Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
BFB

Life began in freshwater pond, not the ocean

56 posts in this topic

For most everyone alive today, it's almost a fundamental fact. Life began in the ocean and evolved into all of the different organisms that exist today.

The idea that this could be wrong causes great discomfort, like discovering as an adult that you were adopted as a child. Nonetheless, a team of diverse scientists led by Armen Mulkidjanian is suggesting that very thing; instead of life beginning in deep thermal vents in the ocean, the prevailing view, they say it perhaps instead started in landlocked freshwater pools created by thermal vapor.

Their theory is based, as they explain in their paper published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, mostly on the idea that the sea is just too salty to provide the ideal conditions necessary to spur life into existence.

Scientist suggests life began in freshwater pond, not the ocean

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm still quietly rooting for the abiotic origin theory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I like the idea that one of my ancestors was a one cell slime creature,so I am quite content to think that my my lot came down from the trees.Now I am homo sapiensie intelligent life. Why is there so much stress in my life.I want to go back to climb some trees and ponder the meaning of life

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I like the idea that one of my ancestors was a one cell slime creature,so I am quite content to think that my my lot came down from the trees.Now I am homo sapiensie intelligent life. Why is there so much stress in my life.I want to go back to climb some trees and ponder the meaning of life

LOL

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sbSbrKvIYOk&feature=related

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I was a kid they did not even know about life in deep thermal vents in the ocean, we were taught that life came from the oceans but nothing about extremophiles. Anyway, maybe early life developed in different conditions on this planet at or around the same time. Be it a thermal vent, a freshwater pond, or on the shores of an ocean. I love the debate, but for anyone to say there is only one way it happened seems a bit silly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What bothers me is not where live began,but how is it going to end ?.Nevermind live to be a hundred and you have made it,because not many people die after that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We came here on a comet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is this just a suggestion or a Scientific Theory (Based on FACTS I presume and not assumptions) ?

Edited by Spock_the_Future

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Double Quote (deleted and added into the first original), I got an message that my I earlier post was not accepted as I posted again withing 15 Secs of some other post that I made. Then how did the double post happen ? Is the PHP POST code check correct ? (Sorry, back to being a computer nerd again). Wouldn't hurt to recheck though.

Edited by Spock_the_Future

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did I miss the announcement of conclusive evidence of evolution?

Or any inconclusive evidence?

Edited by oly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Not one change of species into another is on record... we cannot prove that a single species has been changed."

Darwin: "My Life and Letters", Volume 1.

Any updates?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Did I miss the announcement of conclusive evidence of evolution?

By about a century, give or take.

Any updates?

Have we made any new discoveries in the field of evolution in the last century and a half? 150 years?

Yeah...quite a few.

Edited by aquatus1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By about a century, give or take.

Have we made any new discoveries in the field of evolution in the last century and a half? 150 years?

Yeah...quite a few.

Do you mean mongrels, mutants, freaks, cross-breeds & hybrids? & the odd misrepresented skull?

Evolution hasn't been accepted, looks more like its been enforced for political reasons.

Even Darwin didn't base it on reality. People have just tried to fit evidence to the theory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Do you mean mongrels, mutants, freaks, cross-breeds & hybrids? & the odd misrepresented skull?

No. I'm talking about science.

Evolution hasn't been accepted, looks more like its been enforced for political reasons.

Accepted?

We passed "accepted" decades ago, centuries if you count practical application as opposed to theoretical understanding. Today, evolution is commercialized, industrialized, and mass-produced. You think of evolution as some sort of brand image; as if the purpose of everything that is done is to make evolution look good. The academic and business world spends as much time thinking of evolution as they do contemplating the concrete sidewalk; it is so commonplace and functional that hearing people question whether the sidewalk actually makes travel any easier is a little bit silly in its obviousness.

Even Darwin didn't base it on reality. People have just tried to fit evidence to the theory.

Oly, c'mon...you know, I know, everyone here knows, that you don't have the faintest clue what Darwin said about his theory beyond the most general concept of it. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

evidence of gutenberg deleting this very quote?

Anyone got an old copy?

Like I said...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's more plausible that life began in multiple environments as long as the climate supported life. The seeds of single celled organisms could have been planted by space and remained dormant until the climate was just right and these organisms, animated by sun and climate, would have thrived in oceans, ponds, swamps, deserts, tundras... Who knows? I doubt it was one specific environment which gave way to all life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have these been deleted yet?

Beats me. I have two or three books from the Guttenberg project, Prince and the Pauper and Dracula (I think). They're okay, no real complaints, but they aren't anything fancy. There are occasional glitches (you get what you pay for). Good for casual reading, that's about it.

But you can't delete them out of old books, so I'll have to go down the library.

You can also buy them from Amazon, or any local bookstore. Heck, you have access to all of Darwin's works online.

Edited by aquatus1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Darwins acknowledgement of the lack of evidence for his wilder speculations doesn't prove anything anyway.

The earth not being flat is accepted, but theres too many opponents of evolution theory to say it's accepted as fact.

Here's a chart on wikipedia showing some figures for the level of support:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Views_on_Evolution.svg

Edited by oly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Darwins acknowledgement of the lack of evidence for his wilder speculations doesn't prove anything anyway.

:lol:

Noticed your mistake, did you? Next time, google before you post.:tu:

The earth not being flat is accepted, but theres too many opponents of evolution theory to say it's accepted as fact.

It isn't enough to be an opponent of evolution.

You actually have to know what evolution and science, is before anyone takes you seriously.

There are no opponents of evolution who are educated in biology or organic chemistry: the people who understand evolution.

There is no debate on the validity of evolution in the academic, commercial, or industrial fields; the people who use evolution.

Here's a chart on wikipedia showing some figures for the level of support:

http://en.m.wikipedi...n_Evolution.svg

And if science were a matter of popular vote, that might actually be relevant!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Noticed your mistake, did you? Next time, google before you post.

It isn't enough to be an opponent of evolution.

You actually have to know what evolution and science, is before anyone takes you seriously.

There are no opponents of evolution who are educated in biology or organic chemistry: the people who understand evolution.

There is no debate on the validity of evolution in the academic, commercial, or industrial fields; the people who use evolution.

And if science were a matter of popular vote, that might actually be relevant!

What mistake?

Opponent? Sorry I meant skeptic

Are you confusing "developing a resistance" with "monkeys to people?"

Op implied far more acceptance than chart suggests.

Edited by oly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What mistake?

Opponent? Sorry I meant skeptic

Are you confusing "developing a resistance" with "monkeys to people?"

Op implied far more acceptance than chart suggests.

"Monkeys to people"? Would you care to cite the reference for this conceptualization? Hint - You may wish to actually study the topic.

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, Oly, it is you that doesn't know that part of the theory.^_^

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.