Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

"LIFE" as we know it...


drakonwick

Recommended Posts

This can be a very controversial subject. But, I was just wondering about everyone's particular opinion on the subject.

Scientist's have a well rounded theory on how life could have began. (Abiogenesis).

As well religious people have their theory that an omnipotent Deity created everything.

I know this particular subject can have it's back a forth style debating, like how could a God just exist, what created God? Or how could a singularity event just happen without something to create it etc.

I just find this subject very interesting. So, what say you?

Regards,

Tom

Edited by Moro
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
  • Replies 23
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • stargazer123

    8

  • Wombat

    6

  • drakonwick

    5

  • Lt_Ripley

    2

Top Posters In This Topic

This can be a very controversial subject. But, I was just wondering about everyone's particular opinion on the subject.

Scientist's have a well rounded theory on how life could have began. (Abiogenesis).

As well religious people have their theory that an omnipotent Deity created everything.

I know this particular subject can have it's back a forth style debating, like how could a God just exist, what created God? Or how could a singularity event just happen without something to create it etc.

I just find this subject very interesting. So, what say you?

Regards,

Tom

I tend to put weight on Francis Crick's theory of "Directed Panspermia" as how life began on earth.

Edited by stargazer123
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I tend to put weight on Francis Crick's theory of "Directed Panspermia" as how life began on earth.

'Directed Panspermia' suggests that life may be distributed by an advanced extraterrestrial civilization. Crick and Orgel argued that DNA encapsulated within small grains could be fired in all directions by such a civilization in order to spread life within the universe.

It's an interesting theory! But, it doesn't necessarily mean that an advanced civilization done it on purpose,

it also doen't mean that an advanced civilization somewhere in the universe could't have done it.

Panspermia could have very well happened naturally in the beginning stages of this plant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The origin of life made easy: http://youtube.com/watch?v=ozbFerzjkz4

Edit: Oops, wrong video. :o Sorry about that, my mistake.

Edited by Moro
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I tend to put weight on Francis Crick's theory of "Directed Panspermia" as how life began on earth.

That's not a theory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I watched this video in another thread on here. It does show how evolution does work nicely.

But, it does not fucus on how it started. In all though, it is a good video. :tu:

It does explain how it started. Watch it again. :P

Very shortly: chemicals from the atmosphere form nucleotides, which polymerise in a catalyst, forming replicating RNA. RNA becomes increasingly complex, then becomes DNA. Lipids form the shell for primitive cells. These very primitive cells evolved over 3.5 billion years.

Edited by Wombat
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It does explain how it started. Watch it again. :P

I did! I mistook it for another video you posted on evolution, it was a mistake.

Anyway, this video is also a good one, thanks for posting it. :tu:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This can be a very controversial subject. But, I was just wondering about everyone's particular opinion on the subject.

Scientist's have a well rounded theory on how life could have began. (Abiogenesis).

As well religious people have their theory that an omnipotent Deity created everything.

I know this particular subject can have it's back a forth style debating, like how could a God just exist, what created God? Or how could a singularity event just happen without something to create it etc.

I just find this subject very interesting. So, what say you?

Regards,

Tom

Personally, while I think abiogenesis on Earth is a viable theory, I think panspermia, to some degree, was also part of the reason that life started. We know that organic molecules can be found in space, such as in comets, and we know that microbes can survive the vacuum of space.

Edit: Of course, the problem of panspermia is where did THAT life come from then -------> (I'll give you a hint: it starts with an a and ends in biogenesis)

Edited by churchanddestroy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

'Directed Panspermia' suggests that life may be distributed by an advanced extraterrestrial civilization. Crick and Orgel argued that DNA encapsulated within small grains could be fired in all directions by such a civilization in order to spread life within the universe.

It's an interesting theory! But, it doesn't necessarily mean that an advanced civilization done it on purpose,

it also doen't mean that an advanced civilization somewhere in the universe could't have done it.

Panspermia could have very well happened naturally in the beginning stages of this plant.

The main subject of the theory is that DNA did not develop on earth seeing how DNA takes approximately 400,000,000 years to evolve and the earth is not that old. So the rest of the theory of how than might DNA have arrived here to evolve left much speculation. Crick believed there was no way it could have come in a meteor theorizing that DNA would have been destroyed. He believed the only plausible explanation was that it arrived here in some sort of vehicle that did not crash land. Now because Crick did not believe in God he theorized it could have been extraterrestial life that brought it here on purpose.

