Are Humans the First Technologically Advanced Species in the Universe?

[Vmedvil]

Science agrees that the universe was generated by the big bang 13.7 billion years ago, it took Earth to evolve to a self-aware species around 4.3 billion years by those metrics the human species evolved near the beginning of the universe as scientific estimates say life will be able to form for about 100 trillion years until the stars all go out and the universe enters the epoch of black holes. It would seem for around the first 650 million years that it would be impossible for life to exist as the galaxies had not even formed yet. This makes me consider that the solution to the fermi paradox to as why we don't see life in the universe, is not enough time has passed in the universe to generate life many places, which makes me wonder if the human species isn't the first self-aware and technologically advanced life in the universe. There has been only 3.02 times the length it took for life to evolve on Earth and become technological advanced and self-aware, do you think that life has actually evolved on other planets or if humans are literally the first technologically advanced species in the universe? It is clear that no Dyson spheres that have ever been detected or exist in the universe as far as we know which would be an expected technological advancement for Kardashev scale 2 civilizations, which could this mean none exist?(Astronomers looked at 260,000 stars to find alien megastructures in the Milky Way (inverse.com))

"Before 1999, astronomers had estimated that the age of the universe was between 7 and 20 billion years. But with advances in technology and the development of new techniques we now know the age of the universe is 13.7 billion years, with an uncertainty of only 200 million years."

"The farthest galaxies, a few of the very faint red specks, are seen as they appeared more than 13 billion years ago, or roughly 650 million years after the Big Bang. Soon, the James Webb Space Telescope will peer back even farther into this field to trace the formation and evolution of the very first galaxies."

"Scientists think that by 4.3 billion years ago, Earth may have developed conditions suitable to support life. The oldest known fossils, however, are only 3.7 billion years old."

"Red dwarf stars live fantastically long lives, gently sipping on hydrogen to power a slow but steady fusion reaction. But eventually, all stars, including the red dwarfs, will come to an end. In roughly 100 trillion years, the last light will go out."

 

Edited April 2 by Vmedvil

[oldpaddoboy]

3 hours ago, Vmedvil said:

Science agrees that the universe was generated by the big bang 13.7 billion years ago, it took Earth to evolve to a self-aware species around 4.3 billion years by those metrics the human species evolved near the beginning of the universe as scientific estimates say life will be able to form for about 100 trillion years until the stars all go out and the universe enters the epoch of black holes. It would seem for around the first 650 million years that it would be impossible for life to exist as the galaxies had not even formed yet. This makes me consider that the solution to the fermi paradox to as why we don't see life in the universe, is not enough time has passed in the universe to generate life many places, which makes me wonder if the human species isn't the first self-aware and technologically advanced life in the universe. There has been only 3.02 times the length it took for life to evolve on Earth and become technological advanced and self-aware, do you think that life has actually evolved on other planets or if humans are literally the first technologically advanced species in the universe? It is clear that no Dyson spheres that have ever been detected or exist in the universe as far as we know which would be an expected technological advancement for Kardashev scale 2 civilizations, which could this mean none exist?(Astronomers looked at 260,000 stars to find alien megastructures in the Milky Way (inverse.com))

"Before 1999, astronomers had estimated that the age of the universe was between 7 and 20 billion years. But with advances in technology and the development of new techniques we now know the age of the universe is 13.7 billion years, with an uncertainty of only 200 million years."

"The farthest galaxies, a few of the very faint red specks, are seen as they appeared more than 13 billion years ago, or roughly 650 million years after the Big Bang. Soon, the James Webb Space Telescope will peer back even farther into this field to trace the formation and evolution of the very first galaxies."

"Scientists think that by 4.3 billion years ago, Earth may have developed conditions suitable to support life. The oldest known fossils, however, are only 3.7 billion years old."

"Red dwarf stars live fantastically long lives, gently sipping on hydrogen to power a slow but steady fusion reaction. But eventually, all stars, including the red dwarfs, will come to an end. In roughly 100 trillion years, the last light will go out."

 

The last things to blink out in a few hundred trillion years will be black holes via Hawking Radiation most probably.  At this time, while we have no evidence of any life off this Earth, of any type or advancement, most scientists accept that in a near infinite universe, with a near infinite number of stars and planets, and the stuff of life being everywhere we look, that life should be present, somewhere, some time. 

[Halc]

Much of the post would be more understandable with better punctuation and sentence structure.

