Why life on Venus or any other planet DESTROYS abiogenesis

There's been a heated debate on this topic because scientist detected Phosphine on Venus and wrote this could be a sign of life. Of course this was met with skepticism from some as it should be. That's fine but the pseudoskeptic has gone ballistic and there's a reason why.

A discovery of microbial life on Venus, Mars, Titan, Europa or any other planet destroys abiogenesis and a natural interpretation of evolution. Since this story came out, there's been hit piece after hit piece declaring this story is false. This just shows how panicked they are about a discovery like this. Here's a recent article:

Are We About to Find Life on Venus?

Phosphine is a colorless, flammable, toxic gas that smells like rotting fish. Humans manufacture it to use in pest control and the production of computer chips. But it’s also a waste product from a certain kind of “abiotic” microbe that lives in oxygen-free environments. Its presence is a potential sign that there’s something alive.

The gas with the chemical formula PH3 has been at the center of a passionate debate among scientists concerned with, well, life: what it is, what it needs to survive, and where it could be located elsewhere in the universe.

Now a new group of scientists—including some members of the team that first posited phosphine on Venus—is stepping back, taking a deep breath and trying to make sense of what they describe as an important and ongoing argument. A preprint of their paper✎ EditSign appeared online last week. “One year after the original announcement, the tentative discovery of PH3 in the clouds of Venus continues to bring much interest and controversy,” they wrote.

“People might think that the Venus phosphine story is over, that the discovery is debunked or that it is wrong, that the signal is not there,” Janusz Petkowski, an expert in so-called “biosignature gases” at MIT and a co-author of both the original phosphine paper and the latest one, told The Daily Beast. “That is not the case,” Petkowski added. “The Venusian phosphine story is very much alive and a topic of an intense scientific debate.”

www.thedailybeast.com...

Again, anytime you see the pseudoskeptics try to claim the story is over, they're just trying to shut down debate. There's a reason for this though, it's because a story like this destroys abiogenesis and a natural interpretation of evolution.

Personally, I think they will find microbial life in many places. The Bible tells us this is the case. I will get to that in a minute but first I want to explain why this discovery destroys abiogenesis and a natural interpretation of evolution.

The Bible tells us in Genesis 1 verse 1 that God Created. This means God's Will was imparted to the universe and life when He Created it. So life has a purpose and direction as opposed to the fantasies of abiogenesis and a natural interpretation of evolution which tells us life has no design, purpose or direction. It's just blind, random mutations triggered by environmental pressures.

This has been dismantled in this forum and others. The evidence shows design, purpose and direction. In the 7th grade and still today it's taught that species adapt to their environment to survive. Many scientist are panicked about this because they realize this points to intelligent design but this is what the evidence shows. You can check out my thread and others to see more on this topic:

How did matter become aware of itself?
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Adaptations are clear evidence of intelligent design
www.abovetopsecret.com...

A discovery like this will show that life has nothing to do with the environment of a single planet. Life is seeded on a planet and it has purpose and direction to survive on the planets environment because God's Will is imparted on all life.

We see this in extremophiles:

There are different classes of extremophiles based on the type of extreme environment in which they thrive. Examples include:

Acidophile: an organism that thrives in acidic environments with pH levels of 3 and below.
Alkaliphile: an organism that thrives in alkaline environments with pH levels of 9 and above.
Barophile: an organism that lives in high-pressure environments, such as deep-sea habitats.
Halophile: an organism that lives in habitats with extremely high salt concentrations.
Hyperthermophile: an organism that thrives in environments with extremely high temperatures; between 80–122 °C or 176-252 °F.
Psychrophile: an organism that survives in extreme cold conditions and low temperatures; between −20 °C to +10 °C or −4 °F to 50 °C.
Radiophile: an organism that thrives in conditions with high levels of radiation, including ultraviolet and nuclear radiation.
Xerophile: an organism that lives in extreme dry conditions.

www.thoughtco.com...

You will often here this phrase,"Life as we know it." So life can't be on Venus because it's too hot and "Life as we know it" couldn't survive.

This statement goes against the evidence of extremophiles which shows life can evolve and adapt to environments that's foreign to human life and most multicellular life.

It also assumes that life can evolve only in an environment like ours. This goes to the abiogenesis argument that says you need the right conditions for non-life to magically become life out of some primordial goo. This is an obvious fantasy. You can come up with any wild theory about abiogenesis.

