[Mark Felton]

Is there only 1 form of life?

If not, then random processes should have evolved a huge number of alternate forms of life not based on DNA, here on earth alone

If our life form is singular, then given the complexity of the simplest form of life it is mathematically inconceivable (tends to infinity) that random process and random enviromental variables would all conspire to create the 1 and only system of processes that comprise life.

BTW: Since evolution favors the strong, then there should be many other species of life that have attained much similar levels of intelligence, theology, language, creativity, tool making, abilities to synthesize ideas and predict future trends, etc, as man.

[orionblamblam]

> random processes should have evolved a huge number of alternate forms of life not based on DNA

And early on, perhaps that occured. But the DNA-based life won.

> Since evolution favors the strong, then there should be many other species of life that have attained much similar levels of intelligence, theology, language, creativity, tool making, abilities to synthesize ideas and predict future trends, etc, as man.

What makes you say that? "Strong" and "tool user with musical ability" are not necessarily the same thing. Humanity has come close to extinction at least once (Toba explosion), while "dumber" animals got by just fine. Theology, as Islamists demonstrate, is not sufficient to make one long-term survivable.

Evolution is not directed towards some sort of goal of a superbeing. Evolution simply favors those forms that are best at reproducing themselves. By that reckoning, the bacteria and the bugs have us humans beat by a mile.

[thomaswest]

create the 1 and only system of processes that comprise life

One problem with silicon-based life is that the combustion product that is the equivalent of CO2 is SiO2 = quartz. It tends to irritate the throat when exhaling.

[microgood]

If our life form is singular, then given the complexity of the simplest form of life it is mathematically inconceivable (tends to infinity) that random process and random enviromental variables would all conspire to create the 1 and only system of processes that comprise life.

I agree. But with scientists, their a priori assumptions about the natural world prevent them from seeing anything but randomness. In fact, the whole theory of common descent is there to support randomness because they understand the odds of all these species arising individually through randomness would be hard for even them to believe.