5 hours ago, Vmedvil said:

Science agrees that the universe was generated by the big bang

The big bang theory is not a theory about the generation of the universe, so no.

5 hours ago, Vmedvil said:

it took Earth to evolve to a self-aware species around 4.3 billion years

This anthropocentric statement presumes humans to be the only or at least first self-aware species on Earth.

5 hours ago, Vmedvil said:

the human species evolved near the beginning of the universe

Given no limit for the eventual age of the universe, any finite specification of a time is closer to the beginning than to the end, so that statement is tautologically true.

5 hours ago, Vmedvil said:

It would seem for around the first 650 million years that it would be impossible for life to exist as the galaxies had not even formed yet

You don't know this. It seems to presume a form of life that is dependent on the existence of a galaxy, and who knows what might be possible when lifted from the restriction of 'life as we know it'. I can't think of it either, and it would seem more probable in a second-generation star like our own, and not so much the first generation ones in the early stages of any galaxy. Still, our sun was hardly one of the earliest second generation stars to form.

5 hours ago, Vmedvil said:

This makes me consider that the solution to the fermi paradox to as why we don't see life in the universe, is not enough time has passed in the universe to generate life many places,

The Fermi paradox deals with detecting technological life nearby. The title of the thread asks if we're the first in the universe, and the odds of that are zero, but seemingly they are all so distant and/or so briefly lived that none of them are on (not just in) our local past light cone.

 

And then this devolves into dyson spheres again, the  relevance to the topic being left unstated.

 

 

1 hour ago, oldpaddoboy said:

The last things to blink out in a few hundred trillion years will be black holes via Hawking Radiation most probably

It will take considerably longer than that to blink out all the black holes. The universe of just radiation and black holes is about as incapable of supporting life as the same one with the black holes gone, but again, that's presuming 'life as we know it' in a way.

Edited April 2 by Halc

[OceanBreeze]

8 hours ago, Halc said:

Much of the post would be more understandable with better punctuation and sentence structure.

It is still interesting enough that I would like to add my own comments. I am not taking issue with anything you wrote, just contributing my own thoughts.

Quote

The big bang theory is not a theory about the generation of the universe, so no.

Yes and No. The BB Theory is about how the Universe developed from what is thought to have been, a tiny, dense, fireball that exploded 13.8 billion year ago. Few, if any astronomers or cosmologists dare to speculate on what existed before that point;  how that fireball came to be. That being the case, many astronomers and cosmologists simply accept the BB as the beginning of our Universe and the fireball, if that is what it was, as something outside of our Universe.

Quote

This anthropocentric statement presumes humans to be the only or at least first self-aware species on Earth.

That seems to be a fair presumption, doesn’t it? It seems that we are the only ones who dwell on the past, spend time analysing it, applying lessons to the future, resulting in advanced civilizations. Is there are doubt that humans are the most advanced in terms of tools, technology, and conceptual inventions? Is there any evidence to the contrary?

Quote

Given no limit for the eventual age of the universe, any finite specification of a time is closer to the beginning than to the end, so that statement is tautologically true.

Do we know with any certainty when the Universe will end?  Could it end in 5 Billion years due to a mechanism we haven’t even thought of? Just a thought.  

Quote

You don't know this. It seems to presume a form of life that is dependent on the existence of a galaxy, and who knows what might be possible when lifted from the restriction of 'life as we know it'. I can't think of it either, and it would seem more probable in a second-generation star like our own, and not so much the first generation ones in the early stages of any galaxy. Still, our sun was hardly one of the earliest second generation stars to form.

To be fair, nobody knows this. However, it does appear that an intergalactic vacuum  lacks just about everything that life needs in order to develop. We do know that sometimes stars and planets are ejected from galaxies into intergalactic space and these may have the ingredients necessary to support life. However, a galaxy was required to exist for these ejections to happen in the first place. So I tend to agree with Vic that prior to the formation of galaxies, it would have been impossible for life to come into existence. But you are right; I don’t know this for a fact.

Quote

The Fermi paradox deals with detecting technological life nearby. The title of the thread asks if we're the first in the universe, and the odds of that are zero, but seemingly they are all so distant and/or so briefly lived that none of them are on (not just in) our local past light cone.

