i'm going to really try to watch my coulds, woulds, and shoulds, and say simply, we have a lot of apples, countless decades of varieties, that all descended from a mother crab apple I tried to grow in my backyard and failed. But I've seen them growing next door and know that this tree is tied to the history of all the many other apples that we've got. Abundance is everywhere on this planet, at least the parts we haven't killed off yet and that's not a suggestion, but a fact of biodiversity, and the only visible one we've got. So, compared to Mars, we're richly abundant, and compared to the other planets nearby, or that we can see a piece of, we've got the greenery in many shades and they all have dust that's usually the same color.
I thought my assumptions were slightly clear, given that the most we've seen in space is a complex carbon branched molecule but no real microbes or complex life forms flying about that would land here and take root. And if complex lifeforms could survive interstellar space then certainly they can survive anywhere; consequently, we should see evidence of them everywhere on nearby space rocks but we don't, so either we don't know how to look for them or they don't exist. Say the most that can survive is microbial life, then where is it as it ain't on the moon and it ain't on mars or meteorites so is it anywhere? (apologies for the shoulds and coulds here, but they do suit the points I'm making: which makes Panspermia an unlikely event, hence my uncertain language)
I celebrate your response to Darwin/Wallace etc. and agree that science builds upon or displaces itself with better ideas, an evolution of thought, and that it's open to change. However I thought boredom was the malaise of life in the modern era and that when left to our own devices in the woods there is no time to be bored as we are too busy trying to survive. Maybe you've been listening too much to early Talking Heads' albums?
Why is our boredom reliable and does it work as a chain of human experience going back to early and pre-civilization?
It was iso-propyl cyanide, a branched carbon molecule and the first thing we've detected in the interstellar dust that is close to the building blocks for amino acids. So again we're caught by the thought that life could be ubiquitous in the universe and just so far apart that we can't detect each other. In this way the lifes story of earth is a goldilocks story that begins once upon a time, 4.54 billion years ago, there was this third rock from the sun whose conditions were just right...and then the magic interstellar dust settled in the mucky soup of that rock and they combined. That's the best possible story. Space seeds seems to be relegated to science fiction.
what's most admirable about how you chase down thoughts and look for new ones is your ability to support the odds and ends of scientific investigation. Tesla, a great thinker, was relegated to being an old man in an apartment feeding pigeons after he was dismissed for thinking the aliens from mars were coming to get us. So yes, very smart people can fall down through the rabbit holes. Is Wainwright very smart in your opinion? You seem to be givng him support in that area. Is he consistent or is he now consistently off in the way Tesla went wonky?
nope, I shoveled the driveway instead waiting to sift through your report back on his validity. I hope you don't see this as unfair or as some have pointed out that I'm merely a rhetorician. I prefer to be seen as a synthesizer, Moog if you are asking.
so, is he consistent, or consistently barking up trees that have no cats in them?
) Thing is, science is empirical (Aristoltle). Both polarities work hand-in-glove. As Roger Bacon correctly pointed out: "argument is not enough, experience is."
