Notices

View Poll Results: How do you think life started on earth?

Voters
57. You may not vote on this poll
  • God created life on earth

    17 29.82%
  • Life evolved from nothing

    21 36.84%
  • Life drifted in on a meteor

    6 10.53%
  • A passing Alien Ship discharged it's waste tanks.

    2 3.51%
  • We are a simulation not a lifeform

    1 1.75%
  • Non of these I have my own theory

    10 17.54%
Results 1 to 82 of 82

Thread: Just how did life on earth start?

  1. #1 Just how did life on earth start? 
    Guest
    Well?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Freshman electricant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    89
    Another vote for molecular evolution.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    From nothing we came, to nothing we go
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Guest
    My opinion is that life started elsewhere in the galaxy and drifted here.
    Apollo 12 astronauts recovered parts of surveyor 3? which had been on the moon for 2.5 years. The surveyor craft had not been sterilised prior to launch. Upon returning to earth some apparently 'dead' microbes re-activated when placed in a suitable environment. Of course there is some sceptisism of this, some say that the items were contaminated after leaving the moon. In the light of microbes that are now known to inhabit some really weird places (inside rocks, deep sea volcanic vents, upper atmospheric clouds) - I see it as being possible. Also it may be that we are unaware of exactly how life started, simply because the conditions are not 'within our area' To sum up life may exist almost anywhere BUT might only start in very rare circumstances.

    There are a lot of people who believe aliens are spreading throughout the universe, maybe life IS colonising the galaxy/universe but not in the way you might think. There are incredible similar examples on earth in the way that life has colonised the planet. Hitching a lift on anything that moves seems to have been the modus operandi same for space?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    My opinion is that life started elsewhere in the galaxy and drifted here.
    then what started that life? you have doine like religius people. pushed the question one step back.

    I say life came to be by chemical evolution
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Zelos
    My opinion is that life started elsewhere in the galaxy and drifted here.
    then what started that life? you have doine like religius people. pushed the question one step back.

    I say life came to be by chemical evolution
    More like the other way round! THey say life started here, created by god. I'm saying there is ample evidence to show that primitive life can exist in space. Also what do you think happened in the previous 11 billion years?

    When our sun eventually expands and blows the surface layer of the earth out into space life (in the form of microbes) will be blasted out everywhere, All I am suggesting is this may have happened before resulting in us.

    As I have said it is an opinion - I have declared it as an opinion I have NOT declared it as fact - you are free to consider or dismiss it as you see fit. If they find life on Mars AND on Titan AND several other bodies It will strengthen my case, If they do not, then my case will be weakened.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    More like the other way round! THey say life started here, created by god. I'm saying there is ample evidence to show that primitive life can exist in space. Also what do you think happened in the previous 11 billion years?
    hehe, i were refering more to the "what created the universe" answer "god"
    "what created god" thing

    uh? 11 billion years? dont u mean 9,2 billion years before earth?
    Stellar evolution. stars and galaxies evolving and producing heavier elements required for life

    As I have said it is an opinion - I have declared it as an opinion I have NOT declared it as fact - you are free to consider or dismiss it as you see fit. If they find life on Mars AND on Titan AND several other bodies It will strengthen my case, If they do not, then my case will be weakened.
    youre wrong, it wont strenghen you theory. it would rather say that life is pretty perciistent and can live where ever its possible.
    But im asking you then, from where did that life come? you must have a opnion there aswell
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Guest
    Where do you get your 9.1 billion from, The age of the universe is not certain by any means, indeed in just the last few days the estimate has gone up to 16 billion. - It's getting closer to the correct figure (ageless) but you would Not understand the argument for that. Whatever the other point you were trying to make was, well so trivial even my aged mind has forgotten it.
    8)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    the latest most accurate observation says universe is 13,7 +-0,2 billion years old
    it's getting closer to the correct figure (ageless) but you would Not understand the argument for that.
    ageless? do you mean that universe wouldnt have a age? its arguments like this that makes me say you are senile. it cant be ageless since if it were time wouldnt pass
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    73
    Quote Originally Posted by Zelos
    the latest most accurate observation says universe is 13,7 +-0,2 billion years old
    Just to add fuel to the Zelos/Billco show:

    Are you sure about your universe age statement?


    Taken from New Scientist:

    FOR a few years now, astronomers have been quietly confident that the universe is 13.7 billion years old, give or take a hundred million years. They are about to learn that the size and age of the universe are not a done deal.

    Norbert Przybilla of the University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Germany, and his colleagues used the 10-metre Keck-II telescope on Mauna Kea, Hawaii, and other telescopes to measure the distance to a so-called eclipsing binary star system in the Triangulum galaxy, also known as M33. The team measured light, velocity and temperature to find the true luminosity of the two stars, which eclipse one another on every orbit. Comparing this luminosity with their observed brightness gave a distance to the galaxy of 3.14 million light years - half a million light years further away than anyone thought (www.arxiv.org/astro-ph/0606279).

    "This is the farthest distance that anyone has been able to measure directly," says Przybilla. "It's the cutting edge of what can be done with these telescopes."

    Earlier measurements were based on calculations using the Hubble constant, which is related to the expansion rate of the universe, and hence to its size and age. The smaller the constant, the larger and older the universe.

    The new result implies that the value of the constant used today is 15 per cent too small, making the universe 15 per cent larger and older. "Our result hints that there may be something interesting happening with the Hubble constant," says Przybilla.

    From issue 2564 of New Scientist magazine, 12 August 2006, page 16
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Its All Relative
    Quote Originally Posted by Zelos
    the latest most accurate observation says universe is 13,7 +-0,2 billion years old
    Just to add fuel to the Zelos/Billco show:

    Are you sure about your universe age statement?


    Taken from New Scientist:

    FOR a few years now, astronomers have been quietly confident that the universe is 13.7 billion years old, give or take a hundred million years. They are about to learn that the size and age of the universe are not a done deal.

    Norbert Przybilla of the University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Germany, and his colleagues used the 10-metre Keck-II telescope on Mauna Kea, Hawaii, and other telescopes to measure the distance to a so-called eclipsing binary star system in the Triangulum galaxy, also known as M33. The team measured light, velocity and temperature to find the true luminosity of the two stars, which eclipse one another on every orbit. Comparing this luminosity with their observed brightness gave a distance to the galaxy of 3.14 million light years - half a million light years further away than anyone thought (www.arxiv.org/astro-ph/0606279).

    "This is the farthest distance that anyone has been able to measure directly," says Przybilla. "It's the cutting edge of what can be done with these telescopes."

    Earlier measurements were based on calculations using the Hubble constant, which is related to the expansion rate of the universe, and hence to its size and age. The smaller the constant, the larger and older the universe.

    The new result implies that the value of the constant used today is 15 per cent too small, making the universe 15 per cent larger and older. "Our result hints that there may be something interesting happening with the Hubble constant," says Przybilla.

