That would mean there is a reason or purpose to the universe or even if there is a reason or purpose that it has something to do with life at all. Since most of space is hostile to life it certainly looks like it is not the reason or purpose.
It doesn’t, but it makes it extremely likely no matter how rare abiogenesis is.
Ants can survive for months contained inside a jar as long as they are fed.
If life on Earth was the only life in the Universe then why create a jar that is infinite in dimensions?
There has to be reason why the Universe exists.
A reason of the Universe simply existing without a single molecule of life in the Universe or the potential for life to exist is the most unreasonable and illogical thought anyone can have.
Ask yourself the simple question.
Why would a Universe simply exist without any life or potential for life to exist?
The only reason that a Universe exists is to support life. There is no other logical reason.
The one area that I would be concerned about is that a large asteroid that has organic molecules present could break free of Saturn’s gravity and find its way to the Earth.
What happens if that asteroid doesn’t break up during re-entry or what if it does break up? Will the Earth be introduced to a new organic molecular DNA strand that would begin its own evolutionary development on Earth?
What will those organic molecules frozen in their asteroid stasis become once they enter the womb of Earth’s environment?
Perhaps that is the reason why the common cold cannot be cured. The common cold might be dust from the rings of Saturn that has come from Enceladus that has made it too Earth somehow. Trillions of combinations for a spark of organic molecular evolution could exist in asteroids that orbit around Saturn in its rings. Organic molecules that make it too Earth each year and cause the common cold possibly.
We have to know more about the asteroids and the grains of ice from Enceladus that find their way into the belts around Saturn.
The more we know about the process that takes place between Enceladus and Saturn that are triggered by sun-light reactions the closer we might come to finding a cure for the common cold or even cancer.
There are millions of other reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with life even if the universe somehow has a reason, which I highly doubt.
It is known what the common cold is, it is a viral infection. Life on earth has over 3.5 billion years of developing a rather sophisticated defence to whatever molecules or biological stuff you throw at it and only viruses which adapted specifically to work around those defences are still a threat. There is no way such a thing could come from outer space.
There doesn’t have to be a reason for the universe to exist. it simply does.
“Nature is neither malevolent, nor benign. Merely…indifferent.” -Carl Sagan
The universe doesn’t care that we exist, the universe doesn’t care that we are here, because it is not sentient. it is not self aware. It exists and goes on existing if we are there to witness it or not.
The universe simply is. It doesn’t need a purpose, nor a reason.
You need that, and you assign that to things.
I don’t believe in anything. I’m just here for the violence.
Having said that, if there is other intelligent life out there, I’m sure if they ever encountered us they would pass right on by. If they were intelligent they would anyway.
They would see a few billion people shooting each other in the face on a random Tuesday over a box of chicken wings and say nope, don’t need that kind of drama in my life. Let’s keep moving…
This thread is pretty funny. I don’t think I’ve ever heard anyone announce that the essential elements of an advanced lifeform are…gold and copper!
Also, silver is a better thermal and electrical conductor than either, and corrosion wouldn’t be relevant in outer space particularly, especially if coated, and silver will always be more common than gold. What about superconductors, nanotube composites and other candidates. Gold, heh.
Some other shocking science going on too 
My mom used to ask me if my head was full of rocks. I finally realized what she meant.
Why would a Universe need to exist without life present? What logical purpose does a Universe serve if there is no life at all in that Universe.
It is not possible for a Universe to exist other than to support and nurture life across large regions of the Universe. Our solar system is much like a small volcano island just beginning to jut out of the ocean of space time. There are much larger regions of space where life exist and flourish in dramatically large amounts. Each generation of human life raising the island of humanity that much more out of the ocean of the Universe.
At some point life decided to leap to the next energy level much like the electron jumps to a higher orbital to change to a different state of energy output.
