>> I don't think there are other forms of life,
>> and  I don't think there are other chemical
>> paths. I think there is only variation
>> on a single path.
>
>I take Shapiro's quote as hypothetical and would think (panspermia aside)
>that if life exists off this rock that it would be almost exclusively "other
>forms" (non-DNA, possibly non-carbon) with other chemical paths.  But we'll
>likely never know without positive SETI results or exploration.  (Perhaps
>I'm misreading you.)

TH
If life is a reaction to the sun/heat cycle, then
you can't have life without the sun/heat cycle.
And you can carry that further (same size
planet to hold in a similar atmosphere - watery
such that liquid water is there - temp zone
between 0-100C, and on and on.
>
>> I suggest that no matter its form,
>
>(but this statement implies other forms(?))

TH
wrong choice of words - perhaps I should have
said, " I suggest that no matter the variation"

>
>> any life is first a production of, and then a
>> reaction to, a heat cycle, and because
>> the basic driving force (the sun heat cycle)
>> and the initial structures of life are
>> always the same, the chemical
>> outcome is the same = life.
>
>I think you're likely right about the heat cycle, but how can you guess
>at
>the initial structure of alien life (even of Eath's life) or the raw
>materials.

TH
Because chemistry obeys laws. You can't change
the chemical rules. They lead to the same result,
at the same temp (liquid water range) and under 
the same conditions (liquid water - certain atmosphere
etc.) with slight variation

>
>> To say otherwise is to suggest you can
>> cook a cake with each time using completely
>> different ingredients cooked in
>> completely  different temperatures
>> Comment?
>
>No.  Many different ingredients make for a very wide variety of cakes (there
>will not be an infinite variety of chemicals that can produce life, but
>there's probably >1 - a wild guess.)  And even with the same chemicals,
>it
>might be possible that some sort of non-DNA-based life could result (I even
>think this would be "likely" - i.e. not necessarily likely
that life would
>result, but likely that IF life arose it would not be based on DNA.)  FWIW,
>from an amateur.  Regards, Brett Aubrey.

TH
Amateur here too (as moderator says - this place
crawls with them) - perhaps a variant of DNA 
may have played a part for sure - but the basic
life result will be the same. And I think and
predict we will find some reason why amino
acids, and nucleic acids, have a better chance
chemically reacting with each other, than apart.
And we'll find this is a key to the origin in every
case - no matter the place.

Then carry it further.
If we have a creature formed that is mobile and
lives in water  - it'll form
the same shapes to best move through the water
as our sea creatures (and probably the same 
range of shapes due to the fact that all planets
with life will have to have reasonably the same
gravity to hold in the same atmosphere),
same with air/flying creatures, same with
underground digging creatures, same with on
earth running creatures.

IMO the more we know about life, the more we will
see how locked in it is to certain conditions.
Sci-fi lets' us imagine anything as does early
unproven speculation. But as the origin becomes
deciferable, we'll find it limits what life is
and where it can be, much much much more than
most think now.
---
þ RIMEGate(tm)/RGXPost V1.14 at BBSWORLD * Info{at}bbsworld.com

---
 * RIMEGate(tm)V10.2áÿ* RelayNet(tm) NNTP Gateway * MoonDog BBS
 * RgateImp.MoonDog.BBS at 9/17/04 6:09:30 AM