Life on earth started about 3.5 billion years ago. I would assume abiogenesis happened because the conditions were right.
Would the current earth conditions allow for new abiogenesis and completely independent (in terms of phylogeny, not ecology)?
$\begingroup$
$\endgroup$
9
-
1$\begingroup$ What do you mean by "new life"? Yes, single cell organisms reproduce to form new organisms. And yes, evolution still operates to create new traits, and ultimately a new kind of organism. $\endgroup$– stochastic13May 20, 2017 at 15:36
-
1$\begingroup$ "However, the conditions are still right, if not much better, for new unicellular life to form and thrive"... this is completely incorrect. "Is new life still being created?"... this is a question based on a wrong premise. $\endgroup$– user24284May 20, 2017 at 15:38
-
6$\begingroup$ Highly related (eventually even duplicates): Why did abiogenesis only happen once? and How did the first self replicating organism come into existence?. You should also look at wikipedia > abiogenesis. $\endgroup$– Remi.bMay 20, 2017 at 20:19
-
4$\begingroup$ Theories of abiogenesis invoke a process that starts with inorganic molecules, proceeds through simple organic molecules and macromolecules, and culminates in replicators and cells. Even if there are places on the planet today that favour this process, the emerging organic molecules and macromolecules would have to escape 'predation' by existing organisms. I think this makes contemporary abiogenesis even less likely. $\endgroup$– Alan BoydMay 21, 2017 at 8:55
-
1$\begingroup$ I agree with @AlanBoyd. So much of Earths materials interact with already existent organic life that the generation of "new life" would be extremely unlikely/improbable to the point of complete impossibility. Perhaps we could observe abiogenesis in a completely sterile environment over large expanses of time, but that seems practically impossible as well. $\endgroup$– Malhar KhushuMay 31, 2017 at 15:22
|
Show 4 more comments
2 Answers
$\begingroup$
$\endgroup$
2
I will argue that yes, it is POSSIBLE. It is possible on earth like on other planets. Given enough time, matter, and energy, "something" that resembles life will emerge. The problem I see, however, is that life has already conquered our planet, so any "new living thing" will have to compete with other long-time adapted living organisms, in practice, no chance of survival. The right conditions you refer to are the ones that allowed "life as we know it" to emerge. Given other conditions (other chemicals, other energy forms, etc), something completely different will emerge.
Of course, without final proves, this is still speculation.
Some speculative links:
http://speculativeevolution.wikia.com/wiki/Alternative_biochemistry
http://www.nature.com/news/2009/090513/full/news.2009.471.html
-
$\begingroup$ Why is this down-voted? I think the answer summarises fairly well what has been suggested in the comments. Maybe a bit to little detail and under-referenced - but still fair enough for a speculative topic like this. +1 $\endgroup$ May 31, 2017 at 16:15
-
$\begingroup$ I'd just like to add to this response that should abiogenesis be possible at all, and I think like many that it's quite likely, then under whatever differences in conditions between the original event(s) here on earth, certainly mankind is ready to "assist" nature with state-of-the art equipment. The fact that we can manufacture diamonds at fractions of the time required by natural processes attests to how our technology practices expedite natural processes. $\endgroup$– J DJun 13 at 19:22
$\begingroup$
$\endgroup$
Unlikely
Th early earth lacked oxygen which is very harsh on organic chemistry and lacked living things gobbling up all the organic molecules. precursor molecules form all the time on earth but living things gobble them very quickly. Both of those things makes abiogenesis basically impossible on the current earth. Abiogenesis is all but impossible when you have complex evolved life competing for the same resources, fortunately the early earth lacked that.