I would never say the odds of us being first or even the only technological life in existence is Zero. Consider this fact: All life on Earth replicates using a DNA/RNA code to tell it which proteins to make, how to fold them, and with only minor variations, every single living thing in the world uses exactly the same code. That means every single one of the trillions (septillions?) of living things on the planet evolved from just one common ancestor. Whatever that ancestor was that caused life to appear, it has happened only once! One common ancestor means only one (successful) appearance of life on our planet in the billions of years that Earth has existed.

Before we talk about the odds of life appearing elsewhere in the Universe, I suggest we consider that the odds of life appearing on our own planet; a planet which seems to be perfect for life, must be incredibly thin, hanging on that one common ancestor surviving and replicating. If you think about that for a moment you may conclude it's just a possibility  that  life simply hasn't happened anywhere else. Our one common ancestor and only one appearance of life on our planet are scientific facts. The Drake equation is pure mathematical speculation.

Quote

It will take considerably longer than that to blink out all the black holes. The universe of just radiation and black holes is about as incapable of supporting life as the same one with the black holes gone, but again, that's presuming 'life as we know it' in a way.

Yes, the black holes will most likely be the last structures to evaporate.

[oldpaddoboy]

24 minutes ago, OceanBreeze said:

It is still interesting enough that I would like to add my own comments. I am not taking issue with anything you wrote, just contributing my own thoughts.

Yes and No. The BB Theory is about how the Universe developed from what is thought to have been, a tiny, dense, fireball that exploded 13.8 billion year ago. Few, if any astronomers or cosmologists dare to speculate on what existed before that point;  how that fireball came to be. That being the case, many astronomers and cosmologists simply accept the BB as the beginning of our Universe and the fireball, if that is what it was, as something outside of our Universe.

 

That seems to be a fair presumption, doesn’t it? It seems that we are the only ones who dwell on the past, spend time analysing it, applying lessons to the future, resulting in advanced civilizations. Is there are doubt that humans are the most advanced in terms of tools, technology, and conceptual inventions? Is there any evidence to the contrary?

 

Do we know with any certainty when the Universe will end?  Could it end in 5 Billion years due to a mechanism we haven’t even thought of? Just a thought.  

 

To be fair, nobody knows this. However, it does appear that an intergalactic vacuum  lacks just about everything that life needs in order to develop. We do know that sometimes stars and planets are ejected from galaxies into intergalactic space and these may have the ingredients necessary to support life. However, a galaxy was required to exist for these ejections to happen in the first place. So I tend to agree with Vic that prior to the formation of galaxies, it would have been impossible for life to come into existence. But you are right; I don’t know this for a fact.

 

I would never say the odds of us being first or even the only technological life in existence is Zero. Consider this fact: All life on Earth replicates using a DNA/RNA code to tell it which proteins to make, how to fold them, and with only minor variations, every single living thing in the world uses exactly the same code. That means every single one of the trillions (septillions?) of living things on the planet evolved from just one common ancestor. Whatever that ancestor was that caused life to appear, it has happened only once! One common ancestor means only one (successful) appearance of life on our planet in the billions of years that Earth has existed.

 

Before we talk about the odds of life appearing elsewhere in the Universe, I suggest we consider that the odds of life appearing on our own planet; a planet which seems to be perfect for life, must be incredibly thin, hanging on that one common ancestor surviving and replicating. If you think about that for a moment you may conclude it's just a possibility  that  life simply hasn't happened anywhere else. Our one common ancestor and only one appearance of life on our planet are scientific facts. The Drake equation is pure mathematical speculation.

 

Yes, the black holes will most likely be the last structures to evaporate.

 

I'm like the definition of the big bang, as the evolution of the universe/space/time, (as we know them) from a hot dense state at t+10-43 seconds. 

A question I would also add, is the possibility of proton  and neutron decay? 

[Moontanman]

14 minutes ago, OceanBreeze said:

It is still interesting enough that I would like to add my own comments. I am not taking issue with anything you wrote, just contributing my own thoughts.

Yes and No. The BB Theory is about how the Universe developed from what is thought to have been, a tiny, dense, fireball that exploded 13.8 billion year ago. Few, if any astronomers or cosmologists dare to speculate on what existed before that point;  how that fireball came to be. That being the case, many astronomers and cosmologists simply accept the BB as the beginning of our Universe and the fireball, if that is what it was, as something outside of our Universe.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ekpyrotic_universe

 

 

 

 

https://www.science.org/content/article/bouncing-branes

14 minutes ago, OceanBreeze said:

That seems to be a fair presumption, doesn’t it? It seems that we are the only ones who dwell on the past, spend time analysing it, applying lessons to the future, resulting in advanced civilizations. Is there are doubt that humans are the most advanced in terms of tools, technology, and conceptual inventions? Is there any evidence to the contrary?