I can say, a lunar eclipse cause a tidal wave of gases to break free and ooze into the primordial goo and viola, life emerged! So you get the RNA world and all kinds of nonsense.

Not if, but I believe when microbial life is found on other planets, it will destroy for good the notion of abiogenesis. Sadly, the atheist and materialist will still push these things because they use it to support their beliefs.

What this shows is life has a will to survive and it's not about the environment of any single planet. The environment of a planet creates nothing. The planet is seeded with life that has a will to survive so it tries to adapt to it's environment whether that environment is earth, venus or europa.

So scientist will have to explain where this purpose and will to survive comes from before it reaches a planets environment. In other words:

GAME OVER!

They will have to explain how life has a will to survive and this will manipulates information in DNA to survive in different environments. That sounds exactly like us. We manipulate information to build civilizations in order to survive!

This is exactly what we should see though because our Creator, God imparted His Will on us and all life.

Life is the reason the universe exists.

a reply to: neoholographic

I have no real opinion about this topic because I know nothing about it, but your explanation does sounds reasonable, however I am also open to the fact some life comes into existence by some random occurances, but I do certainly agree on the 'will to live and adapt for that sake' part which does seem to bear evidence of some primordial will to live in all forms of life, which would point in the direction of intelligent design.

Great opening post. I can agree with the premise of this and throw in that as the above reply pointed out the reason for the universe is, and I say has to be, life.

That means life will find a way to manifest in most any environment as Arthur C Clarke and others wrote about in my youth. I believe in God and I believe God uses evolution. Time is immaterial to the issue for the Universe. We have but a short window as humans to learn these things for ourselves and we are done here. I suspect that with the right tech some spaceship in our future could harvest energy directly from a star to use in deep space and when we do we will likely find all matter of life exists anywhere it will.

originally posted by: Lux96
a reply to: neoholographic

I have no real opinion about this topic because I know nothing about it, but your explanation does sounds reasonable, however I am also open to the fact some life comes into existence by some random occurances, but I do certainly agree on the 'will to live and adapt for that sake' part which does seem to bear evidence of some primordial will to live in all forms of life, which would point in the direction of intelligent design.

Life makes up the universe like time or gravity so if you took it away the universe wouldn't exist, there has to be a consciousness within the universe on a material level.
There has to be a conscious "knowing"

a reply to: Smigg

What if litterally everything possesses some form of consciousness even things we consider not to be alive. And that that omni-present consciousness is everything that is and everything consists of it.

I might speculate the universe is continously evolving and what now is considered life was at first not present but came into play slightly later, perhaps we will find or that there evolves more consciouss forms of life, 'greater beings', as it evolves to peak consciousness.

Just random thoughts.

There has to be life everywhere.

If there is a God its pretty sadistic

"Life as we know it." Just means anything that we have ever found that could be classified not necessarily "classified" as life on Earth and no where else. Other may take the term to mean larger species that the eye can actually see and has an intelligence independent but in contact and that interacts intelligently with other intelligent species n reciprocity as awkward or strange or even funny that; That contact can be. Like a cat and dog playing etc.

Even though extremophiles, bacteria etc could be seen as life either as bi-product or precursor or even both? It does not fit the description in larger life interaction species as we know it... other than a slow evolution or adaptation to it.

biogenesis is that adaptation to whatever adversity, anything combining and crawling out of the primordial ooze after a star is born out of it's proto-state rapidly cooling and finding the habitable zones for it of going into more or less heat or freeze as such a thing scatters after coalescing much like sparks flying off during welding the heavier elements sink to the bottom and the lighter ones float eventually forming habitation there too and as that heat balances any life in those zones give off various gases forming an proto-biosphere after more of that plus heat moisture forms as a condensation and then it rains inside of that over and over making the primordial ooze or soup.

So we have heat(arising from contact or friction) born, moisture born, egg born, then lastly and yet all those others still take place ...womb born,

Other life aware? Yay more monkeys of all types to hoot and holler at each other as they fly through space for billions of years.

So birth of a star heat and friction equaling planets etc as it expands and contracts elements sink and float into habitable zones or in stasis or static zones, that in habitable get their groove on forming gas as more heat and friction born, then from that atmosphere moisture born, then the egg sort from moisture and heat then the womb sort.

Arthropods are basically animate plant life and seeing how they have always been the most massive or abundant species? First and foremost in the process of "Life as we know it."