The part of the theory I find most fasinating is that there are DNA experts who also agree that DNA is older than earth and far too complex to have evolved on earth to the extent it did but they theorize it had to arrive in meteor that nothing else makes sense and that is where Crick's theory seperates. If it is true that DNA is far older than earth and far to complex to have developed here than where did it come from?

Edited by stargazer123
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The main subject of the theory is that DNA did not develop on earth seeing how DNA takes approximately 400,000,000 years to evolve and the earth is not that old.

What? The earth is about 4 500 000 000 years old.

So the rest of the theory of how than might DNA have arrived here to evolve left much speculation. Crick believed there was no way it could have come in a meteor theorizing that DNA would have been destroyed. He believed the only plausible explanation was that it arrived here in some sort of vehicle that did not crash land. Now because Crick did not believe in God he theorized it could have been extraterrestial life that brought it here on purpose.

The part of the theory I find most fasinating is that there are DNA experts who also agree that DNA is older than earth and far too complex to have evolved on earth to the extent it did but they theorize it had to arrive in meteor that nothing else makes sense and that is where Crick's theory seperates. If it is true that DNA is far older than earth and far to complex to have developed here than where did it come from?

It is extremely plausible that DNA did evolve on earth.

And no, that's not a theory. It's speculation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's not a theory.

In common usage, the word theory is often used to signify a conjecture, an opinion, a speculation, or a hypothesis. In this usage, a theory is not necessarily based on facts; in other words, it is not required to be consistent with true descriptions of reality. True descriptions of reality are more reflectively understood as statements which would be true independently of what people think about them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory

If it isn't part of an educated guess (hypothesis) which is considered theory than what is it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
What? The earth is about 4 500 000 000 years old.

It is extremely plausible that DNA did evolve on earth.

And no, that's not a theory. It's speculation.

Excuse me that was my error. I believe what Crick was trying to say is that DNA was far too old to have developed and it would have taken longer than 400,000,000. My bad. :)

I would say it is an educated guess based on what he has studied.

Don't get me wrong Wombat I do not argue evolution I'm just more fasinated with how it all started and alot of theories so far on the beginning do not agree with my own common sense but the fact that DNA came from elsewhere rather than started here seems more plausible to me. I am somewhat biased in my views as well based on my spirituality but I do not reject what science proves. Also I have not read much on Abiogenesis at this time.

Edited by stargazer123
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In common usage, the word theory is often used to signify a conjecture, an opinion, a speculation, or a hypothesis. In this usage, a theory is not necessarily based on facts; in other words, it is not required to be consistent with true descriptions of reality. True descriptions of reality are more reflectively understood as statements which would be true independently of what people think about them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory

If it isn't part of an educated guess (hypothesis) which is considered theory than what is it?

Yes, I am familiar with the colloquial usage of the word, but it's important to make a distinction, especially in this context. :)

The problem with panspermia is that it's not particularily plausible. And Crick's panspermia doesn't explain where that life started.

Edited by Wombat
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Water, (H2O), plays an important role in the building blocks of life. There are two distinct ways this

planet could have gotten it's water.

Some scientists think it came from water-rich asteroids and comets raining down on the planet in its youth.

New reasearch shows that oceans could have been "home-grown" they may have formed because the young Earth had a thick blanket of hydrogen, which reacted with oxides in the Earth's mantle to form lakes and seas.

Edited by Moro
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, I am familiar with the colloquial usage of the word, but it's important to make a distinction, especially in this context. :)

The problem with panspermia is that it's not particularily plausible. And Crick's panspermia doesn't explain where that life started.

Yes fair enough and I apologize for quoting that. :)

Why do you say it isn't plausible. Yes you are right it doesn't explain where life started but argues that it started on earth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes fair enough and I apologize for quoting that. :)

Why do you say it isn't plausible. Yes you are right it doesn't explain where life started but argues that it started on earth.

It's implausible because of the unnecessary complexity and improbability.

If life can start on earth, what's the point of attributing it to aliens? Just think about the probability of an advanced civilization forming with mindbogglingly advanced interstellar travel technology. And what's the probability of them flying out to this remote area in space just to shoot a few scraps of DNA on this particular insignificant planet at the right time?

Basically, Crick's idea relies on such wildly improbable speculation. And it's pointless anyway, because life can very likely form on earth.

Edited by Wombat
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's implausible because of the unnecessary complexity and improbability.

