<p>The very short answer is, we don't know.</p>
<p>Our only experience of life is what we have discovered on Earth.</p>
<p>All life on Earth is based around <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNA" rel="nofollow noreferrer">RNA</a> and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA" rel="nofollow noreferrer">DNA</a>.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.livescience.com/space-sugar-rode-rna-metoers.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">RNA has been discovered in meteors</a> and <a href="https://news.softpedia.com/news/DNA-and-RNA-Came-from-Space-88016.shtml" rel="nofollow noreferrer">elsewhere</a> in <a href="https://www.sciencealert.com/scientists-have-found-a-bunch-of-rna-precursors-in-the-galactic-center" rel="nofollow noreferrer">space</a>, indicating there is a possibility that life <strong>may exist</strong> elsewhere in the cosmos. So far we have not found anything resembling life elsewhere.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.sciencealert.com/there-s-growing-evidence-life-on-earth-started-with-more-than-just-rna" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Recent findings</a> suggest both RNA and DNA are required for life to exist.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-07-20T07:15:36.773Z
Ribose isn't RNA! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNA#Structure
PM 2Ring
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-07-20T09:18:13.813Z
Your last sentence is incorrect. The article says merely that RNA and DNA "may have emerged at the same time and both been involved in kickstarting life on the planet" and that "We may never know for sure whether DNA helped RNA to form the first lifeforms on our planet." To say both are *required* for *any* lifeform is a misrepresentation of those findings.
Chappo Hasn't Forgotten
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-07-19T12:07:20.350Z
2022-07-19T12:26:23.313Z
2022-07-19T12:26:23.313Z
Fred
<p>When scientists explore other planets such as Mars, they look for life derived from water and oxygen (correct me if I am wrong) with a purpose to see whether that planet is habitable for humans or not.</p>
<p>Now, my question is it possible for life to originate in the universe from sources that do not require water, oxygen and carbon as the basic building blocks? If so, does that also mean that with today's science and technology we won't be able to detect such life forms?</p>
<p>This question might be asked earlier, but I guess current knowledge may have an updated answer to this question.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-07-19T03:08:14.130Z
I’m voting to close this question because (a) it's asking about hypothetical non-carbon lifeforms (hypothetical questions are off-topic on this site) and (b) it's therefore not really about astronomy but rather chemistry or biology.
Chappo Hasn't Forgotten
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-07-19T03:49:18.830Z
@ChappoHasn'tForgottenMonica so, astronomy does not include exploring life on other planets? Moreover, how do you intend to learn if you don't start by asking hypothetical questions? Now, I know I could have asked this question on Quora, however I believe I can expect an expert answer here than there.
Ed_Gravy
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-07-19T04:34:09.533Z
You might want to check SpaceEx.SE or World building.SE
Nilay Ghosh
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-07-19T21:19:38.470Z
@Ed_Gravy this part of your question seems to be off-topic in Astronomy SE: "Now, my question is it possible for life to originate in the universe from sources that do not require water, oxygen and carbon as the basic building blocks?" I think if you focus on the scientific methods in use to detect life and ask simply "...are there any that do not require water, oxygen and carbon?" that certainly would be on topic, since it can be answered with facts and doesn't require answers to hypothesize.
uhoh
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-07-19T21:50:54.407Z
@uhoh, thank you for your guidance, so should I edit my question to reflect your comment?
Ed_Gravy
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-07-19T22:35:42.030Z
@Ed_Gravy two options are 1) editing or 2) asking a new question. I'm not sure you can see them yet but there are 4 votes to close, one more and then it will be closed as off-topic. Then when you edit it will trigger the question to be sent to a review queue where people will vote to reopen. It usually takes a day or two if it's going to happen. Major edits are discouraged however when answers have been posted as in this case, and especially if you've accepted the answer. It's up to you, but what I would recommend is that you ask a new question which references this one and then explains...
uhoh
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-07-19T22:37:28.857Z
"...but here I would like to ask something different..." so that people don't think it's a duplicate. It's always possible that it's been asked before and answered, so it might also be closed as a duplicate but we all get questions closed as duplicates once in a while. You could do a quick search of this site to see if there are any obvious answers already, and if not, go for it!
uhoh
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-07-19T23:19:43.557Z
@uhoh [done](https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/49966/life-in-the-universe-not-requiring-water-oxygen-and-carbon-as-basic-building-bl), please feel free to correct me on this one too, thank you.
Ed_Gravy
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-07-20T00:56:02.993Z
*"my question is it possible for life to originate in the universe from sources that do not require water, oxygen and carbon as the basic building blocks"* That sounds like a biology question, not an astronomy question.
PM 2Ring
<planet><universe><life><astrobiology><origin-of-life>
Life forms on planets not requiring water and oxygen as basic building blocks
Ed_Gravy
# Life forms on planets not requiring water and oxygen as basic building blocks

(Asked by: username_0 on 2022-07-19)

When scientists explore other planets such as Mars, they look for life derived from water and oxygen (correct me if I am wrong) with a purpose to see whether that planet is habitable for humans or not.