If people are too fragile that they have to make up delusional beginnings? Not knowing such a thing is cause of a more fragile than resilient species? Then I don't know what to say. Mammals don't get stronger killing each other, they get fat and lazy... not wallowing in the ooze of nature and OOOOO get "it" off of me!!! Is where disease eventually arises called shelter from an on going process from evolving just as we did out of the ooze with other species help.

Not learning that is why those proto life forms come to the surface and says you know what? Since they have no problems killing us and themselves let's help the idiots out yet again.

a reply to: neoholographic
You might want to sit down for this one Neo...

Abiogenesis needs to be challenged. Too often it is treated as a settled science when it is far from being so. In its present incarnation it is a narrow theory based on limited knowledge and nowhere near proven scientifically. Especially when you consider scientists do not even have a consensus for what life is, let alone its origins.

Your challenge to abiogenesis and calling out the "pseudoskeptics" in this case is merited.

We may not agree on the religious or divine aspects of your treatise, but we can certainly agree that consensus is not settled science.

Some reference material relating to my comments: The Emergence Of Life

a reply to: neoholographic

This is how science works, these aren't "pseudoskeptics" who want to shut down debate, they are bringing the debate to the people who have brought forth a new pile of evidence and based on a claim they found. So now they need to defend their thesis. It's pretty simple. Other people WANT them to debate, that's how science works, just because something is 'new' doesn't mean it's automatically correct.

Also, abiogenesis is a hypothesis with a large amount of evidence to support it, that, the idea of how life began ON EARTH, not somewhere else. Scientists have known or made hypothesis about life teeming all over our galaxy for decades, Carl Sagan went into great length about it in a lot of his works.

I, also still don't see how this debunks abiogenesis, if you can somehow tear apart the concepts behind RNA self replication, "god made everything" I'd at least watch the bandwagons go by, until then abiogenesis is the best answer we have to how life started on this planet we live on.

originally posted by: Lux96
a reply to: Smigg

What if litterally everything possesses some form of consciousness even things we consider not to be alive. And that that omni-present consciousness is everything that is and everything consists of it.

I might speculate the universe is continously evolving and what now is considered life was at first not present but came into play slightly later, perhaps we will find or that there evolves more consciouss forms of life, 'greater beings', as it evolves to peak consciousness.

Just random thoughts.

I completely agree, I believe there's a consciousness to everything, even what we consider inanimate and it's an evolving never ending process.

It simply will mean that life can self assemble anywhere where the conditions are suitable. It's not rocket science. No one can comment on the evolution of life on another planet until that genetic material is analyzed. If it's similar to us, then it may be a common ancestor. If it's entirely different, then it evolved and assembled into a unique organism(s).

As per usual, the OP mixes abiogenesis with evolution. One has nothing to do with the other. Complete ignorance on the part of the OP to even suggest that conclusions can be drawn from no data - but that's his way of doing science - ass-ways backwards.

a reply to: neoholographic

Finding life on Venus doesn't destroy abiogenesis. If life is found on Venus, Mars or other nearby planets then once the DNA is analyzed it will likely be found to have much of its DNA matching life on earth. Did you know that 70% of your DNA matches trees?

A planet like Earth is definitely a womb for life. Extremophiles are here on Earth because after arising out of the easier birthplace areas, life evolved to adapt to the more difficult areas on earth to inhabit.

Earth has microbiological life floating in the atmosphere and all throughout the upper layers of its crust. An asteroid or comet impact could and likely has already blasted large amounts of the earth's atmosphere and crust into space where some of it containing life has undoubtedly been captured by the gravitational fields of nearby planets and made its way to their surface.

I'm familiar with the OT but I can't recall anything in it that says your god put life anywhere else but Earth, so please quote some passages that I may have missed or misinterpreted.

If there is life anywhere else other than Earth it 'destroys' your religion, not science.

Incidentally, why use such incendiary verbs like 'destroy'? How about something like 'disprove'? You are such an angry and violent writer - every one of your posts are like this. Get a grip buddy, this is not a war or competition.

a reply to: Smigg

The womb for more "static" objects are roughly 100 years the only reason it is roughly is because so many things are named the same and they tend to get "confused" but the object awake aware and listening isn't it will gain an "eye" on all those with the same "name" in proper age and or attainment order as it is that objects time to be "Buddha"

In and out of all life about every hundred years the same thing happens eventually the "two" will synchronize and pari-nirvana
The first taste as it is called was it already occurring the last and final is just that and no one nor anything there is in the all "gods demons otherwise could ever stop or prevent it.

ceasing greed hate and delusion helps one arrive to a "better" place even the most "evil" people go to "heaven" when they die. Of course all the people that knew them as evil inherit the earth as "heaven" when that person dies.

