Thanks, but I was familiar with that conclusion already and that's not quite what I'm asking for.
What I'm asking is some ballpark idea of the relative plausibility of (1) microbes, compared to (2) having discovered some new physical/chemical processes.
Is it a case where we feel like we've got our understanding of (2) locked down, and so "it would have to be a chemical process we've never seen" is a way of saying it's highly likely to be life? Or is it very plausible that we do have much more to learn about chemical processes, and it's just a face value statement? Are we talking 99% life, 1% likelihood of new process? 50/50? Something else?
What I'm asking is some ballpark idea of the relative plausibility of (1) microbes, compared to (2) having discovered some new physical/chemical processes.
Is it a case where we feel like we've got our understanding of (2) locked down, and so "it would have to be a chemical process we've never seen" is a way of saying it's highly likely to be life? Or is it very plausible that we do have much more to learn about chemical processes, and it's just a face value statement? Are we talking 99% life, 1% likelihood of new process? 50/50? Something else?