Biology Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for biology researchers, academics, and students. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

As far as I know there was no report of "life" pop up in a lab or in the nature so far.

Everything what we know is only some copy with less-or-more similarity to previous life-form.

We certainly can mix some amino acids and stuff and even some of the chemicals can retain some structure for a certain time and even form some proto-RNA-like structure (not sure how they called it in one document I have seen) etc., but it's very very far from a living organism.

Does it mean that life cannot be "sparked" in today's Earth like conditions or it even wasn't sparked here? I have read, as many others have done, this article New research supports an idea that the Red Planet was a better place to kick-start biology billions of years ago than the early Earth was. and they argument that you need molybden-something etc. to create life-like structures and that it's not common in the right form on Earth.

What you as a biologist think about the statement that life cannot evolved on Earth because the conditions in the beginng of the Earth were not good for life development.

share|improve this question

First, you'll need to give a good definition of life, because biologists actually don't have one xD.

Second, the life as we know merged only after a huge period of time (hundreds of millions of years), wich we obviously cannot reproduce in a lab.

Third, even if some kind of protolife would appear at some point, it would still have to fae the competition with its veteran partners. Hypothetical protocells would be eaten by some microbe with no doubt.

The idea of panspermia (the hypothesis that the life may have appeard in outter space or in another planets, and then "contaminate" the Earth) has been in the scene for quite long in many forms. Regularily we heard of some study that propose that life, or at least some key biomolecule may have formed in asteroids, comets, in Mars or somewhere else. They're quite interesting, mainly because they sugest more than one way the life may haver appear.

While molybden is rare in the Earth, it still exist, so the study doesn't deny the posibility that life may have formed in the Earth. Nowadays, molybden is used by many organisms as part of the core of some key enzymes, such as the nitrogenase (the enzyme complex that catalyzes the conversion of molecular nitrogen into nitrate). Molybden have very interesting catalytic qualities, and may have been a key factor for the origin of life.

However, what those studies say is that Mars has higher concentration os phosphorus, wich is one of the main components of life, and that was pretty rare in the early Earth. The hypothesis is interesting, but without experimental data it's only an interesting hypothesis. The authors suggest that nowadays those phenomena may happen in Mars, so the hypothesis may be confirmed in a few years as the exploration of the Red Planet continues.

share|improve this answer

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.