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.

 

Did a Distant Solar System Send Life to Earth? (TIME magazine)

page: 1
13
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 26 2012 @ 02:28 PM
link   
I thought this was an interesting and relevant article.

Do star systems swap biology?

Probably most people reading this are at least familiar with the theory that life may have come to earth via comets and meteorites.

It is interesting to note the evidence that amino acids and possibly even micro-organisms can make the trip between stars. It does hint at the possibility that life might be much more prolific throughout the universe than scientists used to believe. If life is prolific, then advanced and intelligent lifeforms may also be more prolific than previously believed. Although if intelligent life is spread throughout the universe, you still have to wonder if it is capable of travelling between star systems as we have so far not found any proof that other intelligent species have visited or are visiting earth. (At least the sort of proof that convinces scientific elites)




posted on Sep, 26 2012 @ 02:35 PM
link   
Disclosure is coming soob i think



posted on Sep, 26 2012 @ 02:45 PM
link   
reply to post by phroziac
 

Good Find! Oh and what is a soob????



posted on Sep, 26 2012 @ 02:46 PM
link   
reply to post by bluestreak53
 


I think this sort of information is the real "disclosure" project.

One day we will confirm that an extra-terrestrial microbe exists on Mars, a comet, or one of the many moons of the Solar System. Maybe even something more substantial such as primitive lifeforms. This will not disturb the sensitive balance of religions and economic systems across the globe too much.

It will be a long slow process and then eventually we will be told that we have detected the first signs of civilization near a distant star. Whether I live to hear all of it is a different matter.



posted on Sep, 26 2012 @ 02:49 PM
link   
reply to post by nighthawk1954
 


i see my keyboard

b is near to n

so he meant soon



posted on Sep, 26 2012 @ 02:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by nighthawk1954
reply to post by phroziac
 

Good Find! Oh and what is a soob????

Lmao i typed that on a phone.

But why do we keep hearing news like this, which the conspiracy minded already knew? Next thing you know we will have a bunch of illegal aliens....and not from mexico



posted on Sep, 26 2012 @ 02:59 PM
link   
Interesting read

I do believe that some ingredients for life existed here on Earth in the early days of the Solar System and some were delivered here via Comets , Asteroids and Star dust deposited over hundreds of millions of years .

The idea of panspermia has always appealed but lithopanspermia is a new one on me , I see no reason why over the period of a billion or so years its thought that it took for the Earth to become ready to develop life chunks of rock from far older solar systems couldn't have made the journey to add their particular flavor to the mix and help create what we see today .

Of course the theory adds weight to the belief that life of all sorts is widespread throughout the Galaxy , as if that's how life started here it must be the case for countless other hospitable planets , and if life develops I believe that as a consequence intelligence is sure to follow in one form or another .


edit on 26-9-2012 by gortex because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 26 2012 @ 03:16 PM
link   
reply to post by bluestreak53
 
Nice article.

It's speculative and open-minded and no bad thing. Only a half-dozen years ago, the panspermia (terminology evolves and changes) premise was considered laughable. Here we are and it's shifted slightly away from the pseudo and into the outer reaches of science-based possibility.


Astrobiologia in Spain took a different approach, developing computer models of a slow-boat transit method known as weak transfer. Under this process, rubble spirals slowly outward through a solar system until it reaches a spot so far from its parent sun that it requires only a slight perturbation to nudge it into interstellar space. “At this point,” says Princeton astrophysicist Edward Belbruno, one of the authors of the paper, “you’re escaping so slowly that randomness and chaos theory is involved in getting you out.”


As a model for transporting life, it's reasonable enough. The question we then have is about how long it takes for life/abiogenesis to appear in the history of system formation? If it can arise in an horrendously hostile and infant environment, the idea carries weight.

Conversely, if current models are more or less accurate, life has to wait for stability before it can establish its own existence. This would mean all the chaotic exchange and transfer of cosmic matter would be lifeless.


Encouragingly, analyses of terrestrial rocks reveal that Earthly organics may indeed have formed in the solar system’s comparative babyhood, directly within the departure window.


As it stands, organics *may* have formed then, but we're still dealing with ifs and maybes. Furthermore, if life could be seeded from elsewhere, there's no reason to doubt it could have seeded here independently.

I love this area of exploration as it's like the old maps showing the edge of the world. We hit a vacuum of evidence and paradox upon paradox where speculation is out there without a parachute. Either way we cut it, the inanimate became animated through a process we can barely conceive of. Deep stuff...



posted on Sep, 26 2012 @ 04:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Kandinsky
 


Right.

If (as some say) it is possible that life started elsewhere (started spontaneously on another planet) and found its way here, then it is also possible that life on Earth simply started spontaneously on Earth.



posted on Sep, 26 2012 @ 04:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
reply to post by Kandinsky
 


Right.

