In everything. We only know how life survives/evolves as it relates to the specific circumstances on this planet. Given that's all we know of, wouldn't we expect life on another planet to be fairly similar? Needs oxygen; needs water; carbon based species; need similar temperatures to survive; need to eat food; etc.
that's hard to say. there are cumulative and/or permutative/algorithmic points of no return in evolution that change the course of life history forever. In my opinion, intelligence, specifically human intelligence, is a version of those; evolution that winds up capable of understanding evolution and changing it willfully and accidentally. We literally can't imagine the world without it and It did not have to happen, or at least there is nothing in nature that indicates that it is an unavoidable endpoint of neurological evolution. Heck consider that we may, willfully or accidentally, wipe it (and ourselves) off the face of the planet, bringing into question whether the phenomenon was worthy of the name, "intelligence", at all
Assuming the same exact conditions and that panspermia as a theory for life on earth is wrong and that the Miller-Urey experiment is the theoretical model that best explains life on earth, you can further assume that DNA is a stablest endpoint of all such conditions, but then you are still left with all kinds of permutations where all the species we see today don't exist and an entire other fauna/flora populates the earth, AND THEN you need take into account cataclysmic event like meteoroids, varying carbon footprints causing weather disasters, which all can lead to various evolutionary effects (bottlenecks, founder effects etc...)
So I highly doubt it