Question.If DNA was found in another star system, would it imply panspermia, or could it be that given enough time and complex biological soup, the same thing manifests over and over again?Is it less like randomly coming up with c+, and more like randomly/iteratively coming up with a base binary language?What I mean by that is pretend there was a 1:1 version of earth far away, and it did have lifeforms: Some with wings, some that swam etc, "they could be based on some other system/biological programming language" but if it was DNA there too, is DNA itself so complex a system that it would imply panspermia?
Life is formed by extradimensional rather than extraterrestrial beings.
>>16924771You just made me check if I posted on /x by mistake
>>16924770>is DNA itself so complex a system that it would imply panspermia?no fucking clue lolersthe way I see it "pan spermia" is the lazy solution, panspermia from where, of what? imo what "makes sense" is life itself, and talking about cells and the like being some ebin chemical reaction
>>16924770Why are science geeks always talking about the same old stuff and never anything new. Its like you're incapable of thinking in new ways. Its like humanity stole or got all the ideas from somewhere else and dosent have the ability to think creatively on their own.
>>16924776I feel the same way, but unlike the idea of potential silicon vs carbon based lifeforms, which is all to do with the stability of complex molecules and how many variations you can have at all, its if DNA specifically was so complex that the chance of abiogenesis would be close to 0
>>16924778Ok, go make a post about something new and revolutionary then. Ill upvoot it for you
>>16924770>or could it be that given enough time and complex biological soup, the same thing manifests over and over again?Possible but improbable. If self replicating molecules similar to DNA/RNA were to arise independently on different planets then they would probably be different. If DNA just like what we have here were found elsewhere then it’s probably unlikely that the same thing would develop by coincidence
>>16924770DNA and RNA building blocks pop up naturally in the presence of the right chemicals. The mere existence of DNA or RNA in another star system especially life bearing earth like planet would not in anyway imply panspermia. DNA itself isn't even a guaranteed same thing in every place, the base pairs could be different to what we have here and it would still be mostly the same thing. In fact assuming Earth is a typical case for life in the universe then it directly follows that DNA based life is the most common form of life so that's what we would expect to see regardless. For it to be evidence of panspermia DNA/RNA would have to be found in interstellar matter or other such environments where it can't arise naturally like our ice rock worlds out in the edge of the system. That would actually imply panspermia as it proves that life can either spread from system to system trough rocks or that it developed in space when ambient temperature was high enough to support space born life.
>>16924783>its if DNA specifically was so complex that the chance of abiogenesis would be close to 0feeling like a brainlet'o, I don't understand
>>16924784top kekerinos #RÖÖÖKT
>>16924835u made me thunk, life is adaptation to environment, and the environment varies greatly between planets. but that raises another question, create an earth clone, and life will still have similarities and sifferences still, because random and chance still take place in adaptatiin/evolution
>>16924906>>16924972we kinda agree, ebin
I remember I theorized about panspermia in high school on my own, in an english language exam lels, didn't heard the concept from anyone elseI argued that it was merely sending the answer or issue abroad, nowadays I'm all for the chemical reaction theory, that I've also come with on my own
>>16924770There's layers to this:1) if exolife used DNA (as opposed to all the possible alternatives), it'd be weak evidence that panspermia happened, though as the other anon said, it's possible that DNA is just a very common polymer in some circumstances and the most likely to lead to enduring lifeforms since that's what happened here so it's not exactly a smoking gun. Furthermore, primitive organisms on Earth were most likely RNA based first and exclusively (some still are), so that's the actual polymer we would primarily look for, but it's possible exolife just dumped RNA later instead of keeping a DNA/RNA combo like us.2) if exolife used a DNA/RNA combo that wouldn't particularly increase the odds compared to DNA or RNA alone, since the two go naturally together and the combo seems to have been adopted. However, the actual relation/use of the two would matter, as would the chirality. But it's possible that the physical characteristics of the polymers dictate the optimal relation and function so still not a smoking gun.3) if exolife uses DNA/RNA to code for the same proteins as earth life, for example having the mRNA leader sequence and start codon seen in archeans, that's practically a smoking gun. While similar alternative sequences are possible (and alternate start codons are in use on Earth, as is leaderless RNA), the system we did mostly end up going with seems to have been an accident, you could make use of DNA/RNA in a wildly different way. It's unclear if we should expect exolife to match this even if we did have the same origin (it could have developed later on Earth or disappeared on other planets), but if it did match it's very hard to believe it could be a coincidence (again, even Earth life doesn't necessarily stick to this.)
>>16926067>you could make use of DNA/RNA in a wildly different way.How? This is actually a way better way of framing my question ngl.Is DNA/RNA as a combo so open and flexible that you can achieve the same visual/physical outcome but through completely different biochemical mechanisms?
there's literally variations of dna you can see right here on earth... it's not as standardized as your high school biology teacher would have you believe...
>>16924770>or could it be that given enough time bro!! bro stop! our Universe is like 0.005 percent old! you dont know anything qbout what happens with time as you are incredibly young.
>>16928212>Is DNA/RNA as a combo so open and flexibleHow about a thoughtght experiment? Imagine a super being, from out there. She is incredible. Looks much different. So you look at her DNA... and guess what you see down under there??? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING! Turns out, these creatures don't even have a concept as such!
>>16928212The way we use it, the RNA sequence transliterated from a DNA goes to a ribosome, which transforms it into specific proteins based on the sequence. That RNA sequence usually contains a leader sequence ("grab me here"), plus several start codons ("start translating into a protein from here") and stop codons ("stop translating into protein here") throughout the sequence. Change the sequence a bit and you get different proteins. Change the ribosome a bit and you also get a different protein, think of the ribosome as a... mold or something. The shape of the ribosome itself is encoded not in "our" genetic material (the DNA in our nucleus) but in the ribosome's own RNA, and it has specific and complexly shaped t(ranslation)RNA that decides how it translates the m(essenger)RNA you give it, but they usually have one central site with a tunnel of sorts for mRNA to pass through it. It's already very complex and it all varies quite a bit between bacteria and eukaryotes for example (in the ribosome subunits or the tRNA), but it could potentially vary even more. For example an organism could have floating enzymes without bothering with the whole ribosomal structure (many viruses use this to simply replicate their own RNA), or it could have giant ribosome equivalents with several different transcription sites that are more likely to accept one type of sequence over another, or a whole factory process going on inside, or it could have something we haven't even imagined. There's a LOT of room for variation in any case.
>>16929378>The shape of the ribosome itself is encoded not in "our" genetic material (the DNA in our nucleus) but in the ribosome's own RNAI'm misremembering by the way, there is rDNA in our genome that is used to partially form the ribosomal RNA.
>>16929381Oh, and mitochondria and chloroplasts have their own matrix to produce "their" ribosomes, and prokaryotes mainly just send the rRNA to be transcribed by existing ribosomes, that's probably what I was misremembering.
I have no doubts in my mind about the existence of life on other planets. There is likely both intelligent life that is concealing itself and microbial life on other planets.
>>16924770It's possible that our DNA is like the nervous system of C. elegans in comparison to whatever system acts similar to DNA for other forms of life in the universe.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZLZW8Deq8vE
