Could there be life without Carbon?
95990
It's relative. There would be no life AS WE KNOW IT. But that's not to say an alternate form of life would not have developed. Who knows, the universe is astoundingly big.
929096
The reason all life on Earth is carbon based is because of some of the unique qualities of the element, such as the way it binds to other elements (it's quite complicated to explain - just trust me on this point!)\n\nSilicone shares enough of these qualities to make it a viable alternative to carbon in terms of organic life. We're not sure why carbon ended up being the basis of life on Earth - it may be pure chance. However, if there is life on other planets, then (as far as we know) it would be based either on carbon or silicon.
1038325
It's depends on the availability of oxygen.  In the presence of O2, bacteria will convert most of the organic material to carbon dioxide gas (CO2).  In the absence of O2, they'll mostly produce methane gas (CH4).
443505
adding to snagelfritz, there could bve life in a gas giant.  They would float on blimps, and be hunted by gliding organisms with sharp claws to tear right through them.  Several forms of life could exist in the solar system, like also on titan, there could have possibly been life, giving the fact that the atmosphere is made up of the same elements as ours!
1089748
no, but it would be very stupid to assume that Earth is the only planet that can sustain and contains life.  the universe is gigantic.  i don't think any human can truly grasp how vast the universe is.
220501
Considering that we are of the same stuff that all other life on Earth is made of, it seems very unlikely.  Of course that does not eliminate the possibility that life on Earth was seeded from some outside source 2 billion years ago.
981867
Yes.  All living things are constantly exchanging carbon-14 with the environment, so the ratio is the same.  When an organism dies, the exchange stops, allowing the time of death to be estimated based on the amount of C-14 that has not decayed.
141516
The only planet we know of that has life is earth. Based on that very limited knowledge we can only estimate that earthlike life forms would have had great difficulty evolving in the worlds, in and out of the solarsystem, that we know of today (new planets are discovered almost daily). It is probably possible for terrestrial organisms to survive and maybe even prosper if introduced to some shielded and protected water rich enironments on the other worlds described above but there is a great difference between merely surviving and evolving. Life requires very special environments and conditions for a very long period of time, hundreds of millions of years, to evolve. We cant say for sure that those conditions were ever present on any world other than earth. But once life is born on a world it is extremely hard to extinguish completely as it would constantly evolve to adapt to changing environments. Life has nearly ended on earth many times as environments changed but has always bounced back. So if there was life on any other world in our solarsystem it would be so plentiful by now that we would have found traces of it in their atmospheres or in their soils. But we havent.
446824
You would need an enormous source of hydrogen, to make the reaction self sustained. That would mean a lot of water and electricity.\n\nMy idea to solve for excess CO2 would be to genetically modify algae so that they can live on Mars or Venus.
234059
Of course there is.  You would have to be crazy to think we're the only ones in the universe and the parallel universes, and so on.  They found rust on Mars, which means there was water - therefore leading to the conclusion of life on Mars.  If there was life on Mars, you better believe there's some kind of lifeform billions and trillions of light years away.  No life was discovered yet because we haven't built rockets that are capable of taking us to the destinations of where we haven't discovered yet.
961116
non carbon-based life would be too different from life on earth. a DNA molecule constructed from a Si backbone instead of C would be too heavy and too large to function properly.\n\ncarbon is basically one of the more unique elements on the table, being small and reactive (as opposed to silicon or other group iv's). it can form bonds with itself or many other atoms. this property is responsible for literally millions of chemical compounds(most compounds on earth contain carbon) known to man.\n\ncarbon bonds with oxygen to form carbon dioxide, necessary for the life. silicon dioxide on the other hand, is completely different. SiO2 is sand.\n\nyou could compare carbon with say, water, which is also one of the weirdest compounds known to scientists. yet carbon and water are necessary for all life. i would say that the most interesting elements are the most necessary. silicon is just too normal...
630213
We know that Earth has life on it so that is the most likely.\n\nMars is also a possibility although I would not expect the life to be alive when we get there (but it might be possible for us to thaw it out) due to the apparent lack of water and the atmosphere being a bit too thin.\n\nEuropa might have life under the ice in a liquid water layer.  It would seem to be big enough for life to evolve and the materials that are needed for life would actually be able to exist in forms that life could use along with the tidal heating from Jupiter.  This is probably the most likely place to have life but it isn't a planet.\n\nTitan has a rather thick atmosphere and organics so it looks like a candidate although it is a bit cold and doesn't have any liquid water (though hydrocarbons might be able to substitute) so a different biochemistry might be needed.  Of course this isn't a planet so it doesn't actually answer the question.
1149658
There is a term in biology called Homeostasis, what it basically says is that a biological system will maintain itself in equilibrium suited to the environment. Small organisms can reproduce at rates that are astonishing, if the environment could support a large increase in population, the plankton would naturally increase their numbers. Actually most biologists think that organisms reproduce at rates larger than the environment can handle, and the die off of the organisms that environment can't handle is part of natural selection.\n\nSo long story short, as nice as it would be to produce micro-organisms to handle our carbon output, I don't think it's actually feasible to do. I don't have any actual numbers, but it would be interesting to know the amount of plankton-like organisms we would need to curb our carbon output, I bet the actual number itself would be astonishing and impossible to do, at least in any meaningful time-frame.
1179272
it doesn't have to be a doomed ecosystem: \nimagin having plants that grow and multiply very fast. there can be predators eating them, and there can be more carbon in the predators' trophic level. it is true that the predators' level need to consume more carbon than the amount of carbon that exists in it, since some energy goes to waste. but in every point in time it is possible that there is less carbon in plants. as long as they manage to keep making it at the same rate of it being eaten, the ecosystem can last forever. \n\n(an example (with non-accurate numbers): imagin an ecosystem where there are 5000 kg of carbon in plants, and 10,000 kg of carbon in the level above them. if the plants manage to fix every day 20,000 kg of carbon, then theoretically it can be enough for the level above to consume, and everybody's happy).
740044
We live in a biosphere and air, gravity, etc are key components, if any of its constituent parts were removed and not replaced, life on this planet would end.
175106
There is carbon in EVERY organic material on earth ie...plants and animals.  When dead lifeforms decompose the result is carbon.
853505
life needs not only oxygen but othere conditions as well. Life needs essentailly he fore of gravity for the proceses of life to be active .It is graiy tha keeps the sir balanket over the surfaxce oif he earth . But for that , the air would vanish into thin air ! - would anish into space . Water would not flow and our food would not go doen  our throat and would not even be able to defecate . aain the climate is also imporant . We hae go to be at a distncefrom the dun hat would be expose us to a ligh and heat that is cinsucive to the development of live and tolerable to life .ALL  he planets around the sun are not locaed at a sistance very conducive to the deelopmemt of life like us .and all of hem dfo not hav a gaviy  tha is suitable for the fuctioning of our system . We are not independent of our great mother earth. We will not survive in any planet which dose not hae an amospher  and gavity like the earth. Oxygen alone won't  help us live .Since the building blocks of all elemens ar the same - electron and proton - we would be able create oxyen in any planet by a suiable process that man would be able to create by manipulaing the numbver of electrons in the aoms of any subasance aailable in any pkanet . We do not hae to transfer oxygen anywhere . we can create oxygen from   whatever is available anywhere.