Is it possible that human life came from a planet that was destroyed where the asteroid belt is currently?

that the asteroid belt used to be a planet?|||Not possible in the respect of it being "human" life. Some microbial or primordial life on a hunk of rock from that planet...maybe, but even that is a stretch. More likely, if such a planet's destruction were involved in us, a chunk of that planet impacting triggered the events that started all life on Earth using materials that were already here but had not combined properly yet.|||Anything is possible!|||Man. I though I was the only one. There would probably be remnants of garbage though.|||There is actuallly a theory that we do come from an alien planet. Last mission to hit an asteroid passsing by close our earth has revealed traces of molecules that started our very own planet. Amazing isn'it?|||by Darvin it is not possibile, but who says that he is right???? There are beautiful series on BBC about creating life on earth and I suggest you to see them!|||Quite so. Human life originated on the planet Xylon, which was eventually destroyed when the Xaflopod Empire (ran by a race of Were-Beavers) nuked the subterranean Kingdom of Xod (a race of large quasi-intelligent worms) =)|||Well...it could be possible.





Though a couple facts make it unlikely.





1.There are not enough asteroids in the belt to make up a planet of even the size of Mars, let alone Earth. And a planet would need to be at least that big to have life on it.


2.The asteroids don't look like they all came from a single large object. They don't have that 'sharp, edged broken' look to them.


3.If a planet was there and was destroyed, we should see asteroids all over the place. The asteroids would not just spread out in a perfect disk.


4.To destroy a planet would take a huge amount of power/force. This would have effected the orbits of the other planets(we would see a 'wobble').


5.If the planet was destroyed, how would the life get here? The blast would have killed all the life.|||Whilst this was once the widely held view (that the asteroid belt is the remnants of a planet that used to exist between Mars and Jupiter, but was destroyed) it is now the view that the huge gravitational effect of Jupiter prevented the planetoids and planetesimals from aggregating into planetary form.





One of the arguments is indeed the low mass of the asteroid belt.





The mass of 1 Ceres, the largest asteroid in the belt, has been determined by analysis of the influence it exerts on small asteroids. Results obtained by different authors are slightly different. The average of the three most precise values as of 2008 is approximately 9.4脳10^20 kg.





With this mass Ceres comprises about a third of the estimated total 3.0 卤 0.2 脳10^21 kg mass of the asteroids in the solar system, together totalling about four percent of the mass of the Moon.





The argument then goes that the Moon is smaller than Mars, and if the asteroid belt, in total amounts to only 4% of the mass of the Moon, then there never was a planet between Mars and Jupiter.





As regards there ever having been life in the asteroid belt NASA launched the Dawn Mission on 27 September 2007, which will explore the asteroid 4 Vesta in 2011 before arriving at Ceres in 2015.





The mission profile calls for the Dawn Spacecraft to enter orbit around Ceres at an altitude of 5,900 km. After five months of study, the spacecraft will reduce the orbital distance to 1,300 km, then down to 700 km after another five months. We should know more then.|||Uh, no.





Human (animal) life is distinct to evolving on the conditions of this world with its distinct place in the solar system. No earth-like life could have evolved as far out as the Kuiper Belt (the "asteroid belt" to which you refer). The largest asteroid there is Pluto, once thought to be a planet. It is so far from the sun, so cold and barren, that the odds of life evolving there are absolutely inconceivable.





The Kuiper Belt is composed of a mixture of passerby comets caught in our sun's orbit and the leftover debris from planet formation some 4.5 billion years ago. |||No. The material in the asteroid belt wouldn't even make a decent-sized moon, never mind a whole planet. And all of the evidence indicates that humans evolved right here on Earth.|||Anything is not possible and some things are extremely improbable.





There is no particular reason to think that any planet developed in what is now the asteroid belt, or if it did that it lasted long enough after things quietened down in the early solar system for life to get started.





I do not understand why life has to have originated on Mars, some hypothetical planet further out in our system or somewhere else entirely. Life is on Earth, we do not know that it exists anywhere else, so why do we have to think that it might not be native to Earth? What is the point of that? Why do people think there might be some sense in it?





Earth is warm and wet. It is not particularly hot like Venus, nor is it below zero chilly like Mars. It has a range of temperatures in which the sort of complex organic reactions that life depends on can happen with reasonable reaction velocity. On Mars or further out, they would be too slow because of the cold, on Venus the products would be destroyed by the heat as they were formed, even the reagents would break up before they got a chance of reacting. The rule of thumb for organic chemistry is that reaction speed doubles with every 10 centigrade rise in temperature. But most organic chemicals start to break up over 150 centigrade and few complex ones survive above 300 C.





In addition, the Earth has a very large Moon. It was once my nutty idea that the tides in the oceans created by the Moon might have transported chemicals to various suitable spots around the ocean shores where they could be concentrated between tides by evaporation and deposited on minerals which originally catalysed suitable reactions. Now I find that maybe the idea is not so nutty after all.





Now as for the idea that life came here from some remote star system on asteroids or comets, I don't entirely dismiss it. But, the Universe is "only" 13.7 billion years old. The Earth has existed for 4.54 billion of those 13.7 billion years. The Universe was probably far too filled with early supernovae, coalescing black holes, quasars and all the rest of the big nasties out there for the first few billion years. Certainly the materials from which the Earth is made did not exist for the first few million.





So while it is possible that life could have got going elsewhere a few billion years before it did on Earth, it could not have been by very much more than a few billion years. So for this life to have got here it would have had to travel to the Earth pretty quickly from some now remote solar system. Even travelling quicly and directly it would take the best part of a million years. And you still have to explain the emergence of life on some planet in that hypothetical system.