- #1
arabianights
- 62
- 7
all the information points to that life started on Earth by pure chance
what are the chance that life didn't happen at all on planet earth
what are the chance that life didn't happen at all on planet earth
epenguin said:But there has been life on Earth for most of its history, in fact last i heard you can't really identify a time when there wasn't, which suggests the chance is high.
neerajareen said:Sooner it later. Given enough time, the the random permutations of protein molecules will eventually form DNA. So there are going to be life forms on other planets too. It's inevitable.
since proteins large enough to self-fold and have useful activities would only have come about after RNA was available to catalyze peptide ligation or amino acid polymerization
Surely that is not what you meant to ask? I am living proof that "the chance that life didn't happen at all on planet earth" is 0!arabianights said:all the information points to that life started on Earth by pure chance
what are the chance that life didn't happen at all on planet earth
jacassidy2 said:When I attended college, all science majors were required to take metaphysics and epistemology, the branches of philosophy that examine the basics of what we know and how we know it. "arabianight's" question is interesting and valid, but not in a science forum. He/she is asking a question more basic then we ask in science. This questioner needs a philosopher, so here we go.
Life is defined as self-generated, self-sustaining action that can potentially replicate itself. So, yes, THERE IS LIFE, you asking the question is the proof. Many posters tried to answer you with ideas in molecular biology and statistics, and there are many interesting threads in those areas. For example, I marvel at the fact that while the original organic process may have been subject to random influences, and while nucleotide mutation may, in part, be random due to flaws in the mechanism itself, the overall genetic process that struggles with habitat influences to arrive at the summation we know as population biology, takes my breath away. The system is such a small part of the universe but yet so simple/complex. EVOLUTION is wonderful. That people figured it out is outstanding.
Jupiter60 said:Has life originated on Earth more than once, and if it hasn't, would that suggests that life happened by chance?
iansmith said:During the RNA world, there were no cellular organization has we know it but live wasn't just free floating either. However, the molecules of life probably form some type of organized structure called supramolecular aggregates. These were structures that could easily exchange genetic information and had some similarities to the cellular structures that we know today. So any new information that would arise from random chemical not-associated with supramolecular aggregates could potential be integrate in the system. Also the supramolecular aggregates do not leave a Darwinian-like lineage.
Those supramolecular aggregates gave rise to the three cell type we know today and each event was likely independent. Each cell type had to pass the Darwinian threshold and became more organized and were able to leave a lineage. Bacteria were the first to pass the Darwinian threshold from the supramolecular aggregates and the archea and eucaryotes then followed.
I think another question that should be ask is when should we consider that life began.
Jupiter60 said:Has life originated on Earth more than once, and if it hasn't, would that suggests that life happened by chance?
Would separate forms of life occupying completely different niches still interfere? e.g. if creatures initially developed using a form of photosynthesis, would it be possible for a separate type of life utilizing chemosynthesis to flourish?epenguin said:No, it is first-comer takes all. Newcomers don't stand chance against established life forms.
epenguin said:No, it is first-comer takes all. Newcomers don't stand chance against established life forms.
Pythagorean said:Agreed that we might not have been the first. However, I think epenguin's statement still holds water, now that our lineage(s) (the only surviving lineage(s) on Earth) have saturated the environment. Macromolecules that would become new lifeforms (from scratch) don't stand a chance; they are food to already-established populations.
wiki said:The endosymbiotic theory states that several key organelles of eukaryotes originated as symbioses between separate single-celled organisms. According to this theory, mitochondria and plastids (e.g. chloroplasts), and possibly other organelles, represent formerly free-living bacteria that were taken inside another cell as an endosymbiont. Molecular and biochemical evidence suggest that the mitochondrion developed from proteobacteria (in particular, Rickettsiales, the SAR11 clade,[1][2] or close relatives) and the chloroplast from cyanobacteria.
The probability of life not occurring at all is impossible to determine as it is a highly debated topic in the scientific community. Some scientists believe that the chances of life not occurring are extremely low, while others argue that it may be more likely than we think.
There are several theories proposed by scientists that attempt to explain the origin of life, such as the primordial soup theory, the RNA world hypothesis, and the panspermia theory. However, none of these theories have been proven definitively and the origin of life remains a mystery.
The theory of evolution does not directly determine the probability of life occurring. Instead, it explains the process of how life evolves and adapts to its environment once it has originated.
There is evidence to suggest that life may exist on other planets, but it has not been confirmed. The search for extraterrestrial life is ongoing and is a subject of great interest in the scientific community.
This question falls into the realm of philosophy and religion rather than science. From a scientific perspective, the existence of life is a result of natural processes and does not necessarily imply a greater purpose or design.