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silurian_hypothesis

speculative but it illustrates that we cannot know this.

14 minutes ago, OceanBreeze said:

Do we know with any certainty when the Universe will end?  Could it end in 5 Billion years due to a mechanism we haven’t even thought of? Just a thought

 

https://medium.com/predict/our-unstable-universe-why-the-false-vacuum-could-be-our-end-82ee4a668bd4

14 minutes ago, OceanBreeze said:

To be fair, nobody knows this. However, it does appear that an intergalactic vacuum  lacks just about everything that life needs in order to develop. We do know that sometimes stars and planets are ejected from galaxies into intergalactic space and these may have the ingredients necessary to support life. However, a galaxy was required to exist for these ejections to happen in the first place. So I tend to agree with Vic that prior to the formation of galaxies, it would have been impossible for life to come into existence. But you are right; I don’t know this for a fact.

Even this is iffy, at some point for a short time conditions ripe for life existed everywhere in the universe and while matter other than hydrogen and helium was rare it did exist in quantities big enough for small asteroid or comet type objects to exist and temps were right for liquid water. I always thought this was kinda silly but no one asked me... lol 

14 minutes ago, OceanBreeze said:

I would never say the odds of us being first or even the only technological life in existence is Zero. Consider this fact: All life on Earth replicates using a DNA/RNA code to tell it which proteins to make, how to fold them, and with only minor variations, every single living thing in the world uses exactly the same code. That means every single one of the trillions (septillions?) of living things on the planet evolved from just one common ancestor. Whatever that ancestor was that caused life to appear, it has happened only once! One common ancestor means only one (successful) appearance of life on our planet in the billions of years that Earth has existed.

Only once? I'd like to see some support for this hypothesis, most modern renditions allow for life to have emerged several times in multiple places and ultimately merged things like protobionts, RNA world, and others into prokaryotes, archaea, and eukaryotes through symbiosis. Everything seems to come about via symbiotic merging of various independent chemical systems some of which we would think of as alive and others we would not. In fact some new research seems to indicate that viruses have a key role to play in both the development of life and the current evolution of life forms. 

14 minutes ago, OceanBreeze said:

Before we talk about the odds of life appearing elsewhere in the Universe, I suggest we consider that the odds of life appearing on our own planet; a planet which seems to be perfect for life, must be incredibly thin, hanging on that one common ancestor surviving and replicating. If you think about that for a moment you may conclude it's just a possibility  that  life simply hasn't happened anywhere else. Our one common ancestor and only one appearance of life on our planet are scientific facts. The Drake equation is pure mathematical speculation.

The odds of life occuring on the Earth are 1.1, it occured once here, we have no knowledge of the odds of this being anything but 1/1

Current scientific consensus points to life being a natural chemical process that occurs naturally and Thomas Gold in his book the "Deep Hot Biosphere" suggested that life occurs naturally in the planet building process and that quite possibly nearly all planets develop life as they form but this life can only persist on the surface on the Earth in our solar system currently but likely occurs underground on all moons and planets but comes to an  end as planetary conditions change as the planet forms, the huge amounts of complex organic chemicals, the building blocks of life like proteins, and nucleotides are found in vast quantities in space suggesting that life or at least the building blocks of life are everywhere. 

 

 

14 hours ago, Vmedvil said:

Science agrees that the universe was generated by the big bang 13.7 billion years ago, it took Earth to evolve to a self-aware species around 4.3 billion years by those metrics the human species evolved near the beginning of the universe as scientific estimates say life will be able to form for about 100 trillion years until the stars all go out and the universe enters the epoch of black holes. It would seem for around the first 650 million years that it would be impossible for life to exist as the galaxies had not even formed yet. This makes me consider that the solution to the fermi paradox to as why we don't see life in the universe, is not enough time has passed in the universe to generate life many places, which makes me wonder if the human species isn't the first self-aware and technologically advanced life in the universe. There has been only 3.02 times the length it took for life to evolve on Earth and become technological advanced and self-aware, do you think that life has actually evolved on other planets or if humans are literally the first technologically advanced species in the universe? It is clear that no Dyson spheres that have ever been detected or exist in the universe as far as we know which would be an expected technological advancement for Kardashev scale 2 civilizations, which could this mean none exist?(Astronomers looked at 260,000 stars to find alien megastructures in the Milky Way (inverse.com))

"Before 1999, astronomers had estimated that the age of the universe was between 7 and 20 billion years. But with advances in technology and the development of new techniques we now know the age of the universe is 13.7 billion years, with an uncertainty of only 200 million years."

