Has there been life for 1/4 of the age of the Universe?

Universe started: 13.7 billion years ago
Solar system formed: 4.6 billion years ago
First life on earth: 3.5 billion years ago

Unless I'm mistaken about those figures, that means that the earth has existed for about 1/3 the age of the Universe, and life for about a quarter. Does anybody else find that a bit strange?

I've always assumed that the universe has been exanding for aeons, and millions of universes have been born and died on the way. But it actually looks like we're in at the beginning (relatively speaking, of course).

Edited by JavaMan, : No reason given.

---

'I can't even fit all my wife's clothes into a suitcase for travelling. So you want me to believe we're going to put all of the planets and stars and everything into a sandwich bag?' - q3psycho on the Big Bang

Hello. I know I'm not a very exciting post - not very controversial, no axe to grind, no personal insults - but I would appreciate some kind of a response, even if it's a rejection. (Although obviously I'd rather be loved ;))

---

'I can't even fit all my wife's clothes into a suitcase for travelling. So you want me to believe we're going to put all of the planets and stars and everything into a sandwich bag?' - q3psycho on the Big Bang

OK I'll bite. I think it's kind of an interesting topic myself, though I think you should say more about your thinking on the subject, about why you find it so surprising, what you think the implications are.

And which forum you would like it sent to.

Edited by AdminFaith, : No reason given.

Edited by AdminFaith, : No reason given.

---

Take comments and questions about moderator actions here: GENERAL DISCUSSION OF MODERATION PROCEDURES THREAD REOPEN REQUESTS CONSIDERATIONS OF TOPIC PROMOTIONS from the "Proposed New Topics" forum

Sorry about that.

Your last sentences are confusing. Do you mean to say it is odd that we are in the first universe to have been born? If so this could a Big Bang/Cosmology issue.

Or is the subject that it is odd that life started so early in the life of any given universe. In which case it could be a'Origin of life' topic.

Or perhaps the argument is a sort of 'fine tuning' based discussion. In which case, Intelligent Design might be the forum for it.

Where you going with it?

---

New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts. Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to: General discussion of moderation procedures Thread Reopen Requests Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum Other useful links: Forum Guidelines, Thread Style Guides for EvC and Thread Assistance w/ Forum Formatting

I think it's an Origin of Life topic. I left the opening post a bit loose because I want to know what other people feel about it. (And also because I was expecting a virtual ear-bashing from one of the expert astrophysicists or cosmologists for getting my figures wrong :)).

If the figures are correct, I'm really staggered that I've never heard anyone mention it before. In discussions about the origin of life one gets the impression that the odds against life developing are astronomical, but the timeline I've outlined in the opening post suggests to me either that the universe is far older than suggested by Big Bang theory, or that life is far more likely to develop than we customarily assume.

Maybe I'm over-reacting because I've only just figured this timeline out, but it does seem worth a bit of discussion to me.

---

'I can't even fit all my wife's clothes into a suitcase for travelling. So you want me to believe we're going to put all of the planets and stars and everything into a sandwich bag?' - q3psycho on the Big Bang

Go for it.

---

Take comments and questions about moderator actions here: GENERAL DISCUSSION OF MODERATION PROCEDURES THREAD REOPEN REQUESTS CONSIDERATIONS OF TOPIC PROMOTIONS from the "Proposed New Topics" forum

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

Sure, life has been around for at least 25% of the life of the universe. It may have been around longer.

In discussions about the origin of life one gets the impression that the odds against life developing are astronomical

Nobody knows what the odds are. The odds that life has existed for 25% of the age of the universe are very very close to one, but that's about all we can say. It may be inevitable that life forms under certain circumstance, or it may be 1% per ten years of certain circumstances. Who can honestly say?

JavaMan writes: I've always assumed that the universe has been exanding for aeons, and millions of universes have been born and died on the way.

Shouldn't that be: "millions of galaxies have been born and died on the way"?