    From issue 2564 of New Scientist magazine, 12 August 2006, page 16

    That puts it at around 15.755, I worked it out (mentally) at 16 when I read the article emailed to me by a friend, you can assume the error is down to my senility.


    I would remind you there is a perfectly valid case for the universe to be of infinite age even IF the big bang was 15.755Million years ago. The explanation for which is way beyond your comprehension!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    okey maybe it is that old. but it dont matter for now. The thing is billco, where did the life that landed on earth come from?
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Zelos
    okey maybe it is that old. but it dont matter for now. The thing is billco, where did the life that landed on earth come from?
    I have absolutely no idea, It just seems to me there's more room and more circumstance for it to start out there than down here. It could have come from the massive star explosion that caused our solar system - if there had been life on any of it's planets it could easily have travelled here in the debris. Also some creationists have a valid argument in there not being enough time for life to start from scratch, I merely counter that by increasing the number of places it could have started. I am open minded I do NOT say it started out there, I suggest that since there are simply more environments out there than down here then there is more probability. I have NOT closed my mind to any scenario hence the passing alien spaceship dumping it's waste tanks option!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    It just seems to me there's more room and more circumstance for it to start out there than down here.
    it has to be on a planet. so why not earth?

    It could have come from the massive star explosion that caused our solar system
    yeah, as dead organic material, best as aminoacids and nucleotides

    Also some creationists have a valid argument in there not being enough time for life to start from scratch, I merely counter that by increasing the number of places it could have started
    lets see, 1 billion years of chemical evolution sounds enough to start life

    I suggest that since there are simply more environments out there than down here then there is more probability.
    yeah, on other planets, so it would be the same as it started on the planet.

    . I have NOT closed my mind to any scenario hence the passing alien spaceship dumping it's waste tanks option!
    Excellent
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    68
    I seem to remember that there were a number of organic molecules (all nucleotides, a number of amino acids and even some rather complex proteins) found on a metiorite that fell in the 60's and was recovered in a sterile way very soon after it fell (meaning little to no chance of contamination).

    I personally think that the building blocks develop in space AND on the surface of favorable planets, then the entire soup is put together on the planet, allowing life to develop...

    Just a thought...

    -Ajain
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Guest
    Ajain,

    Your contribution is as valid as that of anyone else.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Freshman electricant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    89
    Personally I think Ajain is thinking along the right tracks. Some pretty complex organic molecules have been observed in interstellar gas clouds (even simple amino acids i think). I expect a lot of material like this was pelted down on the early earth to form a rich organic soup which different temperatures and lightning flashes acted upon to produce even more complex organic molecules (similar to what we observe today on Titan).

    Eventually 'self-replicating' molecules started to arise and the rest is all evolution through natural selection.

    The panspermia idea of life seeding life on other planets is interesting but not one that I give to much credence to. For me the death of a star will be pretty disasterous for any life which may be present on its planets. i'm perhaps more willing to believe that meteorite impacts could smash bacteria into interstellar space. But the sheer improbability of that life travelling tens to hundreds of lightyears across space in just the right direction to arrive at just the right time to land on a potentially life-supporting planet is just too slim.

    Also, its one thing to 'resurrect' bacteria after a couple of years on the moon but quite another to bring them back to life after billions of years in interstellar space.

    However, the one really interesting point about the appearance of life on earth is how quick it took hold (less than a billion years). This would tend to suggest that where conditions are right, life is almost inevitable.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    68
    I'm not sure about life developing on the surface in some little pond...

    I would bet more on the benthic vents of the ocean as being the origin of life. I don't remember the logic behind it, but I am sure I remember reading that the temperature of the surface of the earth fluxtuated greatly before life arose.

    I'm supprised at the number of creationists on this board. And slightly dissapointed.

    -Ajain
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    i agree mostly, but i want to know why have answered god created life and why since it is so many
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    68
    I am unsure of wether or not Zelos is saying I am a creationist so let me clarify a little.

    I am disappointed because a science board has 5 out of every 12 people believing some unproveable, supernatural entity created life for a purpose...quite frankley, this is completely irrational and in no way (from my point of view) resembles an intelligent thought.

    -Ajain
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    i am not saying you are, i am just seeing on the poll some people are and id like to know who and why

    and i agree with you
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Freshman Leukocyte's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    56
    That puts it at around 15.755, I worked it out (mentally) at 16 when I read the article emailed to me by a friend, you can assume the error is down to my senility.


    I would remind you there is a perfectly valid case for the universe to be of infinite age even IF the big bang was 15.755Million years ago. The explanation for which is way beyond your comprehension!
    It's getting closer to the correct figure (ageless) but you would Not understand the argument for that
    billco, it would be nice if you could go one thread without telling everyone how smart you are, and how stupid everyone else is, and condescending to people. You come across pretty arrogant.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Junior Artemis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Amsterdam
    Posts
    297
    I would remind you there is a perfectly valid case for the universe to be of infinite age even IF the big bang was 15.755Million years ago. The explanation for which is way beyond your comprehension!
    Hee I’ve read that before! Hasn’t it something to do with the fact that before the big bang there was nothing. If there was nothing there was no time either. So to that theory the universe must be as ‘old’ as time is. Since time doesn’t have a age nor has the universe. Is this the theory you mean billco? It would be nice if you explained why you believe/know that the universe is ageless. (where you there at the beginnng 8) I mean... You said you were old.... but that old :wink: )
    Student Neurobiology
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    i agree with Leukocyte
    my brain is capable to comprehend more than you can since im younger and younger brains have easier to comprehend things
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Leukocyte
    That puts it at around 15.755, I worked it out (mentally) at 16 when I read the article emailed to me by a friend, you can assume the error is down to my senility.


    I would remind you there is a perfectly valid case for the universe to be of infinite age even IF the big bang was 15.755Million years ago. The explanation for which is way beyond your comprehension!
    It's getting closer to the correct figure (ageless) but you would Not understand the argument for that
    billco, it would be nice if you could go one thread without telling everyone how smart you are, and how stupid everyone else is, and condescending to people. You come across pretty arrogant.
    If being smart is working out that 13.7 + 15% is (approx) 16 then yes I AM smart. so is my 11 year old grandson because he can do that sort of sum as well. If you cannot do it and you are over the age of about 15 then I suggest you blame your parents, education system and self - not me.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zelos
    i agree with Leukocyte
    my brain is capable to comprehend more than you can since im younger and younger brains have easier to comprehend things
    The day you can string TWO words together properly I'll agree with you.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    agree or not wont change the facts. My kind have throu out the entire history done more for science than normal humans such as yourself even when they posses unusual high intelligence. what did you have? 140? 150? so do i
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Freshman Leukocyte's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    56
    If being smart is working out that 13.7 + 15% is (approx) 16 then yes I AM smart. so is my 11 year old grandson because he can do that sort of sum as well. If you cannot do it and you are over the age of about 15 then I suggest you blame your parents, education system and self - not me.
    billco, I interpreted incorrectly from your original post and thought that you had felt it neccessary to tell us all that you had worked out the age of the universe at 16, and mentally to boot. Even though I misread that part, the rest of my opinion still stands that you are coming across as condescending and arrogant to people younger than you.