If life can start on earth, what's the point of attributing it to aliens? Just think about the probability of an advanced civilization forming with mindbogglingly advanced interstellar travel technology. And what's the probability of them flying out to this remote area in space just to shoot a few scraps of DNA on this particular insignificant planet at the right time?

Basically, Crick's idea relies on such wildly improbable speculation. And it's pointless anyway, because life can very likely form on earth.

I'm not saying I believe it came from aliens but it is probable our DNA could have come from somewhere else other than earth someplace else much older which expands the time frame. Crick speculates yes but so have alot of brilliant people and thats what pushes the envelope isn't it? No one to my knowledge has proven beyond reasonable doubt how life on earth started and if so this conversation in itself would be pointless.

If his hypothesis is pointless because life could have come from earth than Magellan was pointless too for speculating that the world was round when everyone just knew that it was flat except someone had a way to prove that one beyond reasonable doubt. We might never know the beginnings for sure but I like to keep the mind frame that there are many things beyond our current knowledge that are plausible.

Edited by stargazer123
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's implausible because of the unnecessary complexity and improbability.

If life can start on earth, what's the point of attributing it to aliens? Just think about the probability of an advanced civilization forming with mindbogglingly advanced interstellar travel technology. And what's the probability of them flying out to this remote area in space just to shoot a few scraps of DNA on this particular insignificant planet at the right time?

Basically, Crick's idea relies on such wildly improbable speculation. And it's pointless anyway, because life can very likely form on earth.

I would say that Crick's theory has just about as much probability as happening as a deity picking this planet to spawn life on. It's almost the same idea, don't you think?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would say that Crick's theory has just about as much probability as happening as a deity picking this planet to spawn life on. It's almost the same idea, don't you think?

The main idocy about the panspermia thing is, it still is no answer, since we wouldn't know how life began on the other planet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would say that Crick's theory has just about as much probability as happening as a deity picking this planet to spawn life on. It's almost the same idea, don't you think?

I can see your point with that as far as the alien part is concerned but not the fact that life or DNA could have arrived from other places in the universe somehow spawning life here. I like my daughter's thoughts on the whole process "I'll keep an open mind until you prove it or disprove it to me." :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

life as we know it ? I think via comets helped .

Imperial College News Release

For Immediate Release:

Friday 13 June 2008

Scientists have confirmed for the first time that an important component of early genetic material which has been found in meteorite fragments is extraterrestrial in origin, in a paper published on 15 June 2008.

The finding suggests that parts of the raw materials to make the first molecules of DNA and RNA may have come from the stars.

The scientists, from Europe and the USA, say that their research, published in the journal Earth and Planetary Science Letters, provides evidence that life’s raw materials came from sources beyond the Earth.

Scientists find evidence that genetic material may have come from space rock

The materials they have found include the molecules uracil and xanthine, which are precursors to the molecules that make up DNA and RNA, and are known as nucleobases.

The team discovered the molecules in rock fragments of the Murchison meteorite, which crashed in Australia in 1969.

They tested the meteorite material to determine whether the molecules came from the solar system or were a result of contamination when the meteorite landed on Earth.

The analysis shows that the nucleobases contain a heavy form of carbon which could only have been formed in space. Materials formed on Earth consist of a lighter variety of carbon.

Lead author Dr Zita Martins, of the Department of Earth Science and Engineering at Imperial College London, says that the research may provide another piece of evidence explaining the evolution of early life. She says:

“We believe early life may have adopted nucleobases from meteoritic fragments for use in genetic coding which enabled them to pass on their successful features to subsequent generations.”

Between 3.8 to 4.5 billion years ago large numbers of rocks similar to the Murchison meteorite rained down on Earth at the time when primitive life was forming. The heavy bombardment would have dropped large amounts of meteorite material to the surface on planets like Earth and Mars.

Co-author Professor Mark Sephton, also of Imperial’s Department of Earth Science and Engineering, believes this research is an important step in understanding how early life might have evolved. He added:

“Because meteorites represent left over materials from the formation of the solar system, the key components for life -- including nucleobases -- could be widespread in the cosmos. As more and more of life’s raw materials are discovered in objects from space, the possibility of life springing forth wherever the right chemistry is present becomes more likely.”

http://www3.imperial.ac.uk/newsandeventspg...59?newsid=38534

Edited by Lt_Ripley
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very interesting article you provided Ripley thank you. You've spawned my interest to catch up on the latest, my daughter will be proud seeing how thinks I expend too much energy day dreaming. :)

one can never spend too much energy day dreaming !

Link to comment
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
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.