that assumes the multiple types of life only exist in one area, they are in proximity, and that they use the same rescources. none of that is neccesarily true.

"A situation requiring cohabitation does not happen where there is no cohabitation" would not be a terribly surprising state of affairs.

 

Considering the fact that every viable habitat on Earth is populated by DNA/RNA life forms, that all known resources have species that are specialised to exploit them, and that no non-DNA/RNA life form has ever been identified, I would consider that assumption to be backed up by a truly vast wealth of evidence.

new life forms are still being discovered. the lack of life forms that have othe heredity device could be evidence against the spontaneous genesis of life.

No it couldn't.

why not?

 

it is hard to believe one type of life beat out countless others. beat them to extinction. doesn't sound plausible.

 

 

edit: i have been here a while and read many of your posts. it appears that you are a closed minded individual. for that, i pity you.

why not?

Lack of evidence is not evidence. This is a fairly simple principle.

 

 

it is hard to believe one type of life beat out countless others. beat them to extinction. doesn't sound plausible.

Not only do we not have any evidence that non-DNA/RNA life has ever existed, we see DNA/RNA life driving its own kind extinct. Why is it so difficult to believe that if such life existed, it didn't make it?

 

 

edit: i have been here a while and read many of your posts. it appears that you are a closed minded individual. for that, i pity you.

I'm really not. I am prepared to accept possibilities (if you read back up, you'll see I said it was likely that non-DNA/RNA life arose on Earth, which is pretty open-minded given the lack of any evidence whatsoever), but unlike some I have the benefit of knowing what I am talking about. Understanding how things work gives one the advantage of being able to eliminate pointless lines of enquiry.

new life forms are still being discovered. the lack of life forms that have othe heredity device could be evidence against the spontaneous genesis of life.

I don't think anyone needs to emphasise that spontaneous generation of life doesn't appear to happen very often. So it shouldn't be surprising if it has only happened once.

well, u have looked closed minded in my reading of many of ur posts.

I don't think anyone needs to emphasise that spontaneous generation of life doesn't appear to happen very often. So it shouldn't be surprising if it has only happened once.

 

it doesn't semm plausible to happen at all.

 

when did the soup of chemicals become "life"?

well, u have looked closed minded in my reading of many of ur posts.

Well, seeing as you have a distinct propensity for not understanding things that people write, I don't think that's particularly my fault.

well, this has nothing to do with the thread, so i tried to get back on topic. then, you brought us back. no, i understand. i just rarely ever recieve any evidence to change my view. that which i do is usually extremely weak or irrelivent.