    Remember that as you grow older into retirement, science continues to progress and what is learnt is fed into the education of the young generation, so being older than everyone by no means makes you more knowledgable.

    If you look past Zelos' poor spelling and grammar you'd realise that he's a pretty intelligent guy, but for some reason you feel that being a septuagenarian allows you to talk down to everyone as if they were a child.

    As I have nothing to contribute to the topic at hand I'll shut my mouth now, but I ask that you treat others' opinions and knowledge with the same respect that you would if they came from colleagues of your own age.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    73
    Quote Originally Posted by Zelos
    My kind have throu out the entire history done more for science than normal humans
    And who the hell do you think you are???

    If that's not condescending and arrogant then I don't know what is!!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Freshman Leukocyte's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    56
    Yeah, that comment puzzled me a bit too.

    Scandinavians perhaps?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Leukocyte
    If being smart is working out that 13.7 + 15% is (approx) 16 then yes I AM smart. so is my 11 year old grandson because he can do that sort of sum as well. If you cannot do it and you are over the age of about 15 then I suggest you blame your parents, education system and self - not me.
    billco, I interpreted incorrectly from your original post and thought that you had felt it neccessary to tell us all that you had worked out the age of the universe at 16, and mentally to boot. Even though I misread that part, the rest of my opinion still stands that you are coming across as condescending and arrogant to people younger than you.

    Remember that as you grow older into retirement, science continues to progress and what is learnt is fed into the education of the young generation, so being older than everyone by no means makes you more knowledgable.

    If you look past Zelos' poor spelling and grammar you'd realise that he's a pretty intelligent guy, but for some reason you feel that being a septuagenarian allows you to talk down to everyone as if they were a child.

    As I have nothing to contribute to the topic at hand I'll shut my mouth now, but I ask that you treat others' opinions and knowledge with the same respect that you would if they came from colleagues of your own age.
    I see now that what I wrote could easily be mis-interpreted I'll try to do better next time.


    Quote Originally Posted by zelos
    okey, if you retire and wait to die
    we both know you wont do that
    i say what i have read in different sources and they all say infinite density
    I cannot agree with you on your summation of Zelos. Perhaps words such as intelligent have changed over the years, I'll stick to the definition that's always worked for me. I do not personally consider a person to be intelligent unless he/she uses his/her abilities wisely.

    As for condescending "Remember that as you grow older into retirement, science continues to progress" comes pretty close [again to my definition]

    As to me, I am eccentric, unorthodox, the original OAP rebel. An acquired taste even. When it comes to respect that's something you earn whether you are a high court judge, docter, or janitor. I do NOT respect anybody unless they earn it. I do NOT expect anybody to respect me unless I earn it.

    As to my age it DOES make me more knowledgable, BUT some of that knowledge has been overturned/outdated. I can still take things on board as fast as ANY student because I have always kept my mind active.
    If you still reckon I am condescending -look through (as you do with zelos)it or simply ignore me.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    I cannot agree with you on your summation of Zelos. Perhaps words such as intelligent have changed over the years, I'll stick to the definition that's always worked for me. I do not personally consider a person to be intelligent unless he/she uses his/her abilities wisely.
    that is not INTELLIGENT, you can be evil and be intelligent. but yet you are intelligent but isnt using it wisly

    If you look past Zelos' poor spelling and grammar you'd realise that he's a pretty intelligent guy, but for some reason you feel that being a septuagenarian allows you to talk down to everyone as if they were a child.
    thanks man. the grammar part i cant deny since i/we all know its true my grammar isnt the best

    As to me, I am eccentric, unorthodox, the original OAP rebel. An acquired taste even. When it comes to respect that's something you earn whether you are a high court judge, docter, or janitor. I do NOT respect anybody unless they earn it. I do NOT expect anybody to respect me unless I earn it.
    GOOD, since i never respect old people unless i consider them worth it. But for my intelligens i havent been able to earn any status cause im young

    If you still reckon I am condescending -look through (as you do with zelos)it or simply ignore me.
    i never ignor anyone, since else i couldnt go into useless debates that wont go anywhere that keeps me enjoyed for so many hours
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Freshman Leukocyte's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    56
    As to me, I am eccentric, unorthodox, the original OAP rebel. An acquired taste even
    I'll do my best to acquire it.

    As for condescending "Remember that as you grow older into retirement, science continues to progress" comes pretty close [again to my definition]
    Good point.

    I do NOT respect anybody unless they earn it. I do NOT expect anybody to respect me unless I earn it.
    I was referring to respecting opinions rather than respecting who's giving them, but again, fair enough.


    As to my age it DOES make me more knowledgable, BUT some of that knowledge has been overturned/outdated. I can still take things on board as fast as ANY student because I have always kept my mind active.
    Your ability to do that earns MY respect; my grandfather can't comprehend anything invented before about 1990 and he is younger than you.


    If you still reckon I am condescending -look through (as you do with zelos)it or simply ignore me.
    Point taken again.

    I was in a bit of a vicious mood before, so I apologise for that. I took the time to watch the first match of Aussie Rules Football finals afterwards and now I'm a bit more laid back.

    C'MON WEST COAST EAGLES
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Leukocyte
    As to me, I am eccentric, unorthodox, the original OAP rebel. An acquired taste even
    I'll do my best to acquire it.

    As for condescending "Remember that as you grow older into retirement, science continues to progress" comes pretty close [again to my definition]
    Good point.

    I do NOT respect anybody unless they earn it. I do NOT expect anybody to respect me unless I earn it.
    I was referring to respecting opinions rather than respecting who's giving them, but again, fair enough.


    As to my age it DOES make me more knowledgable, BUT some of that knowledge has been overturned/outdated. I can still take things on board as fast as ANY student because I have always kept my mind active.
    Your ability to do that earns MY respect; my grandfather can't comprehend anything invented before about 1990 and he is younger than you.


    If you still reckon I am condescending -look through (as you do with zelos)it or simply ignore me.
    Point taken again.

    I was in a bit of a vicious mood before, so I apologise for that. I took the time to watch the first match of Aussie Rules Football finals afterwards and now I'm a bit more laid back.

