Survey of theories

There are a number of theories regarding the origin of life on earth. I've listed what I think is a relatively complete range of theories below. I'm really interested to take a survey of sorts and find out what it is that you believe.

Please let me know which of the below theories you believe and perhaps a short explanation of why...

Abiogenesis
The first cell appeared out of non living matter in an oxygen-less atmosphere or deep water, kick started by energy such as sunlight / lightning.

Alien Design
Life on earth was bioengineered by an alien race.

Biogenesis
Life was formed from pre-existing life.

Intelligent Design
A creator God made all types of living organisms.

Panspermia
Primitive alien matter (seeds) were transported to earth via meteors/comets.

Spontaneous Generation
The first cell appeared out of nothing.

If I have missed anything out or misrepresented a certain theory, please let me know.

The beginning and the end and time and creation may only be silly little words and concepts that we try to attach to things that we do not understand, that we are not mature enough to comprehend.

Perhaps we are in a never ending loop, a figure eight, without beginning or end.

Perhaps we are just a tree waiting to bear seed, seed that will be cast off, to grow in another garden somewhere far far away.

I suppose you could call this the "rinse and repeat' theory.

Half of me says who cares, the other half knows that we have aliens living amonst us that are pretending to be human when we both know that they are not.

Originally posted by deepred
Perhaps we are in a never ending loop, a figure eight, without beginning or end.

Perhaps we are just a tree waiting to bear seed, seed that will be cast off, to grow in another garden somewhere far far away.

I suppose you could call this the "rinse and repeat' theory.

Very thought provoking, I like the way you think.

Originally posted by In nothing we trust
Half of me says who cares, the other half knows that we have aliens living amonst us that are pretending to be human when we both know that they are not.

We all know some people that are...well...'suspect'. hehe

A deeper question would be, to ask why man feels this question needs an answer, is it to prove or disprove God, is it in the pursuit of science, is man hardwired to seek answers to every question, the pursuit of knowledge so ingrained in man that an answer that could bring great things or end any hope of happiness here on earth is still demanded.

Is knowledge always positive, or do we just, roll the dice, demand answers and hope for the best?

In my opinion we would demand answers even if we knew our desire for knowledge would result in negative consequences.

Originally posted by the siren
There are a number of theories regarding the origin of life on earth. I've listed what I think is a relatively complete range of theories below. I'm really interested to take a survey of sorts and find out what it is that you believe.

Please let me know which of the below theories you believe and perhaps a short explanation of why...

Abiogenesis
The first cell appeared out of non living matter in an oxygen-less atmosphere or deep water, kick started by energy such as sunlight / lightning.

Alien Design
Life on earth was bioengineered by an alien race.

Biogenesis

Life was formed from pre-existing life.

Intelligent Design
A creator God made all types of living organisms.

Panspermia
Primitive alien matter (seeds) were transported to earth via meteors/comets.

Spontaneous Generation
The first cell appeared out of nothing.

If I have missed anything out or misrepresented a certain theory, please let me know.

I've just published a new one.

AutoGenesisism.

It takes 118,000 words to properly present it. I can send you a link for the book if you're interested. Let's just say that I'm pretty confident in the assumption that you've never heard anything like it, and it covers the origins of everything. Absolutely everything.

reply to post by the siren

Originally posted by the siren
There are a number of theories regarding the origin of life on earth. I've listed what I think is a relatively complete range of theories below. I'm really interested to take a survey of sorts and find out what it is that you believe.

Please let me know which of the below theories you believe and perhaps a short explanation of why...

Well, let's see where this goes. I hope your thread doesn't get derailed by some of the less than topical elements on here.

Abiogenesis
The first cell appeared out of non living matter in an oxygen-less atmosphere or deep water, kick started by energy such as sunlight / lightning.

Strong start. A proper scientific theory. Probably the most likely option with regard to the origin of life, at least scientifically (which honestly is all that matters in matters of fact)

Of course, you did slightly misrepresent it. It's not about the first 'cell' appearing out of nonliving matter. It's about the first bits of living matter appearing. Living as in self-replicating.

