirement for evolution is a self-replicating pattern of components being available on a celestial body, that is only mutable enough to never completely disable its copying ability over time. If panspermia is not the case, or if stellar explosions and early solar system conditions have little tendency to ubiquitously yield precursors for such duplicating patterns from random matter interactions (as well as most planetary environments not being favorable to the assembly / survival of the final product in the context of similar randomness), then it would hardly be a surprise for the vast part of the galaxy to be lifeless. This doesn't even touch upon the added magnitude of lucky circumstances falling into place in order for complex organisms to arise. After 4.54 billion years, it wasn't until the last fifth of that that a glimmer of the latter even arose on a planet like Earth.

Complex life was relatively late to arrive on Earth. But simple "life" appeared very rapidly, just about as soon as the rocks had cooled.

A planet that managed to spawn intelligent life should almost be expected to have had a Teela Brown-like streak of lucky circumstances dating back to the very beginning. Taking note here that minus a converging set of circumstances in Africa, IL would still not exist after hundreds of millions of years of complex life; nor is this classification of "intelligence" even an inevitable consequence of evolutionary processes, anyway. Thus the impressiveness of Earth's fortune, though out of countless planets in the universe that never got anywhere with a biological venture, it's a matter of probability rather than literally possessing an extended miracle-hood or guiding / guardian angel (the rare quantitative slot had to be filled by some world, and the third rock of Sol plunked into it).

Also, there's growing opinion that microbial life probably survived the Late Heavy Bombardment rather than arising quickly after it. Not to mention some doubts about the LHB itself appearing on the horizon. This provides a span of time as wide as 500 million years for a chemical event pertaining to abiogenesis during the Hadean period. The instability and harsh conditions of the latter become less a deterring factor if the violent magnitude of the LHB itself is now considered less an obstacle.

I think the obvious answer is that Jesus hasn't made it over to these other planets yet.

Well, that pretty well wraps it up. I declare this thread answered.

Is it therefore, in your mind, the large time difference between simple life and complex life and finally hominims that impress you?

The basic assemblages of respiration, synthesis,and reproduction are all present in basically similar genetic formulae from amoebas to australopithecenes. Also Adaptation and reproduction are prime directives in species development and evolution. It appears , from the earth's geologic history that the appearance of the "Next higher orders" in the bush of life , come curiously after (and apparently associated with) fundamental changes in the edapho's , the part of the environment upon which life persists. C12 came on the scen only after the earth cooled enough and water could be seen to be present in the Isua Formation of theEoarchean(your LHB?). The presence of the C12 , as a signal that "life had indeed begun" was in concert with the Law of equivalent surfaces throughout the Eoarchean world.
Later "rises" of the etent of life from a protist state to more complex seemed to follow the sudden presence of a contaminant chemical that somehow life achieved other adaptive levels (like photosynthesis). Then, well before the Ediacaran, the availability of alkali elements in seawater paralleled the rise of "complex" life, (meaning nothing more than oragnisms in multi segments and sporting calcareous tests)

As I proposed before, this is merely a logical progression of a mathematical series where each evolutionary step reduces the possibilities of the outcomes of successive steps. That seems to be the way life has progressed


Why hasnt this occured on other planets in other systems? Im not sure anyone can say either way but why isnt it possible? We know fairly well the progression of elements formation

I tend toward the Rare Earth hypothesis. Longer spans of time merely allow more opportunities for any key contributing factors (geological, climatological, effects / disturbances from space, horizontal gene transfers, etc) to happen or coincidentally converge for the stimulation of new evolutionary developments.

While certainly not covering the broad range of the universe that panspermia implies, surely some degree of life migration between Earth and other planets / moons could have transpired over the history of the solar system. But the continuing struggle to even confirm something microscopic on Mars doesn't bode well for complex life arising and prospering in inhospitable, less-than-Earthlike environments. Thus the tilt toward the pessimism of REH being justified.

The rare earth hypothesis suffers from the same fatal flaw as the mediocrity hypothesis--a lack of data. We simply don't have sufficient data about other planetary systems to assert that one speculation is more plausible than the other.

Ive met Peter Ward on several occassions and am impressed with his abilities to synthesize lots of input (he specializes in the "ichno" geology that is left behind from the PErmo/Trissic extinction and the Triassic basin 's of US and their development of life.

