It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

A pedestrian question....

page: 1
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 04:12 PM
link   
I've recently been giving a ton of thought and research time towards panspermia and exogenesis. I don't understand how this isn't an extremely well accepted "theory". Let's just say I give you that the big bang happened. If it did happen it happened out there in space. By that fact alone, life HAD to have come from space just by virtue of the fact that the BB happened in "space". I don't see any other option.

My pedestrian question is: If the Murchison Meteorite was absolutely rich in organic compounds, what other proof do you need? We know that after the Earth calmed down a bit, and the atmosphere and climate were finally ripe for production, all those organic compounds that had been colliding into Earth for years and years on the backs of comets started to produce "life as we know it". I see no other workable theory. It's so goddamn obvious to me now I feel as if I've reawakened.

We know that organic compounds can survive radiation, solar winds and other harsh extremes. Why is this not accepted as definitive proof?

I don't want to hear that "Life as we know it requires the elements hydrogen, carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, iron, phosphorus and sulfur (H, C, N, O, Fe, P, and S respectively) to exist". We're talking about space. It would be ridiculous to posit that what WE know to work is the ONLY way for it to work.

Help me?




posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 04:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Hivethink
 


Why you are absolutely making sense to me. The best explanation I heard yet.

Good thinking



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 04:17 PM
link   
Help you What?



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 04:22 PM
link   
Understand. Help me understand. Am I wrong? Why isn't panspermia looked at more seriously as the theory in regards to how life on planet Earth started (and, really, life ANYWHERE). As far as I'm concerned, that organic compounds have been found numerous times in space "stuff" (Sagan's word) that has fallen to Earth is pretty much all the proof I need that we aren't alone. Nor were we ever. Life started in space.


Let me add that I am a Christian and I don't even see how this interferes with my belief in God. How many years have I wasted arguing this topic? Folks, I've had an awakening and you're the first I'm sharing it with.


edit on 18-4-2011 by Hivethink because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 04:29 PM
link   
I thought the big bang created space and not just out there...in space?
I thought this was generally talked about alot the ingrediants for life might have come from a comet or what have you? But still that has to come from somewhere it doesn't spring out of space from nowhere surely? Maybe I havn't grasped what you are asking sorry.



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 04:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Hivethink
 


hi hivethink,you have said what ive been thinking since i was at school. May i ask you a question as you appear to be experienced in this..could it be possible that as the earth in its young age started to cool down and rotation slowing could maybe a few chunks of have been thrown into space and caught by the garavitational pull and maybe circled earthe for millions of years till the pull was strong enough to bring rocks down to earth so to speak..just a thought



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 04:42 PM
link   
The Primordial Soup theory claims Life originated on Earth (abiogenesis). Some primigenious chemicals would have got interacted in several reactions giving birth to the first life form.

My opinion: both theories are plausible, and according to data still either one can't completely overwrite the other.



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 04:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by LadyTrick
I thought the big bang created space and not just out there...in space?
I thought this was generally talked about alot the ingrediants for life might have come from a comet or what have you? But still that has to come from somewhere it doesn't spring out of space from nowhere surely? Maybe I havn't grasped what you are asking sorry.


Well, that would spring an entire new set of questions, wouldn't it? How do you create something out of nothing? Virtually impossible and one of the main questions that need be asked when contemplating this discussion. I only used the Big Bang as an example. If the Big Bang happened and created all of this, then it had to have created Earth. If it created Earth it had to have created the organic compounds needed to create life. By that reasoning and logic then we are ALL alien and there's no other conclusion to come to other than life started in space.



Originally posted by davesmart
reply to post by Hivethink
 


hi hivethink,you have said what ive been thinking since i was at school. May i ask you a question as you appear to be experienced in this..could it be possible that as the earth in its young age started to cool down and rotation slowing could maybe a few chunks of have been thrown into space and caught by the garavitational pull and maybe circled earthe for millions of years till the pull was strong enough to bring rocks down to earth so to speak..just a thought


Well, I suppose that could have happened. It's said that the impact at the Yucatan peninsula was so large that it threw rocks into space, which came down again raining even more destruction on Earth.