[...] the timeline I've outlined in the opening post suggests to me either that the universe is far older than suggested by Big Bang theory, or that life is far more likely to develop than we customarily assume.

It's a bit tenuous to conclude anything about the likelihood of life from our only known example of it. Suppose there is a vase with red and blue marbles in it, in unknown quantities. You draw one marble. Upon finding that your marble is red, can you conclude anything about the likelihood of drawing a red marble?

---

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.

Did you know that most of the time your computer is doing nothing? What if you could make it do something really useful? Like helping scientists understand diseases? Your computer could even be instrumental in finding a cure for HIV/AIDS. Wouldn't that be something? If you agree, then join World Community Grid now and download a simple, free tool that lets you and your computer do your share in helping humanity. After all, you are part of it, so why not take part in it?

I've always assumed that the universe has been exanding for aeons, and millions of universes have been born and died on the way. But it actually looks like we're in at the beginning (relatively speaking, of course).

Is there any evidence that millions of universes have not come and gone?
IIRC, if string theory (and i know near zilch about it so i apologise if i'm mistaken) provides for the possibility of millions of universes existing (think i read this in Nature or Science sometime ago), which we can't really say is the case or not, how can we conclude that there were no universes prior to ours?

Or was paras right, and are you just referring to galaxies within this universe?

---

"The good Christian should beware the mathematician and all those who make empty prophecies. The danger already exists that the mathematicians have made a covenant with the devil to darken the spirit and to confine man in the bonds of hell." - St. Augustine

I've always assumed that the universe has been exanding for aeons, and millions of universes have been born and died on the way. Shouldn't that be: "millions of galaxies have been born and died on the way"?

Ooops! Yes, I got carried away by hyperbole. I'm sure it might be possible for millions of universes to have been born and to have died in millions of bangs and crashes, but that wasn't what I was trying to say.

It's a bit tenuous to conclude anything about the likelihood of life from our only known example of it. Suppose there is a vase with red and blue marbles in it, in unknown quantities. You draw one marble. Upon finding that your marble is red, can you conclude anything about the likelihood of drawing a red marble?

No, of course not. And I didn't consider the fact that this star system is just one amongst millions (or is it billions?) that have developed since the beginning of the universe.

But ... it still intrigues me that there has been life for 1/4 of the lifetime of the universe. It's not really a scientific thing, and I'm sure if you do a statistical job on it it won't seem very surprising at all. But personally I don't view the world through a statistical prism - it's really the way this information changes the way I view the universe that interests me.

---

'I can't even fit all my wife's clothes into a suitcase for travelling. So you want me to believe we're going to put all of the planets and stars and everything into a sandwich bag?' - q3psycho on the Big Bang

javaman writes: But ... it still intrigues me that there has been life for 1/4 of the lifetime of the universe.

At the least, perhaps. For all we know it might be a common consequence of the formation of heavy elements.

But ... it still intrigues me that there has been life for 1/4 of the lifetime of the universe At the least, perhaps. For all we know it might be a common consequence of the formation of heavy elements.

Yes, I think that is what's intriguing me. The notion that the formation of life might not be a very uncommon thing at all. All you need is some heavy elements joining together and starting to replicate, and hey presto, you've got life.

---

'I can't even fit all my wife's clothes into a suitcase for travelling. So you want me to believe we're going to put all of the planets and stars and everything into a sandwich bag?' - q3psycho on the Big Bang

Or was paras right, and are you just referring to galaxies within this universe?

Parasomnium was right. I wouldn't be surprised if there were multiple universes, but that wasn't what I was intending to say.

---

'I can't even fit all my wife's clothes into a suitcase for travelling. So you want me to believe we're going to put all of the planets and stars and everything into a sandwich bag?' - q3psycho on the Big Bang

JavaMan writes: The notion that the formation of life might not be a very uncommon thing at all.

Well, last I read, animo acids had been detected in the gaseous remains of supernovae.

It's all out there for us to learn...

Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.