Alien Design
Life on earth was bioengineered by an alien race.

This is not a theory. This is a hypothesis. For it to be a theory you would need a level of evidence.

It is also not a very useful idea. At best that simply creates a position of regress, pushing back the origin of life to these alien creators and where they came from. At worst it creates an infinite regress, with each alien race being created by another one.

Where do you stop?

Biogenesis
Life was formed from pre-existing life.

Wouldn't be a theory of life arising...as life would already be present.

Intelligent Design
A creator God made all types of living organisms.

Also a hypothesis. Nothing to back it up in the least in terms of science.

Panspermia
Primitive alien matter (seeds) were transported to earth via meteors/comets.

This one is far more realistic than the 'alien creators' one, as it leaves for the possibility of the formation of these 'seeds' to the natural rather than the artificial.

However, it would still rely on abiogenesis at some point, as those 'seeds' would have to come from somewhere.

Spontaneous Generation
The first cell appeared out of nothing.

Also not a theory. Hypothesis at best, ridiculous statement at worst.

If I have missed anything out or misrepresented a certain theory, please let me know.

You simply need to revise the scientific definition of theory.

I'd like to add another theory. Life began when you were born. The world you live in, is the world you had created...meaning all your beliefs and thoughts are aligned with each other and so whatever "idea" you latch onto makes the most sense, and with that comes all the evidence you would ever need. The mind seeks to rebuild "the puzzle" unique to its experience.

This to me makes the most sense because nothing existed until I was born. Honestly everyone could state this, although we all know (collectively) that this cannot be true. However I believe it to be true.

Originally posted by deepred
In my opinion we would demand answers even if we knew our desire for knowledge would result in negative consequences.

I agree.

Originally posted by NorEaster
I've just published a new one.

AutoGenesisism.

It takes 118,000 words to properly present it. I can send you a link for the book if you're interested. Let's just say that I'm pretty confident in the assumption that you've never heard anything like it, and it covers the origins of everything. Absolutely everything.

I understand you want to explain things properly, but to be fair...All of the theories above require more words to properly present them. How about giving us a brief summary and link to the full text if someone wants to read more?

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
Abiogenesis

Strong start. A proper scientific theory. Probably the most likely option with regard to the origin of life, at least scientifically (which honestly is all that matters in matters of fact)

Of course, you did slightly misrepresent it. It's not about the first 'cell' appearing out of nonliving matter. It's about the first bits of living matter appearing. Living as in self-replicating.

Fair enough. So it would be more accurate if I'd said the first 'life form' appeared from nonliving matter. Unfortunately I can't edit my original post, but I stand corrected.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
Alien Design

This is not a theory. This is a hypothesis. For it to be a theory you would need a level of evidence.

It is also not a very useful idea. At best that simply creates a position of regress, pushing back the origin of life to these alien creators and where they came from. At worst it creates an infinite regress, with each alien race being created by another one.

Where do you stop?

I suppose that depends on your definition of theory. An atheist once took great pains to explain to me the difference between a theory and a scientific theory. The way I understand it, a scientific theory needs evidence in science, whereas a an ordinary theory is just an hypothesis or contemplation, not necessarily based in compelling evidence.

I hear you about the regression though. Naturally the first question that springs to mind is 'where did the aliens come from?'. That's why in my OP, I stated 'origin of life on earth', rather than simply 'origin of life'.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
Biogenesis

Wouldn't be a theory of life arising...as life would already be present.

I'll be honest: I don't really understand this theory. I tried to find out more, but haven't been able to find any resource that explained it sufficiently. Perhaps people who believe in biogenesis believe there has always been life, but can't agree where it came from (the chicken and the egg scenario).

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
Intelligent Design

Also a hypothesis. Nothing to back it up in the least in terms of science.

Correct, nothing to back it up scientifically, but it's what I believe nonetheless. Like the alien theory, the first thing that pops to mind is ''Where did God come from'. I can't comment on other religions, but if you believe the Christian Bible in that he has always been and will always be, it's difficult to grasp. Everything in our lives has a beginning and an end, so to contemplate the concept of 'forever' is difficult. Though it is equally difficult if not more so, for me to contemplate the fact that at some point, there was absolutely nothing. Each to their own I suppose.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
Panspermia

This one is far more realistic than the 'alien creators' one, as it leaves for the possibility of the formation of these 'seeds' to the natural rather than the artificial.