If you're talking about how Earth was created in regards to planetesimals sucking up huge space rocks colliding into one another, I'm not sure if, once the Earth calmed down a bit, rocks were thrust into space. Interesting though.



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 05:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by AboveTheTrees


The Primordial Soup theory claims Life originated on Earth (abiogenesis). Some primigenious chemicals would have got interacted in several reactions giving birth to the first life form.

My opinion: both theories are plausible, and according to data still either one can't completely overwrite the other.






Abiogenesis how, though? Life didn't start on Earth. Earth had to be created first. Created how? Well, that doesn't entirely matter but it's fairly certain that it was created in space, right? By that account, all of life's organic material, proteins and aminos originated in space. Thus, panspermia is the only safe conclusion.

Sorry for double posting. Head is going a million miles per hour here.



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 06:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hivethink

Originally posted by AboveTheTrees

Abiogenesis how, though? Life didn't start on Earth. Earth had to be created first. Created how? Well, that doesn't entirely matter but it's fairly certain that it was created in space, right? By that account, all of life's organic material, proteins and aminos originated in space. Thus, panspermia is the only safe conclusion.

Sorry for double posting. Head is going a million miles per hour here.




Oh-o-h-OK! now I get your point, sorry. Then YES, ABSOLUTELY. Considering essential chemicals were created in Space millions of years before even the Earth was "assambled", Life was -therefore- created in Space or opportunistically created by chemicals originated in Space millions of years before.

Those theories discussed try to clear if Life on Earth, as an extremely unusual chain of chemicals in the Universe, was created in Space and then came by or on the contrary it developed originally in Earth, but observing the question from the perspective you describe, there would be no question.

It's always nice to think beyond borders, so thank you for proposing!



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 06:43 PM
link   
It's sad that when I brought this up with someone else they heard the buzzword "panspermia" and instantly went into ancient Sumerian texts and Annanukai bullcrap. Heheh.

Anyway, you're welcome. When asked from now on I think I'm just going to tell people I have definitive proof that panspermia and exogenesis is the rule and not the exception.

On the subject, I found an interesting website that is full of juicy information:


Cosmic Ancestry


And an absolutely engrossing 2 hour documentary on this very subject. Highly recommend it.
www.youtube.com...

Sorry. I don't know how to embed.


edit on 18-4-2011 by Hivethink because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 07:06 PM
link   
Organic compounds certainly came from space, but the problem with panspermia is not where did organic compounds come from, its from which source did the first replicating entity arise. I find it hard to imagine it first arriving outside Earth, then settling here, finding its own niche. The joint probability of primitive living matter being persistent enough to survive for thousands of thousands of years riding on a space rock and then finding a home on earth, where, by being able to withstand the new living conditions, is then able to adapt and disseminate, is extremely unrealistic, in my opinion.

Though its certainly plausible, given where matter originates, and the complexity and unpredictability of self-replicating biological systems. Its also falsifiable, therefore affirming it as a legitimate scientific undertaking, placed under the domain of the hypothetical. But by no means should it be the predominant "theory" of the first "living" things.



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 07:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by uva3021
Organic compounds certainly came from space, but the problem with panspermia is not where did organic compounds come from, its from which source did the first replicating entity arise. I find it hard to imagine it first arriving outside Earth, then settling here, finding its own niche. The joint probability of primitive living matter being persistent enough to survive for thousands of thousands of years riding on a space rock and then finding a home on earth, where, by being able to withstand the new living conditions, is then able to adapt and disseminate, is extremely unrealistic, in my opinion.

Though its certainly plausible, given where matter originates, and the complexity and unpredictability of self-replicating biological systems. Its also falsifiable, therefore affirming it as a legitimate scientific undertaking, placed under the domain of the hypothetical. But by no means should it be the predominant "theory" of the first "living" things.