The great cycle yadda yagga yagga yin and yang and all that jazz is for those that have not conquered the wheel and them-self.

The biggest fault? Among the classes of beings what get called super natural powers bought sold and traded that chain each other all back up in a tangle of cause and effect.

Oh no have I typed to much?



No? five skandha exist to the eye, five to the ear and the other sense consciousnesses as well the same and each of those have to go beyond duality even though in the chaos all that attached tries to damn the torpedo's and man the corpse of not knowing thinking they do... it like a flood or tidal wave cant be helped.

Dont consider this "teaching" if I were teaching I'd see moving instead of sitting and beat the hell out of you. Not a position I want to take no matter how much it has been forced on me and expected like a silly ol pregnancy. If you cant beat yourself to death ny not just sitting and then beat yourself out of death by just sitting then what is anothers beating really going to do?

I think the phosphine discovery is a fascinating exercise in the study of non terrestrial biology on its own merits and the political drama is exactly that, drama. Creating argument for the sake of argument.

originally posted by: neoholographic
There's been a heated debate on this topic because scientist detected Phosphine on Venus and wrote this could be a sign of life. Of course this was met with skepticism from some as it should be. That's fine but the pseudoskeptic has gone ballistic and there's a reason why.

A discovery of microbial life on Venus, Mars, Titan, Europa or any other planet destroys abiogenesis and a natural interpretation of evolution. Since this story came out, there's been hit piece after hit piece declaring this story is false. This just shows how panicked they are about a discovery like this. Here's a recent article:

Are We About to Find Life on Venus?

Phosphine is a colorless, flammable, toxic gas that smells like rotting fish. Humans manufacture it to use in pest control and the production of computer chips. But it’s also a waste product from a certain kind of “abiotic” microbe that lives in oxygen-free environments. Its presence is a potential sign that there’s something alive.

The gas with the chemical formula PH3 has been at the center of a passionate debate among scientists concerned with, well, life: what it is, what it needs to survive, and where it could be located elsewhere in the universe.

Now a new group of scientists—including some members of the team that first posited phosphine on Venus—is stepping back, taking a deep breath and trying to make sense of what they describe as an important and ongoing argument. A preprint of their paper✎ EditSign appeared online last week. “One year after the original announcement, the tentative discovery of PH3 in the clouds of Venus continues to bring much interest and controversy,” they wrote.

“People might think that the Venus phosphine story is over, that the discovery is debunked or that it is wrong, that the signal is not there,” Janusz Petkowski, an expert in so-called “biosignature gases” at MIT and a co-author of both the original phosphine paper and the latest one, told The Daily Beast. “That is not the case,” Petkowski added. “The Venusian phosphine story is very much alive and a topic of an intense scientific debate.”

www.thedailybeast.com...

Again, anytime you see the pseudoskeptics try to claim the story is over, they're just trying to shut down debate. There's a reason for this though, it's because a story like this destroys abiogenesis and a natural interpretation of evolution.

Personally, I think they will find microbial life in many places. The Bible tells us this is the case. I will get to that in a minute but first I want to explain why this discovery destroys abiogenesis and a natural interpretation of evolution.

The Bible tells us in Genesis 1 verse 1 that God Created. This means God's Will was imparted to the universe and life when He Created it. So life has a purpose and direction as opposed to the fantasies of abiogenesis and a natural interpretation of evolution which tells us life has no design, purpose or direction. It's just blind, random mutations triggered by environmental pressures.

This has been dismantled in this forum and others. The evidence shows design, purpose and direction. In the 7th grade and still today it's taught that species adapt to their environment to survive. Many scientist are panicked about this because they realize this points to intelligent design but this is what the evidence shows. You can check out my thread and others to see more on this topic:

How did matter become aware of itself?
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Adaptations are clear evidence of intelligent design
www.abovetopsecret.com...

A discovery like this will show that life has nothing to do with the environment of a single planet. Life is seeded on a planet and it has purpose and direction to survive on the planets environment because God's Will is imparted on all life.