    C'MON WEST COAST EAGLES

    I'm not always the easiest person to get on with - I know that - I know also there is the possibility I might go senile someday and if I do I won't know it so I expect you guys to tell me so I can sort it out while I can still remember how to 'jump ship'.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    well, if i were to be nice id say senilisation( ) have already begun for you
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Zelos
    well, if i were to be nice id say senilisation( ) have already begun for you
    Go screw yourself, Pussy.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    Quote Originally Posted by billco
    Quote Originally Posted by Zelos
    well, if i were to be nice id say senilisation( ) have already begun for you
    Go screw yourself, Pussy.

    thought older generations used more apropiate language
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by Zelos
    Quote Originally Posted by billco
    Quote Originally Posted by Zelos
    well, if i were to be nice id say senilisation( ) have already begun for you
    Go screw yourself, Pussy.

    thought older generations used more apropiate language
    Under the circumstances it was appropriate. 8)
    And correctly spelled. :wink:
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    gardengrove California
    Posts
    139
    hmmm my theries about how did life on earth started is when the earth is still hot and the air if full with metane and other gasses. the negative and the positive ions colide to makes lighning and the lightning struck the watter which cause they oxygen to breaks bond with hydrogen. and then more oxygen are created. Since more oxygens are created the methane and other gasses been pushed off by the oxygen which created the ozone layer. Since the begining the earth was darken because the methane gasses was blocking the sunlight now the oxygens replace the methane and other gasses now the sunlight can pass through. Since sunglight and water is the main sorce for all life the micro bacteria are form called LUA . the LUA have ability of photosynthesis they start replicating and makes more oxygens. So for milions of years they evolve and evolve until now. I maybe wrong but this is how i believe that life started on earth. u guys can fix me if u want

    LUA imfomation:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_un...ommon_ancestor
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Guest
    Applying my mind to the problem and digesting it in small chunks (digesting the problem and not my mind that is), it is obvious that there are many possibilities some overlap some clearly contradict others.

    So, I take a step further back and take a wider view. Bear with me. Our Galaxy does NOT appear to have been in a galactic collision as yet (it is still disk shaped). I take the view that inter gallactic travel has probably not yet been achieved by any life form. I arrive at this simply because there is No [to my mind credible] evidence of it being possible or practical.

    From these two statements I conclude Life started within our own galaxy.
    "Stunning" I hear you all shout, "Give the monkey a peanut" I hear from the wag in the background.

    I'm approaching the problem with logic. Just because there is life on earth does not mean it started here, it's a good pointer but it is not certain. The next part is to try to ascertain whether or not life started intra-/extra-solar(system). By life I mean the common definition of life. I fear that this may not be possible until we have a much greater understanding of other solar systems. The search for life on Mars, Titan, Europa etc will help narrow thing down. My point is, let's apply our minds properly logically and without the aid of Science fiction, You all know a rushed job is a botched one.

    Remember, when I was a kid the common belief was that there WAS life on Mars along with canals and roads etc....
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Manchester, England
    Posts
    8
    I believe that life started with a very simple inorganic version of natural selection. Say for example if you have clay being layed down at the bottom of a body of water. Different clays have different structures any when more clay is laid down around existing clay it automatically forms that same structure and pattern as the clay it is now bound to. This means that if the clay particle then breaks in half you will now have two clay particles with the same structure and pattern. A simple replicator is made If a certain clay structure is more resistant to being washed away and broken up by the water above. The more resistant clay structure will become more common in the clay 'population'. This forms a basic form of competition and natural selection between that clays. New more advanced structures will arise and take over as the clays evolve.

    Now it's not a great strech of the imagination to think of clays that then incorporate organic molecules into there structure to make themselves more stable or even possibly to use as chemical weapons to break up other clays as the clay minerals wil be an important resource so any clay structure that can destroy and the re-use the other clays will be at a great advantage. These clays could then start to incorporate more and more organic molecules into themselves and take advantage of the chemical reactions that take place between them.

    I think there will then come a point when these clays in fierce compotition with each other would abandon the clay scaffolding from which they came.
    If the replicators could make there own 'Scaffolding' and protection then they could then design much more stable bodies. All through natural selection. Why not replace that clay structural wall with a much more effective phospholipid bilayer that could control exit and entry of new organic molecules the new 'proto-cell' needs. Through tedious small steps through evolution I believe that these proto-cells could being DNA to build new molecules - proteins, that can be used to regulate and maintain itself, keep itself stable and protect itself from other proto-cells. Everything that we now class as living could arise from this. As alot of gene product interact with each other then the proto-cells would start to seperate themselves from one another forming different 'species'. Just as with modern life you wouldn't find a gene for sharp incisor teeth would not be found in the cells of herbivores and genes for digesting plant are not found in carnivores the genes will segregate of into groups that all aim towards the same design.


    Whooops just relised I kinda went of on one then so I'm goin to stop there and describing the origin of life has tired me out so I'm goin to go and watch superman.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Forum Freshman electricant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    89
    As i mentioned in an earlier post, the chances of life being seeded between planets in seperate stellar systems seems infinitely-small to me. Seeding within a system (earth-mars, earth-europa, earth-titan) may be possible but again earth seems the likeliest candidate.

    However, a lot of simple organic compounds have been detected in interstellar dust clouds. I have no problem with these seeding the earth with nucleotides, amino acids etc. I just don't believe that a living organism could be 'resurrected' after billions of years in interstellar space.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by electricant
    I just don't believe that a living organism could be 'resurrected' after billions of years in interstellar space.
    Belief generally pales into insignifcance when faced with facts.
    Billions of years are not required. A few million years will allow spores to drift from one system to another.
    Many bacteria have extrodinarily high resistance to radiation, a feature quite unrequired by life on Earth, but very helpful to an organism travelling through interstellar space.
    Bacteria were recovered from a Surveyor craft on the moon after three years of exposure to radiation, large temeprature fluctuations and hard vacuum. They were still viable. Three years is not three million years, but these little beasts had no nice sheltering meteorite to protect them.
    Bacteria have been 'resurrected' after two hundred million years spent in salt deposits. Not space, but it demonstrates our bacterial brethern can shut down for long periods without harm.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Guest
    For those who do not believe life can drift around the galaxy go and have a look around your garden. Life uses every conceivable means to transport itself to new grounds. There are a myriad of ways for seeds to be shunted around. Life exists from the depths of the ocean through the coldest driest valleys in antartica and out to the highest reaches of the upper atmosphere.

    The longevity of buried, dormant seeds is one of the wonders of botany with the record, accredited by radiocarbon dating of tissue from germinated seeds, reaching nearly 1300 years.
    http://www.amjbot.org/cgi/content/full/86/6/903

    You may well find that in the cold dry vacuum of space this figure (1300) could be many orders higher.

    As I said in a previous post there are more places for it to have started extra-solar than intra-solar.

    In this thread I do not seek to persuade anyone that it did start elsewhere.
    I seek only to persuade people not to close down any options and become completely open-minded.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Forum Freshman electricant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    89
    Quote Originally Posted by billco

    In this thread I do not seek to persuade anyone that it did start elsewhere.
    I seek only to persuade people not to close down any options and become completely open-minded.
    That's fine billco, I'm not dismissing the idea out of hand, I just see too many obstacles.

    Regarding radiation susceptibility: I think bacteria are actually many orders of magnitude MORE susceptible to radiation than eukaryotes are as they lack sofistictated DNA repair machinery. The apparent resistance I'd say is because you only need one bacterium from a colony of one million to seed a new colony of one million. Therefore an individuals survival is irrelevant. Anyway, suppose you've convinced me on the survival part of the problem.