I'm entirely out of my league here as this is a new topic for me but, I've been researching the hell out of this. I'd like to take on your post if I may. I hope to God or Aminos From Space that I don't come off as an ass.

Your first question is THE question! I'll answer it as best I can with my limited knowledge. Maybe I'm coming from a place of knowledge, maybe these are just ideas that seem to make sense to me within the context that I understand panspermia. Regardless, here goes:

You question is not where but from which source. Well, I don't know if anyone really has the answer to that. I'm of a mind that life has to begin or come from life. Somewhere out there, billions of years ago, "life" showed up. Obviously on the extreme micro level. Which source indeed? But, I don't believe the answer to that (or the lack of an answer) entirely invalidates the idea of panspermia. What I mean is (hope I don't sound like an ass), what does it matter from which source? It came from space and that, at its very definition, is panspermia.

It shouldn't be too difficult to believe that "it" found its way to earth and then finding its own niche. That's exactly what most biologists believe anyway. These proteins and nucleic acids cut their own niche out of a chaotic planet and found a way to thrive. In fact, they still thrive. I'm of a mind that it's a bacterial world. We live with them. They don't live with us. The entire circuitry of this planet is rigged at that level after millions of years of adapting and getting it right. This isn't a question of whether or not its realistic or not. That these foundations of life found a way to survive millions of years on a planet that did everything it could (unknowingly - I'm not positing that the Earth is sentient and was trying to oust the bacterial invaders!) to destroy them is exactly what happened. It shouldn't matter whether or not these aminos or proteins where always "here" or if they came from "out there". That they survived to eventually become the very stuff of life is proof that they are far more hardy than you may give them credit for.

I found these facts interesting in regards to answering your questions on whether these "things" can survive harsh extremes:

# 19 May 1995: two scientists at Cal Poly showed that bacteria can survive without any metabolism for at least 25 million years; probably they are immortal.
# 24 November 1995: The New York Times described bacteria that can survive radiation much stronger than any that Earth has ever experienced.
# 7 August 1996: NASA announced fossilized evidence of ancient life in meteorite ALH 84001 from Mars.
# 27 October 1996: geneticists showed evidence that many genes are much older than the fossil record would indicate. Subsequent studies have strengthened this finding.
# 29 July 1997: a NASA scientist announced evidence of fossilized microscopic life forms in a meteorite not from any known planet.
# Spring, 1998: a microfossil that was found in a meteorite and photographed in 1966, was recognized by a Russian microbiologist as a magnetotactic bacterium.
# Fall, 1998: NASA's public position on life-from-space shifted dramatically.
# 4 January 1999: NASA officially recognized the possibility that life on Earth comes from space.
# 19 March 1999: NASA scientists announced that two more meteorites hold even stronger fossilized evidence for past life on Mars.
# 26 April 2000: the German team operating the mass spectrometer on NASA's Stardust mission announced the detection of very large organic molecules in space. Nonbiological sources for organic molecules so large are not known.
# 19 October 2000, a team of biologists and a geologist announced the revival of bacteria that are 250 million years old, strengthening that case that bacterial spores can be immortal.
# 13 December 2000: a NASA team demonstrated that the magnetosomes in Mars meteorite ALH 84001 are biological.
# June 2002: Geneticists reported evidence that the evolutionary step from chimps to humans was assisted by viruses.
# 2 August 2004: Very convincing photos of fossilized cyanobacteria in a meteorite were reported by a NASA scientist.

I think maybe a good place for you to start (or re-start - I'm not trying to tell you what you do or don't know or what you should and should not research) is psuedo-panspermia. It is as I understand it, the idea that these complex organic compounds swam around the soup, so to speak, and gave whatever was already here a little nudge.

Let me know what you think.