We see this in extremophiles:

There are different classes of extremophiles based on the type of extreme environment in which they thrive. Examples include:

Acidophile: an organism that thrives in acidic environments with pH levels of 3 and below.
Alkaliphile: an organism that thrives in alkaline environments with pH levels of 9 and above.
Barophile: an organism that lives in high-pressure environments, such as deep-sea habitats.
Halophile: an organism that lives in habitats with extremely high salt concentrations.
Hyperthermophile: an organism that thrives in environments with extremely high temperatures; between 80–122 °C or 176-252 °F.
Psychrophile: an organism that survives in extreme cold conditions and low temperatures; between −20 °C to +10 °C or −4 °F to 50 °C.
Radiophile: an organism that thrives in conditions with high levels of radiation, including ultraviolet and nuclear radiation.
Xerophile: an organism that lives in extreme dry conditions.

www.thoughtco.com...

You will often here this phrase,"Life as we know it." So life can't be on Venus because it's too hot and "Life as we know it" couldn't survive.

This statement goes against the evidence of extremophiles which shows life can evolve and adapt to environments that's foreign to human life and most multicellular life.

It also assumes that life can evolve only in an environment like ours. This goes to the abiogenesis argument that says you need the right conditions for non-life to magically become life out of some primordial goo. This is an obvious fantasy. You can come up with any wild theory about abiogenesis.

I can say, a lunar eclipse cause a tidal wave of gases to break free and ooze into the primordial goo and viola, life emerged! So you get the RNA world and all kinds of nonsense.

Not if, but I believe when microbial life is found on other planets, it will destroy for good the notion of abiogenesis. Sadly, the atheist and materialist will still push these things because they use it to support their beliefs.

What this shows is life has a will to survive and it's not about the environment of any single planet. The environment of a planet creates nothing. The planet is seeded with life that has a will to survive so it tries to adapt to it's environment whether that environment is earth, venus or europa.

So scientist will have to explain where this purpose and will to survive comes from before it reaches a planets environment. In other words:

GAME OVER!

They will have to explain how life has a will to survive and this will manipulates information in DNA to survive in different environments. That sounds exactly like us. We manipulate information to build civilizations in order to survive!

This is exactly what we should see though because our Creator, God imparted His Will on us and all life.

Another good OP!

I do think there's an inherent, fundamental intelligent will in the universe.

Starred & Flagged

I just saw this episode, thought it was funny there is a thread about Venus the day after.

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: neoholographic

This is how science works, these aren't "pseudoskeptics" who want to shut down debate, they are bringing the debate to the people who have brought forth a new pile of evidence and based on a claim they found. So now they need to defend their thesis. It's pretty simple. Other people WANT them to debate, that's how science works, just because something is 'new' doesn't mean it's automatically correct.

Also, abiogenesis is a hypothesis with a large amount of evidence to support it, that, the idea of how life began ON EARTH, not somewhere else. Scientists have known or made hypothesis about life teeming all over our galaxy for decades, Carl Sagan went into great length about it in a lot of his works.

I, also still don't see how this debunks abiogenesis, if you can somehow tear apart the concepts behind RNA self replication, "god made everything" I'd at least watch the bandwagons go by, until then abiogenesis is the best answer we have to how life started on this planet we live on.

Came here for this comment ☝🏼️👍🏼

originally posted by: Romeopsi

originally posted by: neoholographic
There's been a heated debate on this topic because scientist detected Phosphine on Venus and wrote this could be a sign of life. Of course this was met with skepticism from some as it should be. That's fine but the pseudoskeptic has gone ballistic and there's a reason why.

A discovery of microbial life on Venus, Mars, Titan, Europa or any other planet destroys abiogenesis and a natural interpretation of evolution. Since this story came out, there's been hit piece after hit piece declaring this story is false. This just shows how panicked they are about a discovery like this. Here's a recent article:

Are We About to Find Life on Venus?

Phosphine is a colorless, flammable, toxic gas that smells like rotting fish. Humans manufacture it to use in pest control and the production of computer chips. But it’s also a waste product from a certain kind of “abiotic” microbe that lives in oxygen-free environments. Its presence is a potential sign that there’s something alive.

The gas with the chemical formula PH3 has been at the center of a passionate debate among scientists concerned with, well, life: what it is, what it needs to survive, and where it could be located elsewhere in the universe.

