On the news wire for November 5:

“Milky Way may host billions of Earth-size planets – LA Times
There’s no place like home, but scientists now say that Earth-size planets orbiting sun-like stars in a so-called habitable zone are so common that there could be as many as 11 billion in the Milky Way alone.”

We have NASA colleagues who strive hard to find evidence for water on Mars or to reach into space for habitable planets. And we may find many houses with rooms and spaces fit for life in the universe … but the real question is: Why do we make the leap to say if it’s fit for life, we will find life? Let us think one step further.

Starting on planet Earth and examining every aspect of life from sophisticated research efforts we now find the ultimate dilemma. Science indicates laws and conditions ( the application of physics, chemistry, and material sciences ) is likely equal across the universe. If life starts here it could by the same means start elsewhere. That is logic used by many persons.

Okay, now the wrench to throw into the works. Human explorations of planetary science (i.e. of Earth ) and every conceivable approach to how chemicals could or can come together to create first life … all come to dead ends. Human ingenuity suggests there must be an answer because … well … because here we are alive today.

Bottom line: Scientists cannot tell you how life arouse from chemicals. So why would any other planet elsewhere be any better than this known fit for life earth? You can think about that because we want to go to the bigger problem now known to the sciences.

Life is not simply metabolism, form, reproduction, or historical records of species. Life is an innovation. A first innovation for first appearance and we will not toss out the word evolution here, because some change in life forms appears over time (from existing life).

The problem is simply life is based on information. Information in DNA and also epigenetic information that is elsewhere in living beings and not in the DNA. The point raised here is simple. No one in science has explained how the initial information arouse. Most biological, genetic and evolutionary research shows change over time, but based on existing information in life forms. Explaining new innovation that gives us new forms based on new information is lacking.

There is more to this presentation than written here. The main point is that the universe can have trillions of habitable planets, but unless chemicals can make life and information is somehow introduced to direct life’s forms and being … you can count all the planets you want to no gain.

Is this a case of skepticism? Actually, not at all. This post is simply drawing attention to the status of what science also knows as fact. And that gives cause to not being so moved by planetary discoveries, because the real question for which we desire answers concerns the source and origin of life in the first place.

Director, WindowView.org

Related Window Links:
Chemical Origins — Yes or No — What Does the Evidence Show
Time Required for Macroevolution to Occur
Living On A Privileged Planet