Another nice link for you, uva.
edit on 18-4-2011 by Hivethink because: (no reason given)

edit on 18-4-2011 by Hivethink because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 10:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hivethink
It shouldn't be too difficult to believe that "it" found its way to earth and then finding its own niche. That's exactly what most biologists believe anyway. These proteins and nucleic acids cut their own niche out of a chaotic planet and found a way to thrive. In fact, they still thrive. I'm of a mind that it's a bacterial world. We live with them. They don't live with us. The entire circuitry of this planet is rigged at that level after millions of years of adapting and getting it right. This isn't a question of whether or not its realistic or not. That these foundations of life found a way to survive millions of years on a planet that did everything it could (unknowingly - I'm not positing that the Earth is sentient and was trying to oust the bacterial invaders!) to destroy them is exactly what happened. It shouldn't matter whether or not these aminos or proteins where always "here" or if they came from "out there". That they survived to eventually become the very stuff of life is proof that they are far more hardy than you may give them credit for.


Great post. I don't think there is any question there is some form of life elsewhere, and it probably started elsewhere before Earth, but whether that life survived an elongated space voyage and then seeded the origin of terrestrial life, I don't know. But your post was very convincing, as were the sources and links. I haven't really looked that much into it aside from reading Francis Crick's book, it is a fascinating topic though.

Thanks for starting the thread, hopefully the discussion builds



posted on Apr, 19 2011 @ 07:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hivethink
Let's just say I give you that the big bang happened. If it did happen it happened out there in space. By that fact alone, life HAD to have come from space just by virtue of the fact that the BB happened in "space". I don't see any other option.

How does "big bang happened in space" lead you to "life must have come from space"? I just don't see the logic behind this. Also, organic compounds can form thru inorganic chemistry.
edit on 19-4-2011 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 19 2011 @ 11:15 AM
link   
Where else could it have happened? If it even did happen. I used it as an example. If it did happen it happened "out there". Not here. Not on Earth. It created Earth. It also had to have created the building blocks of life. Thus, all life falls under panspermia.

I'm also of a mind that life has to come from life.



posted on Apr, 19 2011 @ 11:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Hivethink
 





Abiogenesis how, though? Life didn't start on Earth.


Abiogenesis is not settled science by any means. There is still a lot of work before we start talking of a theory.

Life on Earth almost certainly did start on Earth. A living organism would have a great deal of trouble surviving the entry from space to Earth, while organic chemicals in the Earth's environment would almost form life as a matter if inevitability.



Earth had to be created first. Created how? Well, that doesn't entirely matter but it's fairly certain that it was created in space, right?


Yes, since Earth is in space now and it has always been in space, yes, that is where it was formed.



By that account, all of life's organic material, proteins and aminos originated in space. Thus, panspermia is the only safe conclusion. Sorry for double posting. Head is going a million miles per hour here.


Organic chemicals are not life, and not all Earth bound organic chemicals originated off planet. On Earth (and presumably other planets as well) those organic chemicals 'found' an environment that 'allowed' them to form life. This does not absolutely eliminate panspermia, but the odds are extremely small, not because of the unlikelyhood, but because of the non-necessity.



posted on Apr, 20 2011 @ 11:07 AM
link   
reply to post by rnaa
 


It's been proven that these organic compounds and proteins, etc, can and have survived entry. Extrapolate this over billions of years of cosmic entities slamming into Earth and I'm pretty sure enough would have survived to start "life".



posted on Apr, 21 2011 @ 01:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Hivethink
 




It's been proven that these organic compounds and proteins, etc, can and have survived entry. Extrapolate this over billions of years of cosmic entities slamming into Earth and I'm pretty sure enough would have survived to start "life".


Yes, I agree.

I said a living organism would not survive entry. Organic compounds are not life, they are the building blocks of (organic) life.



posted on Apr, 25 2011 @ 10:35 AM
link   
Even so, Eris (hehe), those building blocks of life didn't just pop up on earth. Mainly because earth didn't just pop up out of nowhere. Organic compounds, building blocks of life, whatever! It matters not. There's no other safe conclusion to come to other than that whatever got life kicked up on earth, it originally came from space. I see no other option. Thus, panspermia is the way of life. Not a theory of from whence it came.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join