LIFE: DID LIFE BEGIN ON PLANET EARTH OR SOMEWHERE ELSE?
To All,
If interested --
IN THE EYES OF THE UNIVERSE, ARE LIFE-FORMS, INCLUDING HUMANS, SPECIAL? IS THE PLANET EARTH SPECIAL?
At the moment I think that Life-forms - basically, a chemical that can reproduce itself - began somewhere in the universe but not necessarily on planet Earth.
I presently believe that a single chemical molecule (perhaps a type of molecule presently detected in far-away galaxies like a glycoaldehyde, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon, some protein component, some DNA component, some prebiotic RNA component or related material) chanced on reproducing itself (in a kind of abiogeneic process, making itself "immortal" - much like, in a sense, other matter in the universe). This single chemical event evolved over time to more elaborate molecular forms - eventually seeding the entire universe (via comets and the like), including planet Earth, with Life-forms where-ever possible. There sure seems to have been a lot of time for all of this to have happened - afterall, the present universe is estimated to be nearly 14 Billion years old - that's really, really a whole lot of Time I would think.
Interestingly, all known Life-forms are composed of the same chemical (basically, a very particular form of phospho-sugar-nucleic acid - capable of astronomical variation - with only variants suitable to the environment surviving from one generation to the next).
Although it might be possible that Life-forms began uniquely on planet Earth, I think it unlikely - especially since there may be innumerable Life-friendly areas in the universe-at-large. Hey, the universe is very,very large - my understanding is that there is estimated to be more stars in the known universe than there are grains of sands on the planet Earth - that's really, really a whole lot of Stars (and StarStuff) I would think.
"Thanks for another *Excellent* article - just wondering - seems many may regard man as the very best result of evolution ever (or, at least, so far) - more advanced, more superior, more excellent, more special even - than any other life-form to have ever lived on the planet (or perhaps anywhere else in the universe in the view of some) - but doesn't this notion rest on the idea that "human cleverness" is being used as the benchmark for the determination? Is this seeming anthropocentricism a human conceit (and/or arrogance) of sorts? Not surprisingly, other life-forms would hardly measure up to the standards of "human cleverness" that humans are in fact so well able to do. Afterall, being human is very easy for humans to do but not so easy for other life-forms I would think.
"But if the benchmark for being an advanced species were "bird-like" flying or "fish-like" swimming instead, how would humans then measure up? - perhaps not as well I would think.
"Have humans biased the notion of life (and/or existence) via "human cleverness" to favor only the human lot in life so-to-speak? Perhaps there's other (maybe even better?) ways to view man's role in the overall scheme of things - maybe humans (and even other life-forms perhaps) aren't quite as special in the eyes of the universe as some may think?
UPDATE (02/16/2009): According to a recent BBC news story, scientists have determined that there may be Billions of Earth-like Planets with simple life-forms, and Thousands with intelligent life-forms (and civilizations), in our own Galaxy alone. However, none of these Earth-like Planets are likely to be within actual Human reach since they are all much too far away - according to my calculations, a space ship traveling 60,000 mph, considerably faster than presently possible, would take nearly 50,000 years to travel to the nearest star - with no known place to land!
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
drbogdan) wrote,
