What is "Earth-like"?

[JimC]

Rubbish. All organic compounds (by definition), part of one life form or another, and are food for something...

Bacteria exist that can digest a surprising array of plastics...

[rainbow]

Rubbish. All organic compounds (by definition), part of one life form or another, and are food for something...

Not by any scientific definition.

Bacteria exist that can digest a surprising array of plastics...

Good for them. There is also a surprising array of plastics and other man-made organic compounds that are not biodegradable. There are also natural organic compounds that are not biodegradable, such as rubber, amber, bitumen and coal.
http://keydifferences.com/difference-be ... ances.html

[pErvinalia]

We can't even explain how life started in the first place. To claim that it is unlikely to appear again in today's conditions is an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence. Good luck with that.

[rainbow]

We can't even explain how life started in the first place. To claim that it couldn't appear again in today's conditions is an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence. Good luck with that.

Nope.

The claim that life could appear on Earth today would be extraordinary.

There is absolutely no evidence that life has emerged on Earth more than once. When you find evidence of this please share it with us on your way to pick up your Nobel prize.

[pErvinalia]

You are the one making claims. Your claims can be dismissed when you don't provide evidence.

[JimC]

What we do know is that only one lineage of successful replicators emerged, and began the whole tree of life.

Either it was an incredibly rare event, and we are here by an enormous amount of sheer luck, or the first successful lineage developed such momentum that a number of other possible replicator starting points occurring later were ruthlessly crushed in infancy.

Knowing how life operates, the second rings true...

[rainbow]

You are the one making claims.

The evidence that there is no evidence is the total lack of evidence.

[rainbow]

What we do know is that only one lineage of successful replicators emerged, and began the whole tree of life.

Either it was an incredibly rare event, and we are here by an enormous amount of sheer luck, or the first successful lineage developed such momentum that a number of other possible replicator starting points occurring later were ruthlessly crushed in infancy.

Knowing how life operates, the second rings true...

...so tigers do eat trees?

[Forty Two]

We can't even explain how life started in the first place. To claim that it is unlikely to appear again in today's conditions is an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence. Good luck with that.

Well, logically, if it was "likely" to appear again in "today's conditions," then one would expect that it would occur from time to time because today's conditions, well, they, well, exist today, and have existed nearly thus for hundreds of millions of years, give-or-take....

[Forty Two]

You are the one making claims.

The evidence that there is no evidence is the total lack of evidence.

don't even try...he's gone full Creationist....

[pErvinalia]

You are the one making claims.

The evidence that there is no evidence is the total lack of evidence.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Not least when any novel lifeform would quickly be outcompeted and/or exploited by existing life.

Try again.

[pErvinalia]

What we do know is that only one lineage of successful replicators emerged, and began the whole tree of life.

Either it was an incredibly rare event, and we are here by an enormous amount of sheer luck, or the first successful lineage developed such momentum that a number of other possible replicator starting points occurring later were ruthlessly crushed in infancy.

Knowing how life operates, the second rings true...

...so tigers do eat trees?

[pErvinalia]

We can't even explain how life started in the first place. To claim that it is unlikely to appear again in today's conditions is an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence. Good luck with that.

Well, logically, if it was "likely" to appear again in "today's conditions," then one would expect that it would occur from time to time because today's conditions, well, they, well, exist today, and have existed nearly thus for hundreds of millions of years, give-or-take....

"Occurring" and persisting are two different things.

[pErvinalia]

You are the one making claims.

The evidence that there is no evidence is the total lack of evidence.

don't even try...he's gone full Creationist....

:coffespray: You shouldn't even attempt to do logic, 42.

[Forty Two]

You are the one making claims.

The evidence that there is no evidence is the total lack of evidence.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Not least when any novel lifeform would quickly be outcompeted and/or exploited by existing life.

Try again.

You're missing basic Logic 101, which is that in the circumstances where it can safely be assumed that if a certain event had occurred, evidence of it would be left behind, then in such circumstances it is perfectly reasonable to take the absence of proof of its occurrence as positive proof of its nonoccurrence.