    You have to admit that the probability of bacteria in space travelling tens of light years (I'd guess that habitable systems are few and far between) in just the right direction to meet a planet with liquid water is pretty slim. My next conceptual problem is that bacteria are highly adapted to live in particular niches. Any bacterium which reached the proto-earth would have to be able to metabolise ANY substrate that it found itself in. Whats the probability with all the bacteria on an alien planet that just the right bacterium was blasted into space?

    My thoughts on the origins of life are more positive: I think that wherever in space that you may find a long term liquid water (100s of millions of years) and a source of organic molecules life is virtually inevitable. if the proto-earth was such a perfect place for life to be seeded why wouldn't it just start here of its own accord?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by http://science.nasa.gov/NEWHOME/headlines/msad13jan99_1.htm
    Desulfurella acetivorans: an anaerobic bacterium discovered in the Russian volcano Uzan on the Kamchatka Peninsula.
    Saccharomyces cerevisiae Hansen: a radiation-tolerant strain of Baker's yeast that can survive in the core of a nuclear reactor.
    Is it possible that some bacteria have immunity to harsh environments because they have been there before?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    rather that they evovled there.
    But i agree with someone before. the chance for a planet to create its own life is far greater than a comet or anything in the universes corners hit a planet and bring lifes to it
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Columbus, OH
    Posts
    935
    I think it's much more likely to have formed on this planet rather than be introduced from the outside. There were entire oceans worth of chemicals to interact - it seems a lot more likely for life to form there one or more times than to happen to exist on a comet, travel through space for god knows how long, smash into the earth, survive the impact, and then flourish.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Forum Bachelors Degree The P-manator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    474
    I agree with Billco's original post... although I don't think on a meteor. Maybe a star close to the planet Earth discharged some matter which grew into bacteria then landed on Earth, found it a confortable environment and decided to live there. Now those same bacteria are destrying their homes!
    Pierre

    Fight for our environment and our habitat at www.wearesmartpeople.com.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by Neutrino
    I think it's much more likely to have formed on this planet rather than be introduced from the outside. There were entire oceans worth of chemicals to interact - it seems a lot more likely for life to form there one or more times than to happen to exist on a comet, travel through space for god knows how long, smash into the earth, survive the impact, and then flourish.
    Point 1: The volume of reactive chemicals, even if they extended through the entire ocean depths of primeval Earth is almost non-existent in comparison with that to be found in a single Giant Molecular Cloud.
    Point 2: Calculations have shown no difficulty for 'spores' to soft land on planets. They do not need to be incoming on comets.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Zelos
    rather that they evovled there.
    Precisely, the bacteria which can live in the core of a reactor evolved in that environment. They were found and identified as a known species, identical to others. If they evolved in a high radiation environment it was out of this world!

    Zelos, I see you have not voted yet, I left one option just for you...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Columbus, OH
    Posts
    935
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Point 1: The volume of reactive chemicals, even if they extended through the entire ocean depths of primeval Earth is almost non-existent in comparison with that to be found in a single Giant Molecular Cloud.
    Yeah, and those clouds can be dozens to hundreds of light years in size so the raw number of different kinds of molecules doesn't seem particularly relevant to me. Nevermind the fact that if life were to form there, how exactly is it going to flourish (or even survive) in such a hostile medium and how will it then travel and survive the 1500 light year trip to earth ? (and that's the nearest one)

    Point 2: Calculations have shown no difficulty for 'spores' to soft land on planets. They do not need to be incoming on comets.
    Great, how do they get here then? My point doesn't rely on the mode of transport being a comet but there obviously need be some mode of transport.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    68
    Wasn't the earth around for ~1 billion years before we begin finding the first traces of life? If an object has 1,000,000,000 years and it can make the trip in a minimum of 1,500...whatever could move at 1/(666666 and 2/3) the speed of light and still make it as long as it had the correct trajectory at the beginning...I think.

    -Ajain
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    Quote Originally Posted by billco
    Quote Originally Posted by Zelos
    rather that they evovled there.
    Precisely, the bacteria which can live in the core of a reactor evolved in that environment. They were found and identified as a known species, identical to others. If they evolved in a high radiation environment it was out of this world!

    Zelos, I see you have not voted yet, I left one option just for you...
    i have voted already
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Forum Freshman SciGuySam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    22
    I"m not too sure about the theory of how life started on Earth, but diggiong back on all the experiments conducted, I just went with the Intelligent design theory :? .

    My reasoning is that though Organic molecules may have been present on Earth billions of years ago, they lacked the ability to conform and selrf-replicate. For example, nucleic acids and amino acids could form larger and longer molecules and produce life on this planet...but, what prompted their organization...I hardly doubt that chance played a role in such a complex chemical interaction. Some scientists (DAMN! My memory! ) have actually proven that RNa may have been the genetic precursor and ultimatly, the first organic compound to preceed even amino acids. However, there is no means for RNA to self-replicate. Yes, I know that RNA can act as an enzyme at times and proliferate that way, but for this to happen, the presence of several factors have to be put in place...unless that gene was activated somehow...and how? Also, for RNA to act as its own enzyme, it has to act upon an RNA molecule of the same genetic composition and arrangment, but if only one RNA molecule of its kind was the precursor for all life on Earth, how could it be both and enzyme and the genetic blue-print for all of existance; too many flaws and blotches. I won't deny the fact that its interesting as hell tho!
    The Sam-Man Strikes again! dun Dun DUNN
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    792
    What I have to ask is how would DNA/RNA form being the extrememly delicate molecule that it is. Face it, if it was created by randomness etc., it wouldn't last very long.

    What about crystals, they have the ability to replicate fairly readily. Could life evolve frm some complicated type of evolution of crystals.

    One could believe in life from outer space in our solar system or on a meteorite. there is a HUGE amount of organic matter in spcae, much more by percentages than on the earth's surface.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    billco. where did that life start? it would have to start like ours have, if its from earth. so its more probeble that it started on earth
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Zelos
    billco. where did that life start? it would have to start like ours have, if its from earth. so its more probeble that it started on earth
    Zelos I do not say "life did NOT start on earth" I say "I believe it may have evolved outside" I happen to think that there is a high probability "It came from outer space".
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    17
    No offence and I'm open to most theories but it's pointless if we believe they came from across the universe. Then the same question but pharsed differently comes up, how did life come to be before it came?! i believe that life began most probably as a molecule that didn't want to be broken up, but still weak. Atoms took up weak areas but required high energy electrons to keep the strong bonds. So they absorbed light energy, but weak areas where everywhere so it grew, it became extremly complex so different areas took up specific tasks. It replicated as it had excess energy and molecules, they had no where to go so they became another giant molecule. Thus was the birth of DNA. LOL I'll go now :P sorry or your welcome....bye :P
    Greatest signature ever coming soon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by nanorman
    No offence and I'm open to most theories but it's pointless if we believe they came from across the universe.
    It is not at all pointless. At present the mechanisms by which life arose are more than obscure, they are invisible. All we have is conjecture, and most of that lacking both detail and evidence.

