Building Blocks of Life: Paradox of Drake Equation Fl Term

  • Thread starter madman143
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Term
In summary, the conversation discusses the idea that the rapid appearance of life on Earth suggests that life is common in the universe, but the fact that all life has the same building blocks (DNA) implies that life may be hard to form. It is also suggested that there may be other paths to photosynthesis and non-carbon based life forms, but the evidence for this is controversial. The conversation ultimately raises the question of how common abiogenesis is and whether or not we will find evidence of life on other planets with different building blocks.
  • #1
madman143
11
0
The evidence commonly presented for the formation of life (Fl term of Drake equation)
1.Life formed virtually as soon as possible on Earth (when conditions were suitable)
It implies that life is easy to form when we have the right conditions [Does the Rapid Appearance of Life on Earth
Suggest that Life is Common in the Universe?, Lineweaver and Davis, 2003]


2.But doesn't all life have same building blocks (i.e.DNA) implying that all life has common anscestor.
This implies that life is hard to form otherwise we would see atleast a bit of variety in the building blocks. the reason for which maybe-
Life formed with other building blocks has vanished in the course of the planet. Not yet proven by any fossil records
Or Life is very hard to form and can only be formed by the method for the formation of life on earth(i.e.abiogensis on earth) having DNA.

Isn't this a paradox when we think of the Fl term of the Drake equation. My question might be stupid and an underthought argument(experience i guess). By the way this is for my postgrad research project on SETI...
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
  • #2
I would assume life would take the path of least resistance, so life similar to life on Earth should be the most common manifestation in the universe.
 
  • #3
madman143 said:
But doesn't all life have same building blocks (i.e.DNA) implying that all life has common anscestor.
This implies that life is hard to form otherwise we would see atleast a bit of variety in the building blocks.

Good point. However, there is actually some (controversial!) evidence that there were other mutually independent paths of life (http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/feb/15/microbes-earth-tree-of-life) and a lot of interest in this idea.

At the heart of it, you're wondering how common abiogenesis is. All we know is that the probability is not zero.
 
  • #4
madman143 said:
The evidence commonly presented for the formation of life (Fl term of Drake equation)
1.Life formed virtually as soon as possible on Earth (when conditions were suitable)
It implies that life is easy to form when we have the right conditions [Does the Rapid Appearance of Life on Earth
Suggest that Life is Common in the Universe?, Lineweaver and Davis, 2003]


2.But doesn't all life have same building blocks (i.e.DNA) implying that all life has common anscestor.
This implies that life is hard to form otherwise we would see atleast a bit of variety in the building blocks. the reason for which maybe-
Life formed with other building blocks has vanished in the course of the planet. Not yet proven by any fossil records
Or Life is very hard to form and can only be formed by the method for the formation of life on earth(i.e.abiogensis on earth) having DNA.

Isn't this a paradox when we think of the Fl term of the Drake equation. My question might be stupid and an underthought argument(experience i guess). By the way this is for my postgrad research project on SETI...

Life could be easy to form by DNA, but hard by any other method. Therefore it can form quickly by 1, but maintain invariability by 2.
 
  • #5
At the heart of it, you're wondering how common abiogenesis is. All we know is that the probability is not zero.
there is a theory on multiple genesis. however there is no evidence to the contrary. i have followed up the article and it does not lead to a verifiable source. So absence of evidence is evidence of absence as it is very probable that we do have evidence. the best way to rectify this is to find life on another planet with DNA, solving everything.
As, it also suggests that life can only survive with DNA as building blocks.
 
  • #6
Carbon is so promiscuous, it is difficult to rate the prospects of other elemental bases. I give non-carbon based life forms a non-zero probability, but, little more. There may be other paths, however, to photosynthesis - the truly supreme accomplishment of life on earth. Arsenic might be an option, as well as some other elements aside from phosphorous. These would still be carbon based life forms, but, have very different mechanisms for harnessing light energy. This suggests an expanded temperature tolerance for photosynthesis. I view photosynthesis as absolutely essential to evolving anything resembling intelligent life.
 

1. What is the Drake Equation?

The Drake Equation is a mathematical formula created by astronomer Frank Drake in 1961 to estimate the number of active, communicative extraterrestrial civilizations in our galaxy. It takes into account factors such as the number of stars in our galaxy, the percentage of stars that have planets, and the likelihood of those planets having life.

2. What is the "Fl" term in the Drake Equation?

The "Fl" term in the Drake Equation represents the fraction of those planets that could potentially support life. This factor takes into account the distance from the planet to its star, the size and type of star, and the planet's atmosphere and composition.

3. How is the "Fl" term calculated?

The "Fl" term is calculated by looking at the habitable zone of a planet, which is the region around a star where liquid water could exist. This zone is determined by the distance from the star and the planet's size and type. Other factors such as the planet's atmospheric composition and the presence of a magnetic field are also taken into consideration.

4. Why is the "Fl" term considered a paradox?

The "Fl" term is considered a paradox because it is a crucial factor in the Drake Equation, yet it is difficult to accurately determine. Our understanding of what makes a planet capable of supporting life is limited, and the conditions for life to exist may be more complex than we currently know. Additionally, it is possible that life may exist in forms that are vastly different from what we know on Earth, making it even harder to calculate the "Fl" term.

5. How does the "Fl" term impact the overall result of the Drake Equation?

The "Fl" term has a significant impact on the overall result of the Drake Equation. If the fraction of planets that can support life is high, the estimated number of active, communicative extraterrestrial civilizations in our galaxy will also be high. However, if the "Fl" term is low, the number of potential civilizations will also be lower. Therefore, accurately determining the "Fl" term is crucial in understanding the likelihood of intelligent life in our galaxy.

Similar threads

  • Biology and Medical
Replies
26
Views
6K
  • Astronomy and Astrophysics
2
Replies
60
Views
5K
Replies
32
Views
7K
  • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
17
Views
4K
Replies
9
Views
1K
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • General Engineering
Replies
27
Views
8K
  • General Discussion
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
Replies
3
Views
3K
Replies
26
Views
19K
Back
Top