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.

 

Evolution of LIFE

page: 1
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 25 2012 @ 06:13 AM
link   
So i read this article at the Science Daily about
a planet that was smashed up. In the debries
they belive that life was present.
And thouse fragments crashed here on earth. Starting life
here...

So i ask, WHY is it so hard to belive that life HERE, DIDNT
start HERE?!?!?
If it started on the other planet, why not here...?!?!?!?
I dont get it...

Article

SNIP:




Microorganisms that crashed to Earth embedded in the fragments of distant planets might have been the sprouts of life on this one, according to new research from Princeton University, the University of Arizona and the Centro de Astrobiología (CAB) in Spain.

edit on 2012/9/25 by Miccey because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 25 2012 @ 06:17 AM
link   
Of course it could have happened, why not?

Pretty similar in a way to a tree dropping its seeds and another tree sprouting from that seed......



posted on Sep, 25 2012 @ 06:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by davethebear
Of course it could have happened, why not?

Pretty similar in a way to a tree dropping its seeds and another tree sprouting from that seed......


Because we all know smashed planets are really trees that go into seed



posted on Sep, 25 2012 @ 06:33 AM
link   
Pretty awesome article


And I learned a new word from it, lithopanspermia, now to figure out how to use it in day to day conversations. lol.

It's a pretty neat concept. Are we all allowed to say that we are aliens now without getting locked up!?



posted on Sep, 25 2012 @ 06:41 AM
link   
Nahh.
Im gonna go with the "Life evolved HERE".
Just like it did on the other planet. HOW?
Dont ask me, ask the ones saying it started
on the other planet



posted on Sep, 25 2012 @ 06:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Miccey
 


I tend to agree.

Since we are here, and this planet sustains life. There does not seem to be any valid reason that life could not have originated here.

While the idea of panspermia is acceptable, I fail to see why it would be deemed necessary for life to exist on this planet.
Solid theory, but unnecessary.
edit on 25-9-2012 by watchitburn because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 25 2012 @ 07:09 AM
link   
I think this is the crux of origin theory.

What is the spark that brings forth the life that follows?

It is possible that Earth was impregnated with life from an outside source. But at some point, life must have started without any precedent. This implies two possibilities. One being that there is an element consistent throughout the universe that will drive matter toward life where ever possible. The other is that there are some extreme circumstances that create life as a byproduct, and life is not necessarily the norm throughout.

I lean toward the first explanation, and expect that life exists in many different forms throughout the universe.
edit on 9/25/2012 by PatrickGarrow17 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 25 2012 @ 07:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Miccey
So i read this article at the Science Daily about
a planet that was smashed up. In the debries
they belive that life was present.
And thouse fragments crashed here on earth. Starting life
here...

So i ask, WHY is it so hard to belive that life HERE, DIDNT
start HERE?!?!?
If it started on the other planet, why not here...?!?!?!?
I dont get it...

Article

SNIP:




Microorganisms that crashed to Earth embedded in the fragments of distant planets might have been the sprouts of life on this one, according to new research from Princeton University, the University of Arizona and the Centro de Astrobiología (CAB) in Spain.

edit on 2012/9/25 by Miccey because: (no reason given)


Its all just theories, we stick to whatever makes the most sense, we could never know where life started.

Panspermia is one of those...



posted on Sep, 25 2012 @ 07:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by luciddream

Originally posted by Miccey
So i read this article at the Science Daily about
a planet that was smashed up. In the debries
they belive that life was present.
And thouse fragments crashed here on earth. Starting life
here...

So i ask, WHY is it so hard to belive that life HERE, DIDNT
start HERE?!?!?
If it started on the other planet, why not here...?!?!?!?
I dont get it...

Article

SNIP:




Microorganisms that crashed to Earth embedded in the fragments of distant planets might have been the sprouts of life on this one, according to new research from Princeton University, the University of Arizona and the Centro de Astrobiología (CAB) in Spain.

edit on 2012/9/25 by Miccey because: (no reason given)


Its all just theories, we stick to whatever makes the most sense, we could never know where life started.

Panspermia is one of those...


Yes perhaps, but this story raises more questions...Right..
If it DID start on the OTHER planet......HOW???
If they can answer that, then perhaps it started the same
way HERE...



posted on Sep, 25 2012 @ 09:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by borntowatch

Originally posted by davethebear
Of course it could have happened, why not?

Pretty similar in a way to a tree dropping its seeds and another tree sprouting from that seed......


Because we all know smashed planets are really trees that go into seed


This the first line from the link given by the OP.......

Microorganisms that crashed to Earth embedded in the fragments of distant planets might have been the sprouts of life on this one, according to new research from Princeton University, the University of Arizona and the Centro de Astrobiología (CAB) in Spain.....

I was using the tree and seeds as a SIMPLE explanatory example of how life could have evolved over billions of years from micro-organisms that were embedded in fragments of rock from distant planets and landed here on Earth, in a similar way to which seeds fall from trees and then grow into other trees, but also taking into consideration that other planets as we well know are a great deal further away than what a tree is from earth....

I wasn't stating that small pieces of crushed planets grew into trees or indeed seeds. But the idea that micro-organisms from a distant planet could have landed on Earth billions of years ago and evolved /developed over time is a real possibility, which over time would also develop and grow into natural living objects that we now know as trees...
edit on 25-9-2012 by davethebear because: (no reason given)

edit on 25-9-2012 by davethebear because: spelling



posted on Sep, 25 2012 @ 11:38 AM
link   
Life COULD have happened here all by itself, it's just that there is no scientific evidence that it did or that it is possible - therefore it becomes a matter of belief systems

Was life created?
Did life happen all by itself with the ability to replicate itself?

