Life

[Moontanman]

oes life occure any time a planet forms? At some point the condiditions are almost bound to right for life at least for a short time. Is life simply a chemical reaction that occures Naturally on any bvody that has teh right conditions, possibley (absolutly no proof of this) life might help the colescence of planetoids into plantets. Eventually life would become extinct due to changing condiditions,Earth just happened to be lucky enough that life survived.

[Racoon]

Thats a good question.

I would think life begins to occur after the planet has already formed itself for the most part.
One might surmise that life as we know it would have a rough go of it during planet formation; with all that violent, precarious activity and what not...

Astronomers Watch as New Earth-Like Planet Forms - Newser

[freeztar]

Originally Posted by Moontanman

oes life occure any time a planet forms?

No, not to any existing knowledge.

At some point the condiditions are almost bound to right for life at least for a short time.

Can you explain what you mean by this.

Is life simply a chemical reaction that occures Naturally on any bvody that has teh right conditions

No one knows for sure, but that's probably the most likely possibility.

possibley (absolutly no proof of this) life might help the colescence of planetoids into plantets.

How would life help planets coalesce?

Eventually life would become extinct due to changing condiditions,Earth just happened to be lucky enough that life survived.

I suppose it could be possible, but I find it intuitively incorrect.

You might be interested in these wiki pages moontanman:

Astrobiology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Panspermia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[modest]

If we find microscopic fossilized life on mars (some people think we already have via ALH84001) then there will be a good case for the genesis of life anywhere liquid water is available. This is one reason I think a human voyage to mars is important. Indeed - what could be more important (biologically) than understanding the genesis of life?

-modest

[HydrogenBond]

The formation of life may be easier and more frequent than we think. The assumption that the formation of life is remote and rare, could be an artifact of the existing theory not up to the task.

Part of the reason I say life can form easier than we think, is based on an observation. If you look at evolution, life on earth has been evolving to where we have humans. But along side of this are still very simple single cell life forms. The question that came to mind, are these simple life forms out of the evolutionary loop, since it took billions years to go nowhere? Or did their precursors form, later, after the original batch of life?

[freeztar]

Originally Posted by HydrogenBond

The formation of life may be easier and more frequent than we think. The assumption that the formation of life is remote and rare, could be an artifact of the existing theory not up to the task.

Part of the reason I say life can form easier than we think, is based on an observation. If you look at evolution, life on earth has been evolving to where we have humans. But along side of this are still very simple single cell life forms. The question that came to mind, are these simple life forms out of the evolutionary loop, since it took billions years to go nowhere? Or did their precursors form, later, after the original batch of life?

Just because they're "simple" does not mean they don't evolve, or are "out of the evolutionary loop".

I recommend this article as it is very illuminating. A bunch of what makes us are these "simple" "organisms".

Annals of Science: Darwin’s Surprise: Reporting & Essays: The New Yorker

[Rade]

It depends on how we define "life". From our earth experience, life can be defined as 'self generated action mediated by nucleic acids'. Now, as far as we know, everything in the universe has potential for motion (action), but there is no evidence of nucleic acids being widespread (perhaps because we can not yet measure them at vast distances).

So, imo, to have life on other planets, motion of entities must be linked with nucleic acids because these chemicals allow for the information of motion to be replicated over time. If I was looking for life on other planets I would look for precursor atoms and molecules required to form nucleic acids. Of course it is possible that life on other planets uses some molecules other than nucleic acids to reproduce.

[HydrogenBond]

The real progress in evolution went into multicellular. These simple single cells should have had many random mutations over a billion years. Each would have selective advantage for further evolution. So why did they abort the mutations and stay stuck at step two? One only has to look at how fast disease is able to change and then compare that to no change in a billion years. Either nature can skip evolution or else it can begin anytime.

[modest]

Originally Posted by HydrogenBond

The real progress in evolution went into multicellular. These simple single cells should have had many random mutations over a billion years. Each would have selective advantage for further evolution. So why did they abort the mutations and stay stuck at step two? One only has to look at how fast disease is able to change and then compare that to no change in a billion years. Either nature can skip evolution or else it can begin anytime.

Step 2? What got stuck at what step? When did evolution stop? Are you saying there should be more types of bacteria and single celled organisms today? Or, that all bacteria should have evolved into multicellular life by now? Can you please elaborate - I would like to understand.

-modest

[HydrogenBond]

What I am saying is simple single cell life either got stuck in evolution or formed after the original formation. It may be right on schedule if one assumes a more abbreviated evolutionary schedule. Those little guys make new cells all the time. Calculate the mutations for 1 billions years. How do they avoid this impulse for major change and stay simple?

All I am doing is using Darwinism and selective advantage. What is the advantage of staying close to the beginning of evolution? If there is an advantage to not evolving very far, selective advantage can also mean very slow evolution or no evolution at all.

One possible way to explain it, is evolution is a group event. In other words, there is always a bell curve of evolution with the sideline critters of the curve offering logistical support for life forms closer to the top of the curve. The simple stuff stays stuck so it can continue to offer logistical support for the money area of the evolutionary curve.