Has life only started once on Earth?

If Earth is such a great place to live, why to our knowledge has life only begun once on this planet?
16 September 2012



If Earth is such a great place to live, why to our knowledge has life only begun once on this planet? Obviously, the conditions on Earth are sufficient to support life. But beyond that, we repeatedly hear the assertion that these are the "ideal" conditions for life. If this were so, why don't we see new life beginning here every day? And why do we believe that there is only one tree of life?
Is it possible that life began more than once or even continues emerging, say around deep ocean vents, but perhaps it occurs on a scale too microscopic or slow for us to readily observe? Or is it possible that the conditions or events needed to "spark" life are quite different from those that simply sustain it? If so, are there any theories regarding the peculiar nature of such an environment or event?


We put this to Dr. Nick Lane, Lecturer in Genetics Evolution and Environment at the University College London. And started by asking him to define what life on Earth as we know it actually is... Nick - All life as we know it on Earth is composed of cells with an enclosing membrane, DNA as hereditary material, encoding proteins and so on. All cells share a lot of their basic biochemistry right down to the same genetic code, the same ways of making proteins, even the same ways of generating energy.

Hannah - So, given that, has life as we know it or indeed alternative forms of life arisen more than once on Earth?

Nick - We don't know for sure that life only started once on Earth. What we know is that all living organisms we've ever looked at are plainly related and so, almost certainly derived from a single common ancestor. If life arose repeatedly then all of the separate origins must've disappeared without trace. Perhaps out-competed to extinction very early on by the more successful cells. The fossil record of bacterial cells goes back about 3,500 million years, that's 3.5 billion years. And so far as we can tell, these cells were very similar to their modern equivalents.

Hannah - So, different forms of life may have started, but it seems that just our form of life survived over the last 3.5 billion years. And where could our type of life have started?

Nick - Deep ocean hydrothermal vents are the systems most likely to have given rise to life. These far from equilibrium systems do at least favour the production of organic molecules, the biomass that makes up cells, but the level of self-organisation and dynamism required to get from cell matter to living cells is so great that we're in no position to specify the probability of life arising even in the most favourable environment.

Hannah - So, if we're told that conditions on Earth are so suitable for forming life, then why aren't new types of life arising all the time on present-day Earth?

Nick - There are two big differences today which mean that life is almost certainly not continuing to arise even in these favourable settings. One is the chemistry of the oceans. Four billion years ago, there was no oxygen and much higher CO2 levels which together are much more conducive to life and then secondly, today's vent systems are already packed with living cells which are far more effective at converting raw materials such as hydrogen and CO2 into biomass than any primitive prebiotic system could be. So, however likely life might have been at the beginning, it's extremely unlikely that life could originate again on Earth today.


Could you ask the scientist if there is any other self-replicating system that we could create that is not based on (i) DNA (ii) Carbon. If life needs DNA does it mean that alien life would have to be (or would likely be) based on DNA? If so does it mean a hybrid could be created by splicing alien genes into human beings? If this is possible, could we create human beings with alien levels of super-intelligence, super-strength or some super-senses?

I think it interesting that a scientist on tv stated that single cell life on earth began after 1.5 billion years but it was another 3.5 billion years before multi-cell organisms appeared. No surprise that it took 4.5 billion years for multi cell life to evolve, the surprise to me is that given the inscrutable (in my opinion) complexity of gene function multi cell life occurred even one time. Someone explain to me a solid theory of how one cell with one set of genes replicates into cells that have specialized functions and follow a precise blueprint for building, say, a fly, then I may change my mind about the complexity of genetic function being inscrutable.

Seems to make it far less likely that the universe is teaming with life - especially intelligent life.

Life has had billion of years to evolve. One would assume that new life cant compete with this . but look to the oceans .coral reproduce new unknown species from the fertilization of sperm from one species to the next.so new life is evolving.

Without an understanding of how life originated it would seem only as one reasonable conclusion that all life originated from one common ancestor. Perhaps, when new life forms it will forms in similar ways. So, on one side of the earth a new life arose from the primordial ooze while on the other side of the earth the same process created a different life form. But, when one would examine the two they might conclude them as related because the separate forms of life share DNA (or just RNA) in their make up producing proteins in similar ways. The originating spark of life might produce similar life forms.

Add a comment