The question is was it life that created the Big Bang to further its own need to exist? Only life has a need. Inanimate minerals, electrons, protons, neutrons, quarks, etc. do not have a need to exist. They are merely energetic reactions. Life on the other hand would have the need to create the Big Bang in order to use those energetic reactions and particles to create a better existence for itself.
But what type of existence? The reason that a Universe would exist and why we exist is so that the Universe can see itself through our eyes. Without life in the Universe, the Universe would never be able to feel a sense of it self. The Universe would never see itself.
Without life such as human life existing the Universe would be blind and never see itself let alone hear the raging water falls of the Universe.
We exist as the eyes of the Universe. Without life to view the Universe there is no purpose for the Universe to exist, at all.
Life is a marvel itself viewing the marvels of the Universe. It’s basically the same aspect that Narcissus enjoyed but failed to understand and died because he stared at himself all day long. The lesson Narcissus failed to understand is that you can’t stare at yourself all day long…you have to go out into the Universe and colonize it, seed it with life. Regardless of how difficult it might be too seed the Universe with human and Earth based life, the actual point at which Infinity needed create life was much more difficult.
Universe existed before life, and it will exist after all life will be gone. You cant order universe what it can do or do not. It is indifferent to your needs also. Your needs come from the fact that you are a process that needs energy to stay coherent, it came from replication of a schematic and in schematic is a process of replication, that is why it exists.
Life is not needed at all. Its only your own need. Its only what you want. In this particular environment you can survive some processes, elsewhere you would be dead instantly. Is elsewhere universe a killer monster? No, it is indifferent to you. Like a rock on which that ant tries to climb.
It’s an irrelevant question. You’re trying to attribute meaning to something that doesn’t need to have any at all. The universe exists because it exists.
You’ve written some very long posts here so I’m going to go ahead an offer my own expertise on this subject. Most people overlook the single most limiting factor there is: time.
The universe existed for 9.5 billion years before the earth did. Even when the earth formed, it took a few billion years for things to calm down enough on it for life to form at all, and even then, it was incredibly simple. A few hundred million years later, after multiple extinctions that could have spelled the end of all life on earth forever, we have beings capable of observing the very universe that we are a product of.
Add to those time scales the fact that the sun itself is PROBABLY only a third generation (possibly even a second) star, and our galaxy is first-generation and swollen with other, smaller, swallowed galaxies over the eons, and it’s incredibly likely that life on our planet, in any form, was amongst some of the very first to form in the universe, if not THE first. That leaves life elsewhere with very limited possibilities.
If there is intelligent life out there in the universe, the odds are, they are not much more advanced than us, if they are as advanced as us at all. This is the solution to the Fermi Paradox and many other questions about “where is life in the universe, and why haven’t we seen any yet”. Because if it’s there, it’s just not that complex, or much more advanced than us, and likely very far away. There are many things to consider regarding the formation of life on a planet, not just its distance from its sun, but also how much cosmic missile fire its been subject too, whether or not it has a magnetic field and plate tectonics, the age of the sun and the planet and how long they took to form, and even its sun’s position in the galaxy relative to other radiation-producing bodies. If there’s life in the middle of our galaxy, it’s likely no more complex than radiation-resistant cockroaches, for example, because the stars are so close together you might as well be living inside the nuclear furnace of an aircraft carrier. And even then, that’s an understatement of the kind of radiation in those galactic neighbourhoods.
And then, of course, there’s the spans of time in which evolution needs to run its course to form a complex organism. Even something as simple to us as a bacteria is actually a very complex multi-cellular organism that can take hundreds of millions of years to evolve from its organic compound roots.
The universe is not that old, relatively speaking, but the general consensus amongst astrobiologists is that life is inevitable under the right circumstances, because organic compounds are literally everywhere. Every planet and moon in our solar system that we’ve pointed a sensor at has them. That’s the cool part. Life is probably out there. Like, the probability is high. Whether it’s anything like us, or more advanced than us… that’s a whole other probability on its own.