"The farthest galaxies, a few of the very faint red specks, are seen as they appeared more than 13 billion years ago, or roughly 650 million years after the Big Bang. Soon, the James Webb Space Telescope will peer back even farther into this field to trace the formation and evolution of the very first galaxies."

"Scientists think that by 4.3 billion years ago, Earth may have developed conditions suitable to support life. The oldest known fossils, however, are only 3.7 billion years old."

You do realize that fossil formation is rather rare and that while we think the Earth's formation was stable by 4.3 billion years the oldest rocks we have are from around 3.8 or 3.9 billion years and by 3.7 or so billion years we already had fully formed microbes. I would like to see a source for your claim that the Earth was stable enough for life at 4.3 billion years old since we have no rocks from that time period. It appears that life formed as soon as it could on the Earth. This suggests that life forms easily.    

14 hours ago, Vmedvil said:

"Red dwarf stars live fantastically long lives, gently sipping on hydrogen to power a slow but steady fusion reaction. But eventually, all stars, including the red dwarfs, will come to an end. In roughly 100 trillion years, the last light will go out."

 

Yes I have read that hypothesis. Your entire post is confusing, I'm not sure what you are trying to assert is supported by your post please clarify it for us. 

  

[Moontanman]

49 minutes ago, oldpaddoboy said:

I'm like the definition of the big bang, as the evolution of the universe/space/time, (as we know them) from a hot dense state at t+10-43 seconds. 

A question I would also add, is the possibility of proton  and neutron decay? 

Neutrons do decay, it is observed, proton decay has not been observed. A free neutron decays with a half life of around 15 minutes if I remember correctly. 

[Vmedvil]

13 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

 

You do realize that fossil formation is rather rare and that while we think the Earth's formation was stable by 4.3 billion years the oldest rocks we have are from around 3.8 or 3.9 billion years and by 3.7 or so billion years we already had fully formed microbes. I would like to see a source for your claim that the Earth was stable enough for life at 4.3 billion years old since we have no rocks from that time period. It appears that life formed as soon as it could on the Earth. This suggests that life forms easily.    

 

  

Link = Oldest life may have thrived 4.3 billion years ago in undersea thermal vents - The San Diego Union-Tribune (sandiegouniontribune.com) and https://news.uchicago.edu/explainer/origin-life-earth-explained

[Vmedvil]

1 hour ago, oldpaddoboy said:

I'm like the definition of the big bang, as the evolution of the universe/space/time, (as we know them) from a hot dense state at t+10-43 seconds. 

A question I would also add, is the possibility of proton  and neutron decay? 

Link = Big Bang - Wikipedia

[Vmedvil]

10 hours ago, Halc said:

 

And then this devolves into dyson spheres again, the  relevance to the topic being left unstated.

 

 

 

The point of Dyson sphere part is would be that any civilization that was old enough would eventually make it to the point to build Dyson spheres if they were technologically advanced enough but we see no evidence of any "old" and "Advanced" civilizations in the galaxy with Dyson sphere technology according to the article posted.

"Dyson speculated that such structures would be the logical consequence of the escalating energy needs of a technological civilization and would be a necessity for its long-term survival. A signature of such spheres detected in astronomical searches could be an indicator of extraterrestrial life."

Link = Dyson spheres and the quest to detect alien technosignatures - Big Think

Edited April 2 by Vmedvil

[oldpaddoboy]

27 minutes ago, Vmedvil said:

Link = Big Bang - Wikipedia

The point is that the big bang does not tell us how the universe started, or came into being, just how it evolved from t+10-43 seconds, or thereabouts. We speculate that it started due to our fluctuation in the quantum foam...or as I like to say, spacetime, (spacetime) as we don't know them.  

[Vmedvil]

7 minutes ago, oldpaddoboy said:

The point is that the big bang does not tell us how the universe started, or came into being, just how it evolved from t+10-43 seconds, or thereabouts. We speculate that it started due to our fluctuation in the quantum foam...or as I like to say, spacetime, (spacetime) as we don't know them.  

