Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Radical Study Suggests Life on Earth Arose Twice

sciencealert.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 116 posts

Re: Radical Study Suggests Life on Earth Arose Twice

#41

Post by jvanderbot »

binaryturtle wrote: post #36
mycall wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You would think there would be some isolated places where proto-life still exists for this to be true.

I always found it odd that there's only one single origin of life point or even just a single common ancestor considered in history. Shouldn't entirely new life develop all the time on earth? I mean the ingredients and building blocks are still there, the environmental situation still should work out, like availability of water, temperatures, etc. We should see a constant emergence of new life all the time. Why would…

Life is vastly faster than random chance at producing more life. So living things go fill niches faster than random chance can use those niches to produce new life.

Re: Radical Study Suggests Life on Earth Arose Twice

#42

Post by pfdietz »

binaryturtle wrote: post #36
mycall wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You would think there would be some isolated places where proto-life still exists for this to be true.

I always found it odd that there's only one single origin of life point or even just a single common ancestor considered in history. Shouldn't entirely new life develop all the time on earth? I mean the ingredients and building blocks are still there, the environmental situation still should work out, like availability of water, temperatures, etc. We should see a constant emergence of new life all the time. Why would…

> Shouldn't entirely new life develop all the time on earth?

It's possible OoL requires some exponentially unlikely step. We wouldn't realize that because of observer selection: had the step not occurred, we wouldn't be here to be thinking about it. There's a huge complexity gap between the stuff produced in OoL experiments and the simplest known life.

It's also possible OoL requires conditions that no longer exist on Earth, or that only existed in the early Earth (or wherever life got started in the Solar System). For example, if it depended on the existence of short lived radioactive isotopes or free ammonia.

Re: Radical Study Suggests Life on Earth Arose Twice

#46

Post by xkcd1963 »

rationalist wrote: post #17
lanstin wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s a big universe and there are a lot of years, so chemical evolution seems like a decent tool for God to use. Much like General Relativity is a more efficient way to rule the world than assigning angels to push the planets thru the sky. And a passing familiarity with birth defects will prove to most hard hearted people that each specific fact of biology is not designed by a loving creator. Unless you believe this…

I'm not a biblical scholar, but I think the "loving creator" thing was invented by people and not necessarily in the Bible. I'm pretty sure Old Testament God is pretty vengeful. Theistic Evolution is wide-enough belief, especially with Protestants.

This is edging into religious debate, which the guidelines ask people to keep off HN

Re: Radical Study Suggests Life on Earth Arose Twice

#47

Post by pfdietz »

Qem wrote: post #27
peter_stokes wrote: post #14

unfortunately the field of abiogenesis, just like extraterrestrial life, is a lost cause. The reality we will never be able to replicate creation of life nor find life on other planets (except via contamination). it's why we've never gotten any closer. and i'm not even religious

Likely we don't need to replicate. We just need to get a sample of life with completely independent origin to our kind of life here on Earth, to study. This way we would be able to separate what are universal properties for any life from historical contingencies specific to us. To have samples of a single kind of life complicates things.

Were that to happen it could be the worst news humanity ever receives, since it would greatly increase the chance the "Great Filter" is in front of us, not behind us.

Re: Radical Study Suggests Life on Earth Arose Twice

#48

Post by pfdietz »

ck2 wrote: post #23

what's really going to blow your mind is our solar system looked completely different several times with different proto-planets and Earth/Moon is likely made from remnants of those other planets * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formation_and_evolution_of_the...

The Youtube channel Kyplanet recently had an episode on recent arguments that the Earth/Moon system was formed from at least three giant impact events, not just a single one between proto-Earth and Thea that formed the current Earth and the Moon.

Re: Radical Study Suggests Life on Earth Arose Twice

#49

Post by pfdietz »

qsera wrote: post #24
usrnm wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Until we get any tangible proof of life outside Earth, there is no difference

Actually I don't think there is life outside of Earth. I think we are truly alone in this universe.

I agree. The Fermi Argument, and the apparent rarity of K3 civilizations in other galaxies, is to me powerful evidence of the scarcity of life. At the least, this suggests SETI should focus on distant galaxies where the Fermi argument doesn't bite as much.

Re: Radical Study Suggests Life on Earth Arose Twice

#50

Post by pfdietz »

ck2 wrote: post #29
usrnm wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Until we get any tangible proof of life outside Earth, there is no difference

There is likely simple basic life as advanced as bacteria around the universe But high level life was likely a series of complex accidents that is not reproducible or would be radically different than us One of my absolute favorite PBS Space Time on the subject * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=abvzkSJEhKk

> There is likely simple basic life as advanced as bacteria around the universe

What is the basis for this assertion?

Post reply on HN