Notices
Results 1 to 26 of 26

Thread: Are we aliens?

  1. #1 Are we aliens? 
    New Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    4
    I am new to this forum and not sure whether this discussion has already been wrapped up within the forum but I am going to pose it as a question. If anything I am saying sounds ridiculous, please correct it, I am only young so this could be a ridiculous theory. I believe that, in some point during the history of the earth, a meteor collided with the planet. This would suggest a large amount of the population was wiped out, if not the majority. We are not sure of the exact time when said meteor hit therefore, we do not know if humans were alive at the time. Even if it was the early man. My theory is this:

    Would it be possible for a the meteor (asteroid) to have been carrying small organisms from far across the universe which were of an intelligent life form. This could have been a product of the big bang and taken a large amount of time for this to reach earth due to the vast size of the universe itself. Hence I think that any form of human, whether the early man or not, may have been from another planet or star and not solely a by-product of the atmosphere in this universe.

    So my question is to all forum users, could we in possibility be aliens?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Freshman Spaceman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    67
    It can be a opportunity a asteroid or a metreor hited us. But i belive that cells and bacteria spread all over this planet. Than sooner created more bigger organisms, And maby created this humanity.

    But maby aliens came to this planet with the asteroid or the metreor.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    171
    The grammar in the last post hurt my brain.

    In the past asteroids have hit Earth, this is a confirmed fact. In fact, asteroids are believed to be behind many of the extinction events. Early in the Earths formation, asteroid strikes were more common and some people believe that it was on these asteroids that some of the organic molecules arrived on Earth.

    I believe you are thinking of Panspermia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panspermia
    Always minimize the variables.

    Semper Paratus
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    4
    Thank you for taking the time to reply.

    Yes the grammar was rather abysmal I was going to say something but I guessed he was foreign so let him be. I think the theory has a high possibility of being correct and this means theoretically we are an alien life form, which is hard to actually comprehend.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Why would you think this is more likely than the more conventional explanations of the origin of life?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    4
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    Why would you think this is more likely than the more conventional explanations of the origin of life?
    I'm sorry but I don't believe I once stated it was more likely. I simply voiced another theory which could also be plausible.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    171
    You stated that you think it has a high possibility of being correct. By stating that, you are implying that you think it is more likely to be true than the current hypothesis that life formed on Earth.
    Always minimize the variables.

    Semper Paratus
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    4
    Quote Originally Posted by Haasum
    You stated that you think it has a high possibility of being correct. By stating that, you are implying that you think it is more likely to be true than the current hypothesis that life formed on Earth.
    When did I once state that it had a higher possibility of being correct than the current theory? I never. I just said it had a high chance, not the highest chance. So am I correct in saying there would be a difference?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,328
    Quote Originally Posted by MichaelRobertson
    I simply voiced another theory which could also be plausible.
    Your intention is clear and I'll answer your interesting OP in that spirit.

    It's plausible or likely that life originated extraterrestrially. I personally favour it beginning in a not-too-hot not-too-cold "Goldilocks" zone of the early solar system's protoplanetary disc, then settling on Earth once Earth had cooled and wetted to the same conditions. There are also more sensible pansperia proposals for life's origin.

    A late addition is another matter. The problem with a late addition is our theory and evidence of evolution already explains the present and extinct species beautifully. We've most thoroughly accounted for human evolution too, including how our brains evolved. Only minor details remain to be filled.

    It would be fantastically lucky if intelligent humans just happened to arrive from space at the moment they were due anyway by evolutionary forces. And with DNA that just happens to reflect an origin in common with toads and gorillas?
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Sorry, I see the idea we came from another planet almost impossible. All life on earth shares certain genetic markers, to a pretty high degree. I think it would be rather unlikely life that originating elsewhere would share so many genetic markers unless all of earths life is not native.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    ox
    ox is offline
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,648
    Check out Fred Hoyle's Panspermia theory.
    In his later years, Hoyle became a staunch critic of theories of chemical evolution used to explain the naturalistic origin of life. With Chandra Wickramasinghe, Hoyle promoted the theory that life evolved in space, spreading through the universe via panspermia, and that evolution on earth is driven by a steady influx of viruses arriving via comets. In 1982, Hoyle presented Evolution from Space for the Royal Institution's Omni Lecture. After considering what he thought of as a very remote probability of evolution he concluded:

    If one proceeds directly and straightforwardly in this matter, without being deflected by a fear of incurring the wrath of scientific opinion, one arrives at the conclusion that biomaterials with their amazing measure or order must be the outcome of intelligent design. No other possibility I have been able to think of...[10]

    Published in his 1982/1984 books Evolution from Space (co-authored with Chandra Wickramasinghe), Hoyle calculated that the chance of obtaining the required set of enzymes for even the simplest living cell was one in 10^40,000. Since the number of atoms in the known universe is infinitesimally tiny by comparison (10^80), he argued that even a whole universe full of primordial soup would grant little chance to evolutionary processes. He claimed:

    The notion that not only the biopolymer but the operating program of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in a primordial organic soup here on the Earth is evidently nonsense of a high order.