 

I am going by the initial singularity explanation of the Big Bang that Hawking proposed, Link = Did The Universe Really Begin With a Singularity? – Of Particular Significance (profmattstrassler.com) and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Initial_singularity

"The initial singularity is a singularity predicted by some models of the Big Bang theory to have existed before the Big Bang. The instant immediately following the initial singularity is part of the Planck epoch, the earliest period of time in the history of our universe."

Edited April 2 by Vmedvil

[OceanBreeze]

43 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ekpyrotic_universe

 

 

 

 

https://www.science.org/content/article/bouncing-branes

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silurian_hypothesis

speculative but it illustrates that we cannot know this.

 

https://medium.com/predict/our-unstable-universe-why-the-false-vacuum-could-be-our-end-82ee4a668bd4

 

  

Making people follow links, without any posted content, is usually frowned upon here.

Quote

Only once? I'd like to see some support for this hypothesis, most modern renditions allow for life to have emerged several times in multiple places and ultimately merged things like protobionts, RNA world, and others into prokaryotes, archaea, and eukaryotes through symbiosis. Everything seems to come about via symbiotic merging of various independent chemical systems some of which we would think of as alive and others we would not. In fact some new research seems to indicate that viruses have a key role to play in both the development of life and the current evolution of life forms. 

Sure. Life on Earth Arose Just Once: "All life on Earth shares a single common ancestor, a new statistical analysis confirms. The idea that life forms share a common ancestor is “a central pillar of evolutionary theory,” says Douglas Theobald, a biochemist at Brandeis University in Waltham, Massachusetts."

"One isn’t such a lonely number. All life on Earth shares a single common ancestor, a new statistical analysis confirms. The idea that life forms share a common ancestor is “a central pillar of evolutionary theory,” says Douglas Theobald, a biochemist at Brandeis University in Waltham, Massachusetts.

Because microorganisms of different species often swap genes, some scientists have proposed that multiple primordial life forms could have tossed their genetic material into life’s mix, creating a web, rather than a tree of life.

To determine which hypothesis is more likely correct, Theobald put various evolutionary ancestry models through rigorous statistical tests. The results, published in the May 13 Nature, come down overwhelmingly on the side of a single ancestor.

A universal common ancestor is at least 102,860 times more probable than having multiple ancestors, Theobald calculates.

No one has previously put this aspect of evolution through such a stringent test, says David Penny, a theoretical biologist and Allan Wilson Centre researcher at Massey University in Palmerston North, New Zealand. “In one sense, we are not surprised at the answer, but we are very pleased that the unity of life passed a formal test,” he says. He and Mike Steel of the University of Canterbury in Christchurch, New Zealand, wrote a commentary on the study that appears in the same issue of Nature."

Note: Theobald’s study does not address how many times life may have arisen on Earth. Life could have originated many times, but the study suggests that only one of those primordial events yielded the array of organisms living today.

That agrees with what I wrote: One common ancestor means only one (successful) appearance of life on our planet in the billions of years that Earth has existed.

Quote

Current scientific consensus points to life being a natural chemical process that occurs naturally and Thomas Gold in his book the "Deep Hot Biosphere" suggested that life occurs naturally in the planet building process and that quite possibly nearly all planets develop life as they form but this life can only persist on the surface on the Earth in our solar system currently but likely occurs underground on all moons and planets but comes to an  end as planetary conditions change as the planet forms, the huge amounts of complex organic chemicals, the building blocks of life like proteins, and nucleotides are found in vast quantities in space suggesting that life or at least the building blocks of life are everywhere. 

The building blocks being everywhere does not mean that life has originated everywhere. What if a stone fell on our one common ancestor, killing it?

None of us would be here today. That is how thin the odds are for life to originate here on Earth.

 

[oldpaddoboy]

25 minutes ago, Vmedvil said:

 

I am going by the initial singularity explanation of the Big Bang that Hawking proposed, Link = Did The Universe Really Begin With a Singularity? – Of Particular Significance (profmattstrassler.com) and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Initial_singularity

"The initial singularity is a singularity predicted by some models of the Big Bang theory to have existed before the Big Bang. The instant immediately following the initial singularity is part of the Planck epoch, the earliest period of time in the history of our universe."