    It is quite possible that further investigation will reveal that life probably could not have originated on Earth. The interstellar medium offers a greater diversity of environments, possibly a larger selection of pre-biotic molecules, and a larger total volume of such material. Together these present a greater probability for life arising than in the very restricted environment of early Earth.

    Therefore investigation of such a possibility is far from pointless.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #60  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    17
    I know It wont be entirely pointless, but the question everyone really wants to know is "How did life come to be", Plus, I think its unlikely because Microbes were much more likely to form on this planet with every "organic atom" required, it just makes sense if they came to be here with every nutrient they would ever require!! :wink:

    I just don't like the came from another planet etc theory because it reminds me of scientology........*insert insult* :P
    Greatest signature ever coming soon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #61  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by electricant
    Another vote for molecular evolution.
    I agree with you.
    If you know you are on the right track, if you have this inner knowledge, then nobody can turn you off... No matter what they say (Barbara McClintock).

    When you know you are right, you don't care what others thing. You know sooner or later it will come out in the wash (Barbara McClintock).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #62  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by nanorman
    I know It wont be entirely pointless, but the question everyone really wants to know is "How did life come to be", Plus, I think its unlikely because Microbes were much more likely to form on this planet with every "organic atom" required, it just makes sense if they came to be here with every nutrient they would ever require!!
    I just don't like the came from another planet etc theory because it reminds me of scientology
    Where did I say anything about the life originating on another planet? I am positing the origin of life within GMCs (Giant Molecular Clouds). Those which are already serving as star nurseries contain vast regions of suitable temperatures, with an enormously greater volume, and probably a far greater variety of organic molecules than would be present in the Earth's primeval soup. This is a statistically far more likely place for life to evolve than on the skin of a newly congealed small planet.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #63  
    Guest
    So to sum up:

    Either it started on Earth or it did not, if it did, then the conditions in which it started[probably] no longer exist on earth and that may be why we have not reached the truth. If conditions on earth to start life [from scratch] still exist, any such life would be gobbled up as soon as it appeared.

    There are only one set of conditions on earth at anyone time.

    Within our Galaxy there are many varied conditions which exist simutaneously.

    The earth is entirely composed of 'space debris' - which all came from somewhere else.

    My original intention was to find the views of others on where it may have started and not how it actually happened.

    My conclusion is that I feel [as I have always, ] it may have started else where, the odds being too close to bet either way.

    Incidentally I voted "discharged from an alien spaceship" I have always thought it would be nice to see the look on peoples faces if this were suddenly proven though I epect with human vanity being what it is, it would simply be rejected.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #64  
    Forum Freshman Rationalist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    71
    Quote Originally Posted by SciGuySam
    I"m not too sure about the theory of how life started on Earth, but diggiong back on all the experiments conducted, I just went with the Intelligent design theory.
    Another case of the God-of-the-Gaps. There are too many problems with RNA so let's go with the supernatural. I go with molecular evolution. Richard Dawkins explains it quite well in the second chapter of The Selfish Gene. It is kind of similar to the clay example Powell used earlier.
    "I don't think we're here for anything, we're just products of evolution. You can say 'Gee, your life must be pretty bleak if you don't think there's a purpose' but I'm anticipating a good lunch."

    -Dr. James Watson, American biologist
    (Discoverer of DNA)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #65  
    Forum Professor Zwolver's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    1,629
    haha.. i believe in the theory of luck and random chance...

    this includes everything..
    Growing up, i marveled at star-trek's science, and ignored the perfect society. Now, i try to ignore their science, and marvel at the society.

    Imagine, being able to create matter out of thin air, and not coming up with using drones for boarding hostile ships. Or using drones to defend your own ship. Heck, using drones to block energy attacks, counterattack or for surveillance. Unless, of course, they are nano-machines in your blood, which is a billion times more complex..
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #66  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    967
    Life evolved from something called matter. It began a long time ago when bacterias formed from the earth which in its turn was formed by meteors and possibly spaceship waste/bacteria. But most importantly one must note that the aliens in that case was created by either other aliens or their earth, that formed bacteria (which is the important part) that evolved. So life began on an earth, from mass.

    But unfortunately, bacterias were wrong. You should not store energy that comes from the sun since joy is an accelerating motion and pain is the opposit of that. So the bacterias got more pain that you can ever imagine, since joy don't need a person to be "read" or "experienced". But they evolved fortunately, to become algie eating algies and like that it have continued. So we are here because of a bunch of selfdestructive herbs that preserves solar energy so that we have to fight until we die to burn all the oil, eat all the herbs and burn all the uranium on all worlds in alot of worlds. And then we die.

    But fortunately it doesn't matter since all energy is the same even light, and happiness and pain are preserved and constant, and moreover all in all zero. m=m, p=p. =k
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #67  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1
    If we think logically, we'll easily see that everything has an origin. If u are speaking about this world, than the question is: "where did the world come?", if u say "it is a piece of Sun", than the question is: "where did the Sun come?", if u say that "Sun is a member of x galaxy", than it's: "where did that galaxy come?".......

    As u see, when u ask the question of "where did it come?" all the time, than u see that u cannot answer it at a point. And that point is certainly: "The God!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #68  
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by love-in-science
    If we think logically, we'll easily see that everything has an origin. If u are speaking about this world, than the question is: "where did the world come?", if u say "it is a piece of Sun", than the question is: "where did the Sun come?", if u say that "Sun is a member of x galaxy", than it's: "where did that galaxy come?".......

    As u see, when u ask the question of "where did it come?" all the time, than u see that u cannot answer it at a point. And that point is certainly: "The God!"
    The answer is the big bang.

    and the answer to your next question is "We're still working on it"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #69  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    399
    I believe that life was delivered by a martian meteorite..... if not a martian meteorite, then some other meteorite, but a meteorite none the less.

    I don't know how that life started, but addressing the question at hand, panspermia seems to be the most plausible theory.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #70  
    Forum Senior miomaz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    302
    Water:
    water, the most remarkable fluid in the universe.
    All its characteristics point out that water is perfectly fit for life.

    a few examples:
    - as water freezes it becomes ice, but the interresting part of it , is that ice donsn't shrink, but grows as it freezes. this makes it liter than before and makes it also float on water.
    without that water would sink into the ocean and freeze it from bottom up causing, that little rivers and sees would dissapear and reappear constantly, so no fish beeings could exist

    -waters high suface tension draws water though the ground up to the roots of plants. without it plants would not exist

    -water cools when it evaporates, and heats up the inviorment when it freezes, this is remarkably needed for mamals since these cooldown though water. without it mamals would have problems loosing heat.

    water is the most fit for life fluid.