The outerspace theory is just an option that people like Richard Dawkins like to suggest to push the problem elsewhere.

Remember the perfect ingredients for life can be found in any corpse. Life is more than an arrangment of molecules



posted on Sep, 25 2012 @ 11:54 AM
link   
Sodding scientists then...

So if we are to belive life originated "somewere"
else, then i want to know HOW it evolved "THERE".

There is a theory about the primordial soup i think
its called. I find that more plausible.

Wiki Link



posted on Sep, 25 2012 @ 11:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by PatrickGarrow17
I think this is the crux of origin theory.

What is the spark that brings forth the life that follows?

It is possible that Earth was impregnated with life from an outside source. But at some point, life must have started without any precedent. This implies two possibilities. One being that there is an element consistent throughout the universe that will drive matter toward life where ever possible. The other is that there are some extreme circumstances that create life as a byproduct, and life is not necessarily the norm throughout.

I lean toward the first explanation, and expect that life exists in many different forms throughout the universe.
edit on 9/25/2012 by PatrickGarrow17 because: (no reason given)


This is maybe the truth and what is what i belive too.
But we cant have that...
Its not politicaly correct...



posted on Sep, 27 2012 @ 06:38 AM
link   
It's just yet another theory. If more evidence becomes apparent that it may be a viable possibility, then more research will be done into it. I'm just pleased that most of the readers/commenters here are happy with the "Evolution" part, wherever it happened. Whenever stories like this come up, i'm always expecting the fundamentalists to show up & start up their rubbish about whatever holy book &/or cult/religion says re; The starting mechanisms involved in life.



posted on Sep, 27 2012 @ 03:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Miccey
 


The article did NOT say that life exclusively came from such cosmic debris, only that it was "possible", perhaps "likely".

Nowhere in the article dies it suggest life could not or did not, sprout from Earth. Why are you suggesting that is the case?

Directly from the article:

...the strongest support yet for "lithopanspermia," the idea that the microorganisms that sprout life came to Earth -- or spread from Earth to other developing planets -- via collisions with meteorite-like planetary fragments.


"...OR spread FROM Earth to other planets..."

The idea (of lithopanspermia) merely suggests that the lithospheric components of material in the cosmos whose source may be as a result of a cataclysmic event, contains, within the ejecta, living matter that may, eventually, find it's way to the surface of another planet and provide for the germination of life there.

Seems plausible to me. We on Earth take a pretty significant hit by an asteroid every few million years or so. The litho material ejected into space may have a few biological fragments going along for the ride. Though the odds are astronomical (excuse the pun), it's quite reasonable to expect, and certainly within probability calculations, that on occasion, a measurable amount of biological material lands on another planet under the right circumstances and conditions to allow that biological material to flourish and propagate anew. Why not?

The article even suggests that this may be far more common than we can imagine. On a cosmic timescale (many billions of years), or even a geologic one (many hundreds of millions of years), there is plenty of time and happenstance for such events to engender life and may indeed serve to spread life throughout the galaxies.

From Earth. Toward Earth. It's all cosmic, baby!



posted on Sep, 28 2012 @ 12:44 AM
link   
Maaan...Did i do that...Hmmm leme look..
NOO..




Nowhere in the article dies it suggest life could not or did not, sprout from Earth. Why are you suggesting that is the case?


NOWERE in my post do i say or suggest that THAT is the case..
Go back read again, and THEN reply..OK

All i said was (maybe not in these EXACT words but still)
Why is it so hard to belive that life DIDNT originate from EARTH?
Why do we HAVE to look for outside answers?

By the way, found this little article today:

Marsian Streambed found



NASA's Curiosity rover mission has found evidence a stream once ran vigorously across the area on Mars where the rover is driving. There is earlier evidence for the presence of water on Mars, but this evidence -- images of rocks containing ancient streambed gravels -- is the first of its kind.


Would be cool if C could dig in and look for fosiles (spelling?)
Would be COOLER to be there and look in person

edit on 2012/9/28 by Miccey because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 28 2012 @ 12:55 AM
link   
I think one of the reasons behind panspermia is because some scientists don't think the Earth is old enough to have formed life, there just wasn't enough time for the complexity of DNA to form. I think one of the guys who discovered DNA, Crick, this was his belief. And since the universe is much older than Earth, with much older planets, these planets would have had much more time for life to form.
edit on 28-9-2012 by OMsk3ptic because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 28 2012 @ 03:25 AM
link   
reply to post by OMsk3ptic
 


How can we state that, when we dont KNOW, HOW life forms?
So how can we then say earth is too young?



posted on Sep, 28 2012 @ 08:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Miccey
reply to post by OMsk3ptic
 

How can we state that, when we dont KNOW, HOW life forms?
So how can we then say earth is too young?


Do some research and you'll find out why some think that. You have this question that you seem to be puzzled by, but have you even tried finding the answers out for yourself? There whole internet is at your fingertips.
edit on 28-9-2012 by OMsk3ptic because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 29 2012 @ 01:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by OMsk3ptic

Originally posted by Miccey
reply to post by OMsk3ptic
 

How can we state that, when we dont KNOW, HOW life forms?
So how can we then say earth is too young?


Do some research and you'll find out why some think that. You have this question that you seem to be puzzled by, but have you even tried finding the answers out for yourself? There whole internet is at your fingertips.
edit on 28-9-2012 by OMsk3ptic because: (no reason given)


No im not asking this, well ok as side question but, its not
what the thread is about. Sidequestion for you then:
Is the absolute fact about the forming of life ON THE INTERNET?
No, just speculations, im 42 and ive been on the weebs since it
started basicly..Read Matrix, im like him, searching all days long



new topics

top topics



 
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join