Can life begin today as it did 4billion years ago

  • Thread starter Thread starter calis
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Life Years
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the possibility of life beginning on Earth today in a manner similar to how it is believed to have originated approximately 3.8 billion years ago. Participants explore various aspects of this topic, including the conditions necessary for life, the implications of oxygen in the atmosphere, and the potential for new life forms to emerge in the current ecological landscape.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants question why life could form in harsh conditions 3.8 billion years ago but not today, suggesting that life could potentially be forming continuously.
  • Others argue that the presence of oxygen in the atmosphere, which has been accumulating for billions of years, creates conditions that are not conducive to the spontaneous emergence of life as it once was.
  • There is a discussion about the competition for resources, with some suggesting that any new life forms would likely be consumed by existing organisms before they could establish themselves.
  • Some participants propose that life could form in ways that are not immediately consumable, such as in extreme environments or through unique biochemical pathways.
  • A few participants assert that life could potentially be synthesized in laboratory settings, emphasizing that this would not be the same as spontaneous generation but could still lead to the creation of new life forms.
  • There is a debate regarding the necessity of an oxygen-free environment for the emergence of new life, with some participants stating that it is not definitively proven that life cannot begin in an oxygen-rich atmosphere.
  • Concerns are raised about the lack of evidence for entirely new life forms existing alongside current life, with some suggesting that remnants or signs of such life should be observable if they had emerged.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views, with no clear consensus on whether new life can emerge today as it did billions of years ago. Disagreements persist regarding the role of oxygen, competition among life forms, and the potential for life to form in laboratory settings versus naturally.

Contextual Notes

Participants note that the discussion involves complex biochemical and ecological considerations, and there are unresolved questions about the specific conditions required for life to begin anew. The implications of oxygen and the historical context of life’s evolution are also highlighted as significant factors in the debate.

  • #31
CRGreathouse said:
Let's hope that propositions stays in the non-science section. It's experimentally verifiable, but that would be B-A-D.

OK, your "hypothesis". What do mean experimentally verifiable? Say you completely sterilized some marine/tide pool environment (and were able to keep it sterile somehow). You say aerobic life might start de novo in a million years. That's an instant in geologic time, but a bit long for a government grant. I don't think we've seen a proton decay yet, but that experiment is a microsecond affair compared to waiting around for new aerobic life to start.

I don't care to speculate about the fraction of organisms that adapted vs. those that died out; for one I'm not even sure how that would be measured in principle. You don't happen to have any numbers or information on that, do you?

Of course not. I just said that a mutation in just one individual might have been sufficient to get an aerobic species going. Obviously some anaerobic species survived since they're still around, producing nasty purulent infections (probably revenge against us aerobes).

But I'm not saying that at all! If I gave that impression, I'm sorry to have mislead you; if your point was some kind of analogy, I missed it entirely. (Sorry.)

(RE: Early Precambrian aerobic abiogenesis) I'm just saying that if (natural) aerobic abiogenesis were possible, it most likely would have happened then (as the anaerobes were dying off creating locally sterile environments) as opposed to now.
 
Last edited:
Biology news on Phys.org
  • #32
The building blocks of life likely evolved in space:

http://www.astrochem.org/PDF/Bernsteinetal2002.pdf
 
  • #33
Count Iblis said:
The building blocks of life likely evolved in space:

http://www.astrochem.org/PDF/Bernsteinetal2002.pdf

Yes. I think it's generally accepted that organic compounds exist in space. These would include some amino acids and, I believe, purines and pyrimidines.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
4K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
5K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K