I agree.We have the benefit of knowing extremeophiles exist on Earth as well as their biochemical activity.
The only way we will prove their existence on Venus is through direct detection.
Despite the process of elimination of non biochemical processes as being potential sources of phosphine on Venus, there remains the possibility of some unknown mechanism.
One can draw parallels with the mysterious element Nebulium.
Helium was discovered as a spectral line in the Sun's chromosphere before its discovery on Earth which was a success for remote observation.
Remote observations however can also lead to wrong conclusions.
The OIII spectral line in emission nebulae was wrongly attributed to an unknown element named Nebulium in the 19th century.
Nebulium turned out to be being a quantum mechanical "forbidden" transition of the doubly ionized oxygen atom O²⁺ which can only exist in the extreme vacuum of outer space due to low collision rates between atoms.
I think what we may well have here, is a classic example of how the terms 'plausible' and 'implausible', when inferred from our local and past experiences, may just not be adequate for inferring the existence of something as complex as life from remote planetary observations(?)
Logical inferences drawn from remotely sensed data, in this topic, just aren't adequate for eliminating the unknowns (and that's in spite of earthly lab experiment test data).
Upvote
0