    Hoyle compared the random emergence of even the simplest cell to the likelihood that "a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein."
    Richard Dawkins argues against this, but there again, nothing is true apart from his own theory.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    USA - unfortunately
    Posts
    7
    Life, as we know it, cannot exist without water. Since the water on this planet came from comets/asteroids colliding with Earth, and the fact that enzymes have been found contained in meteors, then the answer is "Yes, all life is alien to this planet". Since the government won't admit they have samples of extraterrestrial DNA, it is impossible for us to determine how close their DNA is to ours, but is is conceivable that any bipedal humanoid species would have very similar DNA structure. I do, however, believe that the Homonidae DNA was manipulated in some fashion (by 1 or more extraterrestrial species) to create Homosapiens. We are the only species ever (on this planet) who's survival is based on intellectual adaption, not physical adaptation. This is not a trait of natural selection or evolution.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by KilkennyJake
    Life, as we know it, cannot exist without water. Since the water on this planet came from comets/asteroids colliding with Earth, and the fact that enzymes have been found contained in meteors, then the answer is "Yes, all life is alien to this planet". Since the government won't admit they have samples of extraterrestrial DNA, it is impossible for us to determine how close their DNA is to ours, but is is conceivable that any bipedal humanoid species would have very similar DNA structure. I do, however, believe that the Homonidae DNA was manipulated in some fashion (by 1 or more extraterrestrial species) to create Homosapiens. We are the only species ever (on this planet) who's survival is based on intellectual adaption, not physical adaptation. This is not a trait of natural selection or evolution.
    I'm sorry. I didn't realise until I had read three or four of your posts that you are a nutcase. Please ignore my comments. They are for lurkers who may be misled by your paranoid fantasies.

    1. To date no enzymes have been found in meteorites.
    2. If enzymes were found in meteorites this would still not be evidence of pan spermia.
    3. There is no evidence that any government has any samples of alien DNA.
    4. There is no evidence that aliens would have DNA.
    5. The intelligence of humans, though at the extreme end of animal intelligence, is wholly compatible with animal intelligence.
    6. The evolution of intelligence in general and in humans specifically is fully consistent with the principles of evolution.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    ox
    ox is offline
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,648
    Quote Originally Posted by KilkennyJake
    We are the only species ever (on this planet) who's survival is based on intellectual adaption, not physical adaptation. This is not a trait of natural selection or evolution.
    I think there is some truth in this statement as only homo sapiens have evolved to be receptive to units of cutural transmission (memes). These could have originated outside earth as nobody can really explain what is the unit of a meme, other than to say it is a virus of the mind. Our geocentric view of life is one such example.
    Different parts of the brain are receptive to different memes and memeplexes. For example, religious cults are memeplexes (groups of memes surviving to further their own replication). However, memes are subject to natural selection, just as genes are. The human brain is a hotbed of memes. Some of these are acted on by logic to produce scientific thinking. Some stay inactive and produce religious thought. Others become creative and inspire art. So everything could be regarded as just the activity of different parts of the brain.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Ok, so just for the sake of fun, are we suggesting that aliens showed up and gave us some memes (ideas that inspired us), or deliberately changed our DNA (like via animal husbandry or something like that)?

    It would be really interesting if a meme was the primary cause for our evolutionary departure from ape DNA, because it changed our effective environment so much. Like, imagine if an alien showed up and taught a group of apes how to control fire. What would that cause them to evolve into?

