The problem with searching for life in the universe is that we search for things that that are like the life on earth.
Something that needs O2 and H2O.
It is highly possible that if we find a life form that doesn't fit that description, we would just overlook it.
And another problem is that journalists will write "Scientist says" in front of everything that they like so that it looks better and has "credibility".
Finally. Somebody else with that sentiment. Our only example of life is life on Earth...which could be totally unique. Perhaps it's not a 'perfect mix' of temperature and environment, we simply evolved out of what we were given, whereas the acid clouds of Venus are actually capable of supporting life. Not saying that they are, but it's definitely a ridiculous idea to just dismiss all possibility of life on non-Earth planets simply because 'science says it's impossible'.
I used to think that way as well, but then I read this [http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/nzxu6/why_is_it_that_scientists_seem_to_exclude_the/] particular AskScience thread.
The reason scientists don't usually consider other types of lifeforms is because the stuff we are built out of is the most efficient way for life to occur.
Would you like to provide me with an example of an inefficient way for life to occur?
Did you read the thread? Like, at all?
The reason water is so useful is because it is a great solvent. Therefore it is extremely useful in regulating chemistry in the cell.
There are few chemicals out there that rival the solvent properties of water and even less that are naturally formed and as abundant.
Also if life exists it's most likely carbon. Seriously. It's probably carbon. Carbon is fairly abundant and it is bar-none the most chemically fertile element around. You can do more chemistry with carbon than anything else. The metabolism of much carbon chemistry leads to water. This makes one of the most prolific waste products of carbon life into an asset.
Yes. And it didn't prove a God damned thing. It CAN'T be proved until we find other planets that fit the description AND have life. Because right now the case is so fragile that it can be fucked up if we so much as find ONE lifeless planet with water and carbon.
We're basing our knowledge of life based on one tiny example. It's like claiming to be an expert in Russian grammar because you speak fluent English. Yes, I understand how the rules of the English language work, but no, they don't apply to Russian.
No. We're basing our knowledge of life on how chemistry works
. Carbon and water go hand in hand. All of the reasons behind scientist's assumptions on extraterrestrial life are based on facts. Your arguments are based on wild speculation with no scientific foundation.
Read it again.
Carbon is fairly abundant and it is bar-none the most chemically fertile element around.
See that? That right there is why life even exists. The different interactions of carbon is what makes life work, and no other element can do what it does, as well as it does it.
EDIT: Yes, life can conceivably exist through other means, but they are far less likely
and as such, scientists are ignoring those remote possibilities until we've finished exploring the things that actually make sense.
And once again, you're referring to carbon-based life forms and totally ignoring the possibility of anything else. My analogy still stands. All you've done is re-iterate an obsolete point. Carbon is the most chemically fertile element on Earth, Mars, and the Moon. We've not really been taking samples on any other planet now have we?
You don't understand what chemically fertile means. That means it has a ridiculous amount of reactions it can be a part of. Chemically fertile does not mean there's lots of it, it means that it does lots. But that doesn't mean there isn't lots of it, oh no, it's the 4th most common element in the universe
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abundance_of_the_chemical_elements#Abundance_of_elements_in_the_Universe], right below oxygen, helium, and hydrogen.
I'm not reiterating an obsolete point, I'm trying to get scientific facts across that you are simply refusing to acknowledge.
I'm not just "referring to carbon-based lifeforms" I'm telling you why carbon-based lifeforms are far more likely than whatever crazy idea you espouse.