His throy is cmpounded from a "We dont have any evidence that refutes that earth is a unique body for life to develop"
That was always something to think about but, in the meantime (Especially after his 94 book on extinction that was countered by Raup as suffering from data and loded with assumptions) we discovered that there are all sorts of amino acids and nucleotides in the spctra of stars (not a guarantee of life but an indication that the "tools" were there from a biological sense.). Then we started dicovering a few "earth-like" planets (maybe just one or two points in a sky full of bazillions of stars that we haventlooked at yet) in star systems not dissimilar to ours. AND, weve begun seeing all sorts of sedimentary features on MArs with beinnings of evidence that life could be supported. (Even though Mars own atmosphere hs been stripped a bit and any nascent populations may have been lost in the middle of adaptive radiation. In reality though, any life can develop into complex life. Our planet was initially toxic and life , once established, persisted


Like set implies. you may be fond of Wards hypothesis but its mostly fiction at this point since we dont hve much data.

Absence of complex life in the many non-Earthlike environments and histories of bodies of this solar system is data (and this even with a bloody life-bearing world existing in their midst, potentially spewing microbial nomads about with each massive meteor / asteroid impact over a few billion years!). By all means keep hoping over the next thousand years that a balloon creature of non-artificial origin could still be sighted in the upper atmosphere of Jupiter by a probe, or something resembling an aquatic plant discovered in the methane lakes of Titan. If nothing else, that shark-like beast swimming about in a subterranean ocean of Europa, or smaller polycellular entities hovering around a hydrothermal vent, will surely clinch the capacity of complex life to evolve in an environment and past utterly dissimilar from any found / ever occurring on Earth; and abundantly across the cosmos no less!

No data, no hypothesis--just wild speculation.

I don't understand the basic point you're trying to make. Can you summarize?

because baby jesus is cold harted

Point? Point at what? My noting that Kang and Kodos are missing is not a submitting of a positive claim; and there are certainly no details of a hypothesis ("Space aliens exist!") to summarize. You apparently have me confused with those who propose that continued absence of speculative entities is evidence that enhances the chances of them existing, rather than the reverse.

Today: "Damn, Cletus, still no sign of Jesus returning after two thousand years. Can you imagine how worried the atheists are getting because of this?"

"But aw aint seen none of them ancient astronauts from when planet Nibiru swings around again, either, that the woo-hoos expect. Awza therefore gettin' mighty concerned that the reptile folk might be real, too."

Two thousand years from now: "No sign of complex life of extraterrestrial origin yet. By gosh, this makes belief of its presence in our galaxy more warranted than ever!"

"I can top that. No sign of them way back in 2013, 1513, 1013, etc, either. I'm getting goosebumps just from thinking about that incredible supply of virtual confirmation for ETs."

Eaties ? ! ? ! ? Does that mean that they're anthropophagous?

we hadn't even understood about extremophilic life on our own planet until about 20 years ago.
Youre not setting the bar too high GH. You are claiming that no life exists beyond our planet? Why not wait untile weve actually looked for it?
SETI operated under an assumption that there would be intelligent life out there that could master electromagnetic radiation. Maybe life doesn't exist or its not intelligent OR, remembering that electromagnetic radiation has a "Speed limit" their radiation hasn't reached our ears yet. After all, itll take up to 50000 years for an electromagnetic signal to reach us from within our own galaxy. Weve only been using radio for less than 150 years (only 49850 years to go)

Our lunar landings weren't looking for life . Our MArs Rovers aren't really looking for LIFE either. Theyre really looking for the geologic conditions that don't preclude life from developing (water pools, specific salts etc). We will send up equipment to sample for the traces of life only after we determine that conditions warrant.
We don't send out the Ice cream truck to sell the MArtians some Eskimo Pies till were sure they like chocolate

A known fact even well before Matt Groening's grittily detailed documentary films!

To wit: "Mr. Chambers, don't get on that ship! The rest of the book To Serve Man, it's... it's a cookbook!"

Heh, needless to say . . . Ruggero Deodato's fictional, 1980 cannibal-fest pales in comparison to those actual, vintage encounters of our being reduced to meat for space aliens. There's just an extra notch of ugly vulnerability exposed in the latter feeding process which not even being devoured by one's own species can out-highlight and out-creepify.

Terry Bisson, They're made out of meat!