    It's fun to think about if you like alien theories..... but I wouldn't want to see this thread turn into pseudo-science. I think it started out being about abiogenesis via meteorite, which is a scientifically credible topic. (Albeit, one which still leaves open the question of where the life forms and/or genetic compounds on those meteors came from. )
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    ox
    ox is offline
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,648
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but I understand that the source of meteorites is in the asteroid belt when a collision causes a fragment to be blown away and the gravity from a passing planet causes it to spiral towards earth. But the earth is remarkably free of large meteorite impacts. One is predicted for 2019 and another for 2029, but the chances are they could still miss the earth. So I agree that the Pan Spermia theory doesn't explain how primitive cells could have evolved on lumps of barren rock, unless they did in the conditions of the very early solar system.
    One solution to the Fermi Paradox is that it is we who are the 'aliens' as for some reason the only place known to have life is earth and the chances of life elsewhere in the galaxy is almost zero. See 'Where is Everybody' by Stephen Webb, and the use of Eratosthenes Sieve to virtually rule out any other solar system having the right conditions for life. I could add that exo planets might not have the benefit of a friendly exo asteroid belt with planetary shields, as with Jupiter. Too many impacts would severely restrict the stability needed for life to evolve.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by ox
    So I agree that the Pan Spermia theory doesn't explain how primitive cells could have evolved on lumps of barren rock, unless they did in the conditions of the very early solar system.
    You are thinking way too local. Cold Giant Molecular Clouds (GMCs) have all the ingredients for a varied, complex and evolving prebiotic chemistry: everything except temperature.

    When GMCs begin to collapse as a a prelude to star formation they begin to heat up. You now have a wide range of organic chemicals, with interesting substrates to gather on and a bundle of thermal and electromagnetic energy to promote reactions. Instead of a few pathetic cubic kilomteres of sea water in tidal flats, or around hydrothermal vents you have cubic light years of biochemical laboratory. Where do you think life is more likley to evolve, given those options?

    I vote for hot GMCs.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    ox
    ox is offline
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,648
    Then why is the earth favoured for life, other than it has a gentle rotation and stable orbit, a perfect distance from its star to bathe in warm sunshine, an atmosphere perfect for life, an abudance of water to refresh the land, plate tectonics, protection from too many extraterrestrial impacts etc?
    Stellar nurseries may provide ingredients for life, but those still have to assemble themselves somehow into enzymes and the chances of this happening, Hoyle calculated at 1 in 10^40000, which is pretty slim, n'est pas?

    I vote for an intelligent universe.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by ox
    Stellar nurseries may provide ingredients for life, but those still have to assemble themselves somehow into enzymes and the chances of this happening, Hoyle calculated at 1 in 10^40000, which is pretty slim, n'est pas?
    Hoyle's calculations have been debunked, deconstructed, disinfected and destroyed numerous times. They are meaningless nonsense and a perfect example of how a greeat mind can be capable of great errors.

    Agreed there is a chance element in the origing of life, so I ask again: where is life more likely to occur by chance - in a terrestrial environment of a few hundred cubic miles, or in an interstellar environment of several cubic light years? Do the math.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    ox
    ox is offline
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,648
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Agreed there is a chance element in the origing of life, so I ask again: where is life more likely to occur by chance - in a terrestrial environment of a few hundred cubic miles, or in an interstellar environment of several cubic light years? Do the math.
    Origing? Are you coining a new word?
    The creation of life in an intelligent universe (one selected from a vast number unsuitable for life) is far greater than 'several cubic light years'.
    Why should we even consider that life evolves purely by chance when somehow we are here to ask even this simple question? We should consider that we are part of the cosmic scheme of things, and we are not here just by chance. So Hoyle may have been inaccurate but he was along the right lines.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by ox
    Origing? Are you coining a new word?
    I'm typing rapidly while multi-tasking at work.
    Quote Originally Posted by ox
    The creation of life in an intelligent universe (one selected from a vast number unsuitable for life) is far greater than 'several cubic light years'.
    As written, this sentence lacks meaning. I'm sure you meant something central to your argument. would you like to try again?
    Quote Originally Posted by ox
    We should consider that we are part of the cosmic scheme of things, and we are not here just by chance.
    We should consider it, but we should only retain it if there is significant evidence to support it and that evidence is stronger in support of that view than of any other.
    Quote Originally Posted by ox
    So Hoyle may have been inaccurate but he was along the right lines.
    No. He was not only inaccurate, but he totally missed the point. He assumed, for no good reason other than he was a physicist and not a biologist or biochemist, that the emergence of life was a totally chance affair. He did not recognise or understand the channelling of chemical reactions that is a consequence of the reaction tendencies of the elements.
    Please note that my proposal of for the emergence of life in GMCs echoes and is based on Hoyle's thinking in this area. It was in the probabilities and the process that he was in error, not necessarily the milieu.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    11
    If you are seriously interested in this matter, and more importantly its rejection, try this:

    Theobald, Douglas L. (13 May 2010). "A formal test of the theory of universal common ancestry". Nature 465

    It doesn't just loose the loony aliens clap trap, it also does the same for the loony scientists concept that 'horizontal gene transfer' was fundamental to all eukaryote evolution. Just to point out that Science can come up with idiosyncratic nonsense too. However it takes truly dedicated ignorance to make nonsense systematic.
    And to the 'alienists' and 'creationists', I believe that's your cue...