No problems with the singularity, at either the start of the big bang, or at the core of black holes. A singularity is defined as where general relativity and our laws of physics are not applicable. Nothing more, nothing less. Gravitational fields, densities etc are "APPROACHING" infinity. Pretty sure those qualities do not exist.  

[Moontanman]

7 minutes ago, OceanBreeze said:

Making people follow links, without any posted content, is usually frowned upon here.

Sure. Life on Earth Arose Just Once: "All life on Earth shares a single common ancestor, a new statistical analysis confirms. The idea that life forms share a common ancestor is “a central pillar of evolutionary theory,” says Douglas Theobald, a biochemist at Brandeis University in Waltham, Massachusetts."

"One isn’t such a lonely number. All life on Earth shares a single common ancestor, a new statistical analysis confirms. The idea that life forms share a common ancestor is “a central pillar of evolutionary theory,” says Douglas Theobald, a biochemist at Brandeis University in Waltham, Massachusetts.

Because microorganisms of different species often swap genes, some scientists have proposed that multiple primordial life forms could have tossed their genetic material into life’s mix, creating a web, rather than a tree of life.

To determine which hypothesis is more likely correct, Theobald put various evolutionary ancestry models through rigorous statistical tests. The results, published in the May 13 Nature, come down overwhelmingly on the side of a single ancestor.

A universal common ancestor is at least 102,860 times more probable than having multiple ancestors, Theobald calculates.

No one has previously put this aspect of evolution through such a stringent test, says David Penny, a theoretical biologist and Allan Wilson Centre researcher at Massey University in Palmerston North, New Zealand. “In one sense, we are not surprised at the answer, but we are very pleased that the unity of life passed a formal test,” he says. He and Mike Steel of the University of Canterbury in Christchurch, New Zealand, wrote a commentary on the study that appears in the same issue of Nature."

Note: Theobald’s study does not address how many times life may have arisen on Earth. Life could have originated many times, but the study suggests that only one of those primordial events yielded the array of organisms living today.

That agrees with what I wrote: One common ancestor means only one (successful) appearance of life on our planet in the billions of years that Earth has existed.

The building blocks being everywhere does not mean that life has originated everywhere. What if a stone fell on our one common ancestor, killing it?

None of us would be here today. That is how thin the odds are for life to originate here on Earth.

 

I have a feeling we are talking past each other here, life having a common source on the Earth doesn't indicate there was at one time a single life form that all life descended from is like saying there was once one human who all humans descended from. The first life form was like the first human a process that occured in populations not in individuals. The chemicals that make up life on earth didn't suddenly from a complete modern microbe and everything descended from that. It was a process that occured over a large bit of both time and space. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

Quote

The prevailing scientific hypothesis is that the transition from non-living to living entities on Earth was not a single event, but a process of increasing complexity involving the formation of a habitable planet, the prebiotic synthesis of organic molecules, molecular self-replication, self-assembly, autocatalysis, 

The reason I mentioned the universe is full of life building blocks is because there is no need for all the building blocks of life to have formed on Earth which has been a bit of a problem but now that we know that there are vast interstellar clouds of complex organic material all over the universe, comets and asteroids contain even nucleotides. The chemicals of life rain down from the sky even today. 

[Moontanman]

7 minutes ago, oldpaddoboy said:

No problems with the singularity, at either the start of the big bang, or at the core of black holes. A singularity is defined as where general relativity and our laws of physics are not applicable. Nothing more, nothing less. Gravitational fields, densities etc are "APPROACHING" infinity. Pretty sure those qualities do not exist.  

What are you trying to say here? The idea of a singularity is real, whether or not a real singularity can exist seems to be iffy. If Plank time and size exist then a singularity cannot exist. In fact some scientists think that need for a singularity in our theories indicate something is not correct, infinities are often a sign of something wrong in the theory. 

[Moontanman]

1 hour ago, Vmedvil said:

Link = Oldest life may have thrived 4.3 billion years ago in undersea thermal vents - The San Diego Union-Tribune (sandiegouniontribune.com) and https://news.uchicago.edu/explainer/origin-life-earth-explained

https://naturalhistory.si.edu/education/teaching-resources/life-science/early-life-earth-animal-origins

Quote

 The earliest life forms we know of were microscopic organisms (microbes) that left signals of their presence in rocks about 3.7 billion years old. The signals consisted of a type of carbon molecule that is produced by living things.