    "That life is based in liquid medium is certainly no accident. for it is difficult to imagine how any sort of complex chemical system capable of assembling and re plasing itself, of manipulating its atomic and molecular components and drawing its vital nutrients and the constituents from its enviroment --- that is
    , anything that displays the characteristics we attribute to life --- could exist exept in a liquid medium"
    from: Natures Desteny p.30


    there are too many arguments why life exists on this planet and that it was also formed here. All characteristics are just right(temprature;size of planet;moon;right dictance between earth a. sun;water amout on planet ect...)

    a simple beeing was merrely, one day, formed randomly in earths ocean.

    a simple beeing was merrely, one day, formed randomly in earths ocean.
    it extingushed, because it could not multiply, just gather food.

    a simple beeing was merrely, one day, formed randomly in earths ocean.
    it extingished, it could multiply, just this occured to randomly concluding its death.

    a simple beeing was merrely, one day, formed randomly in earths ocean.
    it lived, it could gather food and multiply. It spread over the ocean and evolved more and more.


    this concludes that life must have started on earth(99% if not more as a coincedance that had to occure sometime, as a beeing that eats and multiplys )
    I haven't come to fight my word, but to find the truth.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  72. #71  
    Guest
    What a pity it happened before recorded history.....
    Reply With Quote  
     

  73. #72  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    399
    Quote Originally Posted by miomaz
    Water:
    water, the most remarkable fluid in the universe.
    All its characteristics point out that water is perfectly fit for life.

    a few examples:
    - as water freezes it becomes ice, but the interresting part of it , is that ice donsn't shrink, but grows as it freezes. this makes it liter than before and makes it also float on water.
    without that water would sink into the ocean and freeze it from bottom up causing, that little rivers and sees would dissapear and reappear constantly, so no fish beeings could exist

    -waters high suface tension draws water though the ground up to the roots of plants. without it plants would not exist

    -water cools when it evaporates, and heats up the inviorment when it freezes, this is remarkably needed for mamals since these cooldown though water. without it mamals would have problems loosing heat.

    water is the most fit for life fluid.

    "That life is based in liquid medium is certainly no accident. for it is difficult to imagine how any sort of complex chemical system capable of assembling and re plasing itself, of manipulating its atomic and molecular components and drawing its vital nutrients and the constituents from its enviroment --- that is
    , anything that displays the characteristics we attribute to life --- could exist exept in a liquid medium"
    from: Natures Desteny p.30


    there are too many arguments why life exists on this planet and that it was also formed here. All characteristics are just right(temprature;size of planet;moon;right dictance between earth a. sun;water amout on planet ect...)

    a simple beeing was merrely, one day, formed randomly in earths ocean.

    a simple beeing was merrely, one day, formed randomly in earths ocean.
    it extingushed, because it could not multiply, just gather food.

    a simple beeing was merrely, one day, formed randomly in earths ocean.
    it extingished, it could multiply, just this occured to randomly concluding its death.

    a simple beeing was merrely, one day, formed randomly in earths ocean.
    it lived, it could gather food and multiply. It spread over the ocean and evolved more and more.


    this concludes that life must have started on earth(99% if not more as a coincedance that had to occure sometime, as a beeing that eats and multiplys )
    The "rare earth" hypothesis cannot be used to jump to the conclusion that life formed here. This is the sort of stuff you hear on the radio and on those popular science TV programmes. It's good fun but it's hardly good science.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  74. #73  
    M
    M is offline
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    282
    water, the most remarkable fluid in the universe.
    All its characteristics point out that water is perfectly fit for life.
    Beware of logic applied backwards! The fact that water (and Earth) is so perfect for life in all it's qualities simply implies that life on Earth has developed in adaption to the present conditions and resources. Life on Mars, if there were any, would just appear as perfectly adapted to the conditions on the red planet. (That's not a proof that life is native to Earth, though, because it could have evolved from different introduced life forms).

    Likewise, beware of people trying to prove something with statements like "... it's hard to image ...".

    Don't you think it's stunning how 90% of all alien beings in science fiction are carbon based creatures, breathing oxygen, with legs, arms, a head and two eyes? ... and the rest resembles some other well-known animal or chimera. It's appalling evidence of how little imagination we really have. It seems that the human mind just cannot imagine anything we haven't already seen (aside from cheesy extrapolations), and then we interpret that lack of imagination as evidence that there is nothing else! It's hilarious. :-D
    Reply With Quote  
     

  75. #74  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Nevertheless, when we consider the abundance of various chemicals in the Universe; when we examine the types of compounds they can form; when we explore the kinetics of those reactions over a range of temperatures; when consider alternative template devices akin to DNA; when we do all this, using some of the brightest minds the planet has known, we find that water is indeed the most likely medium for life, and carbon its most probable basis.
    This reflects not a lack of imagination, but an insight into chemistry.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  76. #75  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    399
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Nevertheless, when we consider the abundance of various chemicals in the Universe; when we examine the types of compounds they can form; when we explore the kinetics of those reactions over a range of temperatures; when consider alternative template devices akin to DNA; when we do all this, using some of the brightest minds the planet has known, we find that water is indeed the most likely medium for life, and carbon its most probable basis.
    This reflects not a lack of imagination, but an insight into chemistry.
    I agree, but that doesn't tell us that life formed on earth. Especially when you consider that conditions on a primative mars were probably more congenial to life than those on a primitive earth.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  77. #76  
    Forum Senior miomaz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    302
    its probabillaty is higher than a astroid falling on earth with life carring it there.

    Life on Mars, if there were any, would just appear as perfectly adapted to the conditions on the red planet. (That's not a proof that life is native to Earth, though, because it could have evolved from different introduced life forms).
    this can be true but it wouldnt appear perfect the temerature athomepere no water nor fluids no plants, no seas;the core is almost hardend and volcanos can errupt andu build up to 20km high.
    even though life is pausable on mars but isnt fit for it.

    If life flew as an astorid or somthing else into earth it would be created on somthing verysimmilar to earth and not from our solar-system.

    howmany astroids hit earth, in the last 600million years?(i dunno but i think under 1000)

    ok say everything i say is wrong, how in hell can life exist on a freaking rock flying though space?????
    it must have been a bakteria somthing that could eat metal survive extremely cold temepratures, fly though the athomspere burning and then fall on the grounf/earth and survive that?

    also, why would life have to come and fall on earth? where could life exist better than on earth????? there is no "other", cince the virus that has fallen on earth must have had an inviorment (almost) exactly like earth.

    life forming on our planet is not random, it must happen.

    after all this, what are the cances of this happening compared of life just happenig on earth?

