Discussion by: btillyIf life
on earth came from a single point of origin – does this indicate life elsewhere
in the universe is highly unlikely?
known life on earth has one common ancestor, (Theobald calculates that a
universal common ancestor is at least 102,860 times more probable than having
multiple ancestors), does this suggest that there was one instance where
chemicals in the ‘primordial soup’ ‘sparked into life’, and since that
instance, there is no evidence to suggest that another event of the same nature
has occurred since to start a new lineage of descendents?
If this is
the case, wouldn’t it suggest that in the 4 billion or so years that the
conditions on earth have been right to support life, and the occurrence of life
emerging from chemicals only happened once, along with the fact that, as yet,
science has been unable to replicate the stages taken by nature to go from
primordial soup to a recognizable form of life, to single cell life, (no one
has yet synthesized a “protocell” using basic components which would
have the necessary properties of life), isn’t the genesis of life on earth a
freakishly rare occurrence?
isn’t going to be commonplace throughout the universe either, especially when
you consider that the conditions on earth have been right for well over a
quarter of the 13.75 billion year age of the universe.
Equation is to be used, where fl = fraction of those planets where life
actually evolves, surely this number would have to be incredibly small. One in
a million? 0.0001%? If the rest of the equation is left as Drake’s
recommendations, the number of communicating civilizations in the Milky Way
galaxy is likely to be 0.002 – realistically 0.
the reason scientists searching for extra-intelligent are asking – ‘Where is
everyone?” and the reason we haven’t found any evidence for life existing or
having ever existed in our neighboring planets and moons?
D. L. 2010. A formal test of the theory of universal common ancestry. Nature
465(May 13): 219-223.