4 ms·
The “eventually build dna base pairs” (that continue self replicating) is the uncertain and possibly ludicrously improbable step. See for instance https://www.
by superposeur 3y ago
The “eventually build dna base pairs” (that continue self replicating) is the uncertain and possibly ludicrously improbable step. See for instance
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-58060-0 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-58060-0
which argues for a probability per exoplanet small enough that it hasn’t happened a second time in the observable universe. On the other hand, one of the self-organizing proposals cited elsewhere in this thread may turn out to be correct and the probability may be much higher.
The point is that, while there are some cool ideas on the table, everything hinges on the particular value of this probability (not just a qualitative story of how life might have arisen) and we don’t know what it is.
Still relevant:
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/pssst-dont-tell-the-creationists-but-scientists-dont-have-a-clue-how-life-began/ https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/pssst-dont-...
- NotSammyHagar 3y agoSorry, I didn't see your posting before. The person speaking at the astronomy on tap presentation made it seem much more likely, basically given expected conditions on pre-biotic earth, very likely in a million year timeframe. I'm a software engineer so I don't readily admit I don't know what I'm talking about. Are you in the field and can maybe elaborate on your skepticism? This fellow was pretty certain they've worked out several likely possible paths. This was last year.
- NotSammyHagar 3y agotypo "I readily admit that I don't know anything" ;-) And I have bad typing and proofreading skills!