Now a new group of scientists—including some members of the team that first posited phosphine on Venus—is stepping back, taking a deep breath and trying to make sense of what they describe as an important and ongoing argument. A preprint of their paper✎ EditSign appeared online last week. “One year after the original announcement, the tentative discovery of PH3 in the clouds of Venus continues to bring much interest and controversy,” they wrote.

“People might think that the Venus phosphine story is over, that the discovery is debunked or that it is wrong, that the signal is not there,” Janusz Petkowski, an expert in so-called “biosignature gases” at MIT and a co-author of both the original phosphine paper and the latest one, told The Daily Beast. “That is not the case,” Petkowski added. “The Venusian phosphine story is very much alive and a topic of an intense scientific debate.”

www.thedailybeast.com...

Again, anytime you see the pseudoskeptics try to claim the story is over, they're just trying to shut down debate. There's a reason for this though, it's because a story like this destroys abiogenesis and a natural interpretation of evolution.

Personally, I think they will find microbial life in many places. The Bible tells us this is the case. I will get to that in a minute but first I want to explain why this discovery destroys abiogenesis and a natural interpretation of evolution.

The Bible tells us in Genesis 1 verse 1 that God Created. This means God's Will was imparted to the universe and life when He Created it. So life has a purpose and direction as opposed to the fantasies of abiogenesis and a natural interpretation of evolution which tells us life has no design, purpose or direction. It's just blind, random mutations triggered by environmental pressures.

This has been dismantled in this forum and others. The evidence shows design, purpose and direction. In the 7th grade and still today it's taught that species adapt to their environment to survive. Many scientist are panicked about this because they realize this points to intelligent design but this is what the evidence shows. You can check out my thread and others to see more on this topic:

How did matter become aware of itself?
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Adaptations are clear evidence of intelligent design
www.abovetopsecret.com...

A discovery like this will show that life has nothing to do with the environment of a single planet. Life is seeded on a planet and it has purpose and direction to survive on the planets environment because God's Will is imparted on all life.

We see this in extremophiles:

There are different classes of extremophiles based on the type of extreme environment in which they thrive. Examples include:

Acidophile: an organism that thrives in acidic environments with pH levels of 3 and below.
Alkaliphile: an organism that thrives in alkaline environments with pH levels of 9 and above.
Barophile: an organism that lives in high-pressure environments, such as deep-sea habitats.
Halophile: an organism that lives in habitats with extremely high salt concentrations.
Hyperthermophile: an organism that thrives in environments with extremely high temperatures; between 80–122 °C or 176-252 °F.
Psychrophile: an organism that survives in extreme cold conditions and low temperatures; between −20 °C to +10 °C or −4 °F to 50 °C.
Radiophile: an organism that thrives in conditions with high levels of radiation, including ultraviolet and nuclear radiation.
Xerophile: an organism that lives in extreme dry conditions.

www.thoughtco.com...

You will often here this phrase,"Life as we know it." So life can't be on Venus because it's too hot and "Life as we know it" couldn't survive.

This statement goes against the evidence of extremophiles which shows life can evolve and adapt to environments that's foreign to human life and most multicellular life.

It also assumes that life can evolve only in an environment like ours. This goes to the abiogenesis argument that says you need the right conditions for non-life to magically become life out of some primordial goo. This is an obvious fantasy. You can come up with any wild theory about abiogenesis.

I can say, a lunar eclipse cause a tidal wave of gases to break free and ooze into the primordial goo and viola, life emerged! So you get the RNA world and all kinds of nonsense.

Not if, but I believe when microbial life is found on other planets, it will destroy for good the notion of abiogenesis. Sadly, the atheist and materialist will still push these things because they use it to support their beliefs.

What this shows is life has a will to survive and it's not about the environment of any single planet. The environment of a planet creates nothing. The planet is seeded with life that has a will to survive so it tries to adapt to it's environment whether that environment is earth, venus or europa.

So scientist will have to explain where this purpose and will to survive comes from before it reaches a planets environment. In other words:

GAME OVER!

They will have to explain how life has a will to survive and this will manipulates information in DNA to survive in different environments. That sounds exactly like us. We manipulate information to build civilizations in order to survive!

This is exactly what we should see though because our Creator, God imparted His Will on us and all life.

Another good OP!

I do think there's an inherent, fundamental intelligent will in the universe.

Starred & Flagged

Thanks and good points!