Can somebody tell me what is wrong/right with my theory

[saac]

7 minutes ago, JamesF said:

I agree, Jim.  My biology isn't that hot to be fair, but isn't this somewhat similar to the way that some organisms "absorbed" others that became mitochondria, to the benefit of both?

James

Good point James  Although I don't know the respective evolutionary timelines but the theory goes that the mitochondria were the descendants of bacteria engulfed by other prokaryotes and somehow survived and ended up being incorporated into the cytoplasm and DNA.  Not sure if that was predation or just good luck but then ultimately natural selection decided it was an advantage and , well, here we are    

 

Jim 

[Greggy-spaceboy]

2 minutes ago, saac said:

Good point James  Although I don't know the respective evolutionary timelines but the theory goes that the mitochondria were the descendants of bacteria engulfed by other prokaryotes and somehow survived and ended up being incorporated into the cytoplasm and DNA.  Not sure if that was predation or just good luck but then ultimately natural selection decided it was an advantage and , well, here we are    

 

Jim 

probably had something to do with energy efficiency

[Paul M]

I think the Drake Equation still stands, it just waits for the variables to be narrowed down.

One such variable fp, the fraction of stars that have planets, is less guesswork these days. Pesky planets are being found everywhere. I hate the term "exoplanet", not sure why. Maybe because the the term has been too much in the news in recent years. "Oh, another exoplanet...and another...". They are everywhere!

Planetless stars are likely the exception.

Anyway, I think the limitation to us every finding other life in the Universe is one of time as much as distance (same thing really). We have been here for a tick of the Universes clock and will be gone before the next. I imagine that could have happened many times in the Universe at large. Imagine little beacons flashing randomly throughout history. Each one representing a higher life form evolving and then expiring. Even if any of those flashes overlapped in absolute time (meaningless really), they'd be gone before their light reached each other.

We may not be alone in the universe but I feel that we are and will remain alone in time. We will only see our neighbour long after they are gone.

[JamesF]

3 minutes ago, saac said:

Good point James  Although I don't know the respective evolutionary timelines but the theory goes that the mitochondria were the descendants of bacteria engulfed by other prokaryotes and somehow survived and ended up being incorporated into the cytoplasm and DNA.  Not sure if that was predation or just good luck but then ultimately natural selection decided it was an advantage and , well, here we are   

I didn't have predation in mind, certainly.  I was thinking more that the two somehow got "squidged together" and found symbiosis worked nicely for them.

James

[kirkster501]

People think of the Universe as what it looks like from the “outside”, like looking at an expanding ballon, which is fundamentally incorrect. There is no outside and the Big Bang happened everywhere and is expanding everywhere.

[andrew s]

10 hours ago, saac said:

Good point James  Although I don't know the respective evolutionary timelines but the theory goes that the mitochondria were the descendants of bacteria engulfed by other prokaryotes and somehow survived and ended up being incorporated into the cytoplasm and DNA.  Not sure if that was predation or just good luck but then ultimately natural selection decided it was an advantage and , well, here we are    

 

Jim 

It was a symbiotic advantage. The engulfing prokaryotes gave the mitochondria nourishment while the mitochondria allowed the prokaryotes to exploit the energy available in an oxygen atmosphere.  The oxygen was at a much lower level than today but was death to organisms that evolved in the initial reducing environment. 

This book it a fascinating read Revolutions that made the earth

Regards Andrew 

[JeremyS]

3 hours ago, andrew s said:

It was a symbiotic advantage. The engulfing prokaryotes gave the mitochondria nourishment while the mitochondria allowed the prokaryotes to exploit the energy available in an oxygen atmosphere.  The oxygen was at a much lower level than today but was death to organisms that evolved in the initial reducing environment. 

This book it a fascinating read Revolutions that made the earth

Regards Andrew 

And similarly how Cyanobacteria were taken up and became chloroplasts in plant cells.

[saac]

16 hours ago, Greggy-spaceboy said:

probably had something to do with energy efficiency

Most likely a favourable accident. If it turned out advantageous then natural selection standardises it until the next favourable adaptation. 

[saac]

16 hours ago, JamesF said:

I didn't have predation in mind, certainly.  I was thinking more that the two somehow got "squidged together" and found symbiosis worked nicely for them.

James

No worries, the predation comment was referenced against the op's comment about the external predator.

Jim