Now, my question is it possible for life to originate in the universe from sources that do not require water, oxygen and carbon as the basic building blocks? If so, does that also mean that with today's science and technology we won't be able to detect such life forms?

This question might be asked earlier, but I guess current knowledge may have an updated answer to this question.

**Tags:** planet, universe, life, astrobiology, origin-of-life
> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: I’m voting to close this question because (a) it's asking about hypothetical non-carbon lifeforms (hypothetical questions are off-topic on this site) and (b) it's therefore not really about astronomy but rather chemistry or biology.  
> **username_0**: @ChappoHasn'tForgottenMonica so, astronomy does not include exploring life on other planets? Moreover, how do you intend to learn if you don't start by asking hypothetical questions? Now, I know I could have asked this question on Quora, however I believe I can expect an expert answer here than there.  
> **username_2**: You might want to check SpaceEx.SE or World building.SE  
> **username_3**: @Ed_Gravy this part of your question seems to be off-topic in Astronomy SE: "Now, my question is it possible for life to originate in the universe from sources that do not require water, oxygen and carbon as the basic building blocks?" I think if you focus on the scientific methods in use to detect life and ask simply "...are there any that do not require water, oxygen and carbon?" that certainly would be on topic, since it can be answered with facts and doesn't require answers to hypothesize.  
> **username_0**: @uhoh, thank you for your guidance, so should I edit my question to reflect your comment?  
> **username_3**: @Ed_Gravy two options are 1) editing or 2) asking a new question. I'm not sure you can see them yet but there are 4 votes to close, one more and then it will be closed as off-topic. Then when you edit it will trigger the question to be sent to a review queue where people will vote to reopen. It usually takes a day or two if it's going to happen. Major edits are discouraged however when answers have been posted as in this case, and especially if you've accepted the answer. It's up to you, but what I would recommend is that you ask a new question which references this one and then explains...  
> **username_3**: "...but here I would like to ask something different..." so that people don't think it's a duplicate. It's always possible that it's been asked before and answered, so it might also be closed as a duplicate but we all get questions closed as duplicates once in a while. You could do a quick search of this site to see if there are any obvious answers already, and if not, go for it!  
> **username_0**: @uhoh [done](https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/49966/life-in-the-universe-not-requiring-water-oxygen-and-carbon-as-basic-building-bl), please feel free to correct me on this one too, thank you.  
> **username_4**: *"my question is it possible for life to originate in the universe from sources that do not require water, oxygen and carbon as the basic building blocks"* That sounds like a biology question, not an astronomy question.  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_5 on 2022-07-19. Score: 3 | Accepted answer

The very short answer is, we don't know.

Our only experience of life is what we have discovered on Earth.

All life on Earth is based around [RNA](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNA) and [DNA](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA).

[RNA has been discovered in meteors](https://www.livescience.com/space-sugar-rode-rna-metoers.html) and [elsewhere](https://news.softpedia.com/news/DNA-and-RNA-Came-from-Space-88016.shtml) in [space](https://www.sciencealert.com/scientists-have-found-a-bunch-of-rna-precursors-in-the-galactic-center), indicating there is a possibility that life **may exist** elsewhere in the cosmos. So far we have not found anything resembling life elsewhere.

[Recent findings](https://www.sciencealert.com/there-s-growing-evidence-life-on-earth-started-with-more-than-just-rna) suggest both RNA and DNA are required for life to exist.

> **Comments:**
> **username_4**: Ribose isn't RNA! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNA#Structure  
> **username_1**: Your last sentence is incorrect. The article says merely that RNA and DNA "may have emerged at the same time and both been involved in kickstarting life on the planet" and that "We may never know for sure whether DNA helped RNA to form the first lifeforms on our planet." To say both are *required* for *any* lifeform is a misrepresentation of those findings.  

---