A good post. What the first replicating structures on Earth were is absolutely one of the most interesting questions out there. Evolution by natural selection can take over from there really, but what were the first replicators? Really wish I knew. One thing:
They are incredibly complex, but still unicellular.
This complexity is made out of complex structures, and these are made out of simpler structures. Single steps can be repeated over and over in confined space of a membrane, speeding up process of match-up. Steps leading to first life are composed of very simple structures that came together thru the first membranes, like plasmids. “Bricks” that life is made of are simple and reactive with each other, can form many universal structures that then react with each other. Its basically because of carbon.
Having taught science for over twenty years, I get your drift. However, a complex genetic code such as on a chromosome or plasmid or simpler structures like mRNA needs to have been assembled from the nuceic acids you drew, together with a saccharide and phosphate, by complex enzymes to read the DNA, cut it, join it again etc.
These proteins are in turn coded for by complex genetic structures such as DNA, mRNA or, sure, plasmids.
But then these form a chicken and egg scenario* where we don’t see what came first, proteins or genetic code. (*the egg in this simple example)
My guess would be a molecule, pretty complex but not DNA and protein complexity. Maybe simpler genetic material candidates and polypeptides, quite different. This molecule has both components (blueprint and construction apparatus) and could hence replicate. New improved replicators then get going via evolution.
First cells came to being just after earth was covered with water from asteroids, and these asteroids were full of some kinds of organic molecules already.
For first, these are fast reactions, and can be made in giant numbers. Its like chickens and eggs were already available from beginning, just very simple ones. I dont think it would be a miracle for polymerases to occur, just mathematics. The best in that is that a process once established will go on, making copies of itself even if it could come to being only once during the available environmental window. Available structures in polymerases have changed too, the best proof that it is a process that is not strictly with one possible outcome. Process had multiple stages, evolution essentially.
Of course, it can be seen as something very common in the universe, but from a cell to a human level of complexity is a long, long process. Something like a comedy of happy mistakes I would say.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21128251-300-first-life-the-search-for-the-first-replicator/
Well… yes and no. While not technically multi cellular, they aren’t technically single-celled either. One bacterium is a prokaryotic cell, but we never see just one bacterium, they work together in groups. Kinda like a communist gathering.
They are technically single-celled. Don’t be silly. Find me a definition of bacteria that states otherwise.
Before bacteria there were many membranes and many simpler structures, also reacting with each other. Life cant be explained just by dissection of a single cell. We have to dissect environment that gave birth to it, and its trial and error, because that primordial chemistry was all reduced to what we have now. Previous structures were all eaten up by reactive environment. Its like legos that were previously some builds, and then some wheels, some cogs go to different builds and it forms this behemoth that can do so much more.
Some years ago there was a report that some primitive rocks have affinity both for fat acids and nucleic acids; there was speculation that maybe the first complex beings started as an emulsion on those rocks, where nucleic acids and fat acids could mix together so nculeic acids surrounded by fat acids could grow in complexity and eventually obtain the ability to cocoon themselves in fat acids and eventually manufacture them. This would explain the origin of cellular membranes, which improved vastly the survibability of self-replicating acids.
First the rocks… then the ocean… onward and upward!
(Personally, I think that life started a billion times before succeeding)
In that link I provided previously its about the clay working like enzymes.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21128251-300-first-life-the-search-for-the-first-replicator/
Pretty good article.
No mate, communicating, working together and forming structures like biofilms doesn’t make them multi-cellular. If an organism can fulfil all processes of life and survive and reproduce as a single cell, then it’s unicellular. That’s it, and that’s bacteria in a nutshell.
Your best shot would have been some species of filamentous cyanobacteria, and that would be a stretch (and only a handful of bacteria would qualify). These form structures with differentiated cells dependent on neighbouring cells. That would count as multicellular maybe, but they can still survive as single cells and can reverse their differentiation, so it’s a no from me I’m afraid. And pretty much everyone else.
Now go and look up ‘bacteria’ in some reference books. You’ll find unicellular or single-celled in all of them.