    also, if there where no astroid life would still form on earth.
    I haven't come to fight my word, but to find the truth.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  78. #77  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by miomaz
    its probabillaty is higher than a astroid falling on earth with life carring it there.
    .
    Perhaps you would like to share with us how you have calculated this probability.
    Quote Originally Posted by miomaz
    this can be true but it wouldnt appear perfect the temerature athomepere no water nor fluids no plants, no seas;the core is almost hardend and volcanos can errupt andu build up to 20km high.
    even though life is pausable on mars but isnt fit for it. .
    Point 1: If life exists on Mars, then it is, by definition, fit for it.
    Point 2: in the early days of the solar system Mars had an atmosphere, water and equable temperatures. It was more benign than Earth at that time.
    Quote Originally Posted by miomaz
    If life flew as an astorid or somthing else into earth it would be created on somthing verysimmilar to earth and not from our solar-system.
    Not necessarily. Please refer to my earlier posts in this thread, where I briefly discuss the possibility of life originating within Giant Molecular Clouds in interstellar space.
    Quote Originally Posted by miomaz
    howmany astroids hit earth, in the last 600million years?(i dunno but i think under 1000).
    Point 1: What is the relevance of 600 million years? We only need a single hit with a single viable organism to set everything else in motion.
    Point 2: While the number of asteroids hitting the Earth is completely irrelevant (since, as noted, we only need one) your figure of one thousand is so badly wrong it needs correction. Even if we take the boundary of asteroids at the relatively large size of the one responsible for the Tunguska event, then in the 600 million years you have chosen (for whatever reason) there would have been around 6,000,000 hits.
    If we extend the incoming material to include meteorites then in the same time period we would have had at least six billion, maybe sixty billion.

    Quote Originally Posted by miomaz
    ok say everything i say is wrong, how in hell can life exist on a freaking rock flying though space?????
    it must have been a bakteria somthing that could eat metal survive extremely cold temepratures, fly though the athomspere burning and then fall on the grounf/earth and survive that?
    Bacteria can survive in stasis for some considerable time. Bacteria survived on one of the Surveyor spacecraft on the moon for three years. We seem to have been able to revive bacteria preserved in salt for two hundred million years. Sitting inside a nice rock, protected from UV rays, they should have no trouble at all.
    Could they prosper? Quite possibly. There are plenty today living underground living off of rock. Why not in space?
    And there is zero problem in surviving reentry. The outside of a meteorite may be heated white hot, but the interior will not get any warmer than a summer's day in the Gulf.
    Bacteria are very comfortable with high g. They would barely notice the dynamics of a typical meteorite fall.
    Quote Originally Posted by miomaz
    also, why would life have to come and fall on earth? where could life exist better than on earth????? there is no "other", cince the virus that has fallen on earth must have had an inviorment (almost) exactly like earth.
    As noted above, life could exist much better in GMCs. Larger, more varied environment, yet great stability over long time periods.
    The Earth was not unlike the interior of parts of the GMCs: wet, abundant organic material, warm. The only thing bacteria would have to learn to deal with would be the gravity.
    Quote Originally Posted by miomaz
    after all this, what are the cances of this happening compared of life just happenig on earth?
    Considerably greater. I am going to take a very small molecular cloud, say the mass of 100,000 suns. I am going to suggest that only 1% of this cloud has the right conditions for life to form. Further, only 0.1% of this 1% stays with the right conditions long enough for life to be established.
    So, the mass of this is equivalent to the sun. In contrast the volume available for life to form on the Earth is at best a thin skin of a couple of miles. There is no contest. Life is much more likely to arise in one small molecular cloud than it is on the Earth.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  79. #78  
    Guest
    Ophiolite, being open minded enough to accept the high probability that at least the fundamental building blocks of life arrived by post throughout the history of earth, might like a look at the following (short) articles.

    http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn2100
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1142840.stm

    Since there are many different conditions in space, is it possible that some of the very dense clouds have enough oxygen gas molecules around and enough heat within them to actually go beyond just forming the elementary blocks, and creating primitive viral type structures?

    Anybody know if there has been speculation elsewhere for this?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  80. #79  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by Megabrain
    Since there are many different conditions in space, is it possible that some of the very dense clouds have enough oxygen gas molecules around and enough heat within them to actually go beyond just forming the elementary blocks, and creating primitive viral type structures?
    You have several times mentioned viruses. Setting aside the question as to whether they are alive or not, they are almost certainly a product of more complex life, not a route towards it.
    Secondly, we know there is sufficient heat within some of the clouds, which is why I characterised them as wet. Wet implies a specific temperature range.
    Thirdly, you aren't going to find free oxygen running around. (Besides which it would be poisonous to primitive life forms.) Nor would you need it.
    Quote Originally Posted by Megabrain
    Anybody know if there has been speculation elsewhere for this?
    Google Hoyle and Wickramasinghe. Hoyle is of course dead, but Wickramasinghe is still at Cardiff. They were the strongest proponents of this through the seventies and eighties. Now the consensus view wholly accepts that a wide range of pre-biotic molecules in space contributed to jump starting life on Earth.
    There is not yet the same enthusiasm for life itself originating off-planet. Just wait though. The pendulum will swing. Half a century ago the presence of organic molecules in deep space was laughed at. Today we have detected in excess of one hundred types.
    Quote Originally Posted by Megabrain
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1142840.stm
    I can't believe I missed this one. Thank you. The full text of the paper may be found here:
    http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full...urcetype=HWCIT
    Reply With Quote  
     

  81. #80  
    Guest
    The origin of life is a fairly new subject to me, in terms of oxygen I was not suggesting a level that could be breathed, but I'm sure even the most primitive life had O2 molecules in it's make up. By the way, not sure if it's universal but I consider 'life' in this context as flora or fauna.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  82. #81  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by Megabrain
    The origin of life is a fairly new subject to me, in terms of oxygen I was not suggesting a level that could be breathed, but I'm sure even the most primitive life had O2 molecules in it's make up. By the way, not sure if it's universal but I consider 'life' in this context as flora or fauna.
    Life is CHON (Carbon, Hydrogen, Oxygen and Nitrogen), but it is misleading to talk about oxygen molecules in its make up. The oxygen is certainly present within the organisms, but it does not enter it as oxygen molecules, but compounded into other organic molecules.

    Flora and fauna are somewhat restrictive terms.

    Today we would generally divide life into three domains, Archaea, Bacteria and Eukarya. The Eukarya subdivide into four kingdoms: protists, fungi, plants and animals. The last would constitute your fauna, fungi and plants your flaura. The majority of species are thus not included within these older terms.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  83. #82  
    M
    M is offline
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    282
    Miomaz: ok say everything i say is wrong, how in hell can life exist on a freaking rock flying though space?????
    See, here is where you show your lack of imagination. You assume that any extraterrestrial life would somehow be related to life as you know it. It doesn't have to be! The fact that we only know one life form based on carbon and depending on water and oxygen is not sufficient proof for your assumption that all other life must be similar. It could be completely different. You have to think of life on a higher level, detached from the material conditions you observe on Earth, with this single form of life that we know. Who can prove there couldn't be an organism with a metabolism of some sort and reproductive ability, based on completely different materials and mechanisms?

    You have to let your imagination out of the cage, in order to think outside the box.
    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
  •