[grey_whiskers]

This is making a rather extraordinary number of assumptions about what constitutes "life". DNA, and even organic chemistry, are very much irrelevant when discussing such things in the abstract. The argument is not about life on this planet as it actually is, as it theoretically could be, or even necessarily as it can be in this universe.

Sigh. Abstractions are one thing, and empirical evidence another.

As Feynman said, "It doesn't matter how good your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's WRONG."

If you want to say "The argument is not about life on this planet as it actually is, as it theoretically could be, or even necessarily as it can be in this universe" then there is a little too much room for discussion.

Cheers!

[tortoise]

As Feynman said, "It doesn't matter how good your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's WRONG."

Uh, for science hypothesis perhaps since it is non-axiomatic. I was talking mathematics and similar, which is axiomatic. Do you have to run an experiment to show that the sum of two arbitrary numbers is what mathematics asserts it is?