Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc
If life is just a natural progression from simple chemical reactions in nature, why haven't we found it on the moon or mars? It would not be the same, but it would have adapted to it's own environment.
Perhaps it has something to do with the lack of any of the prerequisites of life on the moon. No atmosphere, no liquid water. The jury is still out on whether there was life on Mars back when it apparently did have more of an atmosphere and liquid water.
Hard to fathom someone dense enough not to understand why life didn't evolve on the moon.
We have found life in areas of the world with water temps approaching 750 degrees Fahrenheit. If a planet has to be just the right distance from just the right star, and contain just the right elements, and rotate at just the right rate..... The elements must be in the right place, at a very small scale, in the right amounts, form into the right structures, organelles, and knit together just right..... What results must be able to maintain homeostasis, be in a hospitable environment, must be able to grow, and to replicate itself with an ability to adapt to it's surroundings to increase it's chance of survival.
You wouldn't consider that a remarkable event?
Not remarkable at all, considering there's trillions upon trillions of stars out there, and tons of planets being discovered as planet detecting methods become more sensitive and sophisticated. Given the sheer number of possible locations its simply a matter of time, and given billions of years the universe has been in existence, there's been plenty of time.
Pretty basic stuff here. Doesn't take a genius to figure it out.