If (as some say) it is possible that life started elsewhere (started spontaneously on another planet) and found its way here, then it is also possible that life on Earth simply started spontaneously on Earth.


But... If life (or the building blocks of life, amino acids, etc.) can move from one star system to another, then life is probably prolific through the galaxy and universe. Plus it suggests that the balance of probabilities is that life on this planet did not originate here, but somewhere else in the universe. (unless the probability of life "spontaneously" starting is also much higher than previously thought).



posted on Sep, 26 2012 @ 05:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People
 


and then spawned life elsewhere


the whole worry about contaminating mars is pretty crazy.
Even if we do find anything on mars, it could of just came for the ride from earth



posted on Sep, 26 2012 @ 06:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by WanderingThe3rd
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People
 


and then spawned life elsewhere


the whole worry about contaminating mars is pretty crazy.
Even if we do find anything on mars, it could of just came for the ride from earth


Yes. All I'm pointing out is that there are people who feel that it would have been unlikely that life began on earth because abiogeneis (life spontaneously starting from non-life) may be a rare event. Those people usually push the panspermia theory, citing how rare life abiogenesis may be.

I'm simply saying that if they belive that life was created elsewhere then came to Earth, the it could have also been the case that Earth life began on Earth. For panspermia to be true, then life began elsewhere at least once. If it could happen elsewhere, it could happen here.



posted on Sep, 26 2012 @ 08:07 PM
link   
Well of course its possible, as are all things. It has been discussed to death and is no longer really relevant (do a search). Saying this, is the same as saying God created us; neither provable nor unprovable in the near-mid future.
edit on 26-9-2012 by Subterranean13 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 27 2012 @ 12:17 AM
link   
The only thing crazier than "directed panspermia" is panspermia itself! I mean, the 23rd human chromosome is twisted. Whatever that means, both atheist scientists and creationist scientists agree that some outside force had to twist that DNA strand. That rules out evolution, and panspermia. As for directed panspermia, it would take too much energy for a new species to travel so far to create a new species by twisting it's DNA. It just doesn't add up.



posted on Sep, 27 2012 @ 12:58 AM
link   
reply to post by phroziac
 


Why yes, yes it is, friend



posted on Sep, 27 2012 @ 07:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by SuspendedBelief
The only thing crazier than "directed panspermia" is panspermia itself! I mean, the 23rd human chromosome is twisted. Whatever that means, both atheist scientists and creationist scientists agree that some outside force had to twist that DNA strand. That rules out evolution, and panspermia. As for directed panspermia, it would take too much energy for a new species to travel so far to create a new species by twisting it's DNA. It just doesn't add up.


What are you talking about? All DNA is twisted. Your post doesn't seem to make any sense at all.

DNA



posted on Sep, 27 2012 @ 07:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by SuspendedBelief
..the 23rd human chromosome is twisted. Whatever that means, both atheist scientists and creationist scientists agree that some outside force had to twist that DNA strand. That rules out evolution...

A few questions:

First, could you please explain what you mean by the 23rd chromosome being twisted? I don't know what you mean by this, because the physical structure of the 23rd chromosome (both the "XX" and the "XY" versions) is not that much different than the other 22.

Secondly (and assuming you can show me that the 23rd chromosome is a uniquely twisted chromosome to begin with), can you please show me the research that was done that has convinced science that an alleged twisted 23rd chromosome CANNOT be natural and had to be twisted by some "outside force"?

I would think that if science in general is totally convinced that the 23rd chromosome has a structure that is NOT possible in nature, and a structure that HAD to be created by some mysterious "outside force", then that would be really, really, really, really big news -- and I had never heard about it.

I mean, if science as a whole believed this to be true, then there would be reason for them to go on studying the theory of evolution as the natural way humans came to be human -- yet they do go on.

Thirdly, the fact that even you say "whatever that means" leads me to believe that even you don't understand this yourself, and are simply repeating something you've read before. Can you please direct me to this information that made you believe what you are saying?


edit on 9/27/2012 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 27 2012 @ 07:53 AM
link   
reply to post by phroziac
 


Mistakes are more interesting than what is being said most times.



posted on Sep, 27 2012 @ 09:38 AM
link   
Earth is part of the Sagittarius Dwarf Galaxy and we crashed into the Milky Way Galaxy.

That's why when you look up in the night sky the Milky Way is North-South. We are 90* off of the Milky Way's galactic plane. If our solar system was always part of the Milky Way our solar system would be on the same plane as the Milky Way Galaxy. You would look up and see it East-West instead.

Life came from the crash.



posted on Sep, 27 2012 @ 09:43 AM
link   
reply to post by bluestreak53
 


This thread might interest you?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Aliens?? Credit goes to predator0187




new topics

top topics



 
13
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join