/sci/ - Science & Math

Isn’t the best solution to the Fermi paradox simply that natural abiogenesis is incredibly rare and life on Earth didn’t even originate on Earth?

The leap from single celled organisms to multicellular animals on Earth took roughly 3 billion years to happen, while life itself appeared on Earth very damn near the point where it first became possible for life to even survive here. We already know abiogenesis should be monumentally rare since all life observed so far on Earth has a single ancestral origin, it shouldn’t have happened even once during its 3.8 or so billion year habitable existence, let alone so near the point where life could first even inhabit it. Not only is it improbable from an empirical view, but from a theoretical simulation of many times you would probably need to randomly combine amino acids before it likely resulted in the formation of a functional self-replicating genetic strand, and then also have occurred with the necessary concoction of surrounding proteins and a protective shell. It should take way way longer for life to simply spawn that it takes for life to become multicellular. The simplest organism has a DNA code containing about 485 genes, each strand of which has about 1 million base pairs. That is an extremely complex mix of compounds, and there is no evolutionary guidance for the trial and error process of life first happening, if its off by one genetic sequence which prevents self-replication, there’s no natural selection to encourage logical distinctions between “almost an organism” and “completely worthless jumble of compounds”, neither gets you any closer to forming life when the environment is just cycling through completely random assemblies of molecules until it becomes something capable of copying itself.

[Continued..]

>>9918485
(a+b)/2
add
shift

a+(b-a)/2
subtract
shift
add


why would i ever do the latter?