However, it would still rely on abiogenesis at some point, as those 'seeds' would have to come from somewhere.

Yes, I see your correlation. Like abiogenesis, belief in this theory would mean belief in macro evolution as well. Even though macro evolution is a whole separate debate, if it can't be proven, it casts doubt on abiogenesis and panspermia.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
Spontaneous Generation

Also not a theory. Hypothesis at best, ridiculous statement at worst.

When I first heard the theory, I was surprised to say the least, but from what I understand the belief stems from a time before we knew that maggots came from fly eggs. I guess people saw maggots appear on dead flesh, and assumed they came from thin air.

Originally posted by The Endtime Warrior
I'd like to add another theory. Life began when you were born. The world you live in, is the world you had created...meaning all your beliefs and thoughts are aligned with each other and so whatever "idea" you latch onto makes the most sense, and with that comes all the evidence you would ever need. The mind seeks to rebuild "the puzzle" unique to its experience.

This to me makes the most sense because nothing existed until I was born. Honestly everyone could state this, although we all know (collectively) that this cannot be true. However I believe it to be true.

A new level of narcissism.

Originally posted by the siren
[

Originally posted by NorEaster
I've just published a new one.

AutoGenesisism.

It takes 118,000 words to properly present it. I can send you a link for the book if you're interested. Let's just say that I'm pretty confident in the assumption that you've never heard anything like it, and it covers the origins of everything. Absolutely everything.

I understand you want to explain things properly, but to be fair...All of the theories above require more words to properly present them. How about giving us a brief summary and link to the full text if someone wants to read more?

The full text is in a book, not online. The book is called "Taking Down the Curtain" and these are the link to it...

www.createspace.com...

www.amazon.com...=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1287241497&sr=1-1

Essentially, it is the auto-mechanic's version of what theology and spirituality have been working to present for the last several thousand years. The "Grand Unification Theory", I suppose, that unites what we know with what we feel the need to believe, and does so without dismissing much of anything as pure fiction. It covers

* The genesis of physical existence
* The imperatives and qualifiers that shape and mold the progressive development of everything
* The reason for corporeal existence, and why the brain evolved
* What makes humanity unique among thinking creatures
* What God is and its physical structure
* Why and how God created the contextual environment that hosts our world, our universe, all universes and whatever else exists that we have no capacity to perceive
* What spirits actually are
* The truth about Reincarnation
* Who/what Jesus was/is
* What God the Father actually is
* What the Holy Spirit actually is
* A nuts and bolts description of the actual Judgement event
* What Heaven is and why Hell is not what has been described by religionists

Several months ago, an ATS poster asked me to preview this book here on this board, and I said that I would. Well, here it is before it has been offered to any other public outlet. I like this board, and wanted to give you folks the first crack at it. It's not free, but I've learned that free means worthless to most people. A little skin in the game makes it important to most folks to give what been offered a little effort, and this premise has its aspects that challenge most people.

There's nothing holy or supernatural about God or anything else that actually exists. It all serves a very recognizable purpose and one that literally every human being would immediately be able to associate with. In the end, reality is very normal, even if the details and the seamless, airtight nature of the structure is fascinatingly elegant.

Originally posted by the siren
A new level of narcissism.

You're just mad cause you didn't think of it

reply to post by the siren


With respect to origin of life *on Earth*, my money is mostly on Abiogenesis. I will put a smaller bet on Panspermia. And I will put an extremely (with added emphasis) small bet on Alien Design. Spontaneous Generation sounds like it is merely a special case of Abiogenesis. And we all (hopefully) know that Intelligent Design is a steamy turd.

If life on Earth began as a result of Panspermia or Alien Design, it begs the question of how such alien life began (assuming it was organic life like what we find on Earth). Ultimately, biological life emerges through some form of Abiogenesis. What remains is for us to learn the exact