    AAAAAND here's Ritchie....
    Richard Hoagland Our favourite on 'Loonies Tonight'...
    "Tell us Ritchie mate, how many of the finite hours of your brief life have you devoted to asserting the existence of the 'Face on Mars'?
    Tell us you wonky person you, did the faces you 'saw' in clouds as a kid never ring any alarm bells? But moving on, this alien face... looks a bit like Jesus too without the beard, another alien obviously..."
    Ad Nauseum
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by Rhoops
    It doesn't just loose the loony aliens clap trap, it also does the same for the loony scientists concept that 'horizontal gene transfer' was fundamental to all eukaryote evolution.
    Thank you for your unemotional, objective, balanced, thoughtful comments that by their very nature reach out to embrace divergent views and seek to reach a common understanding. I am sure, based upon this exemplary instance of cogent, cool headed thinking, that I shall be able to learn much from you, both of a technical and a humanitarian nature.

    Yours,
    with warmest regards,
    Ophiolite
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Quote Originally Posted by ox
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but I understand that the source of meteorites is in the asteroid belt when a collision causes a fragment to be blown away and the gravity from a passing planet causes it to spiral towards earth.
    Okay. Here is the distribution of asteroids in the solar system. So, there are also asteroids outside the asteroid belt. A change of orbits is not only possible by (rare) collisions, but also by simple gravitational interaction from other asteroids and planets. The latter reason is the cause for the orbital resonances we find in the solar system.

    I think, there is quite some substance in Ophiolite's argumentation. Indeed, the molecular chemistry that is involved in star formation can be very rich. We see such complex molecules like organic acids, formaldehyde and even large carbon chain molecules. Since much of the material that accumulates inside a circumstellar disc is not incorporated inside the forming star, it is usually the building block of planetesimals, planets, comets and asteroids. The inner layers around the equatorial plane of these circumstellar discs remain relatively cool and quiescent, hence chemically inert. This is very important in order not to destroy these complex molecules by the energetic radiation of the newly formed star.

    I agree that it is not far fetched that these components could be the ingredients from which more complex chemistry can progress to form amino-acids and their related chemistry. But, I am not sure about firm evidence to support this idea.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    I'm going further than prebiotic chemistry Dishmaster. I am speculating - and it is speculation - that life may have orginated in the GMCs from where it seeds any planet with a suitable environment. I find the apparent rapdity with which life arose on Earth - virtually as soon as the Heavy Bombardment phase was over - is explicable in only two ways. Either the pathways to life are so tightly constrained as to be inevitable, or life came from elsewhere.

    You are correct that we lack evidence for this, but we have not been looking as hard as we might. I dont' go along with the extreme views of Hoyle, now ably taken up by Wickramasinghe, but I believe that this is an area that still holds some interesting surprises.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    ox
    ox is offline
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,648
    What are the chances of life forming in the inner galaxy, where I assume that gravity is far more intense? I assume that the earth is favoured because it resides in the outer galaxy where gravitational turbulence is less.
    Have you read the first chapter of Unweaving the Rainbow by Dawkins, and the bit where he speculates about space travellers having to find a new planet because their one is about to wiped out by an asteroid? After millions of years they chance on a green planet with abundant water and a breathable atmosphere. Then he states, 'well isn't this what has happened to us'?
    And, yes the chances of this are truly astronomical. Among a plethora of other things you will need a gently spinning watery planet in the Goldilock's Zone. One that is tilted to allow for the widest possible habitable zone to allow life to evolve from the right combination of molecules over billions of years. Otherwise life might not take root to allow intelligent life to eventually form by the painfully slow process of evolution by natural selection.
    Hoyle's estimation of 1 in 10^40000 could even be an underestimate, so that is why we need to consider other aspects than parochial GMC's, meteorites and comets. I speculate that the universe behaves like a quantum computer where every possible combination of numbers eventually produces gene sequences as a bi-product. We could even live in a 3D simulator being run forward (what we call time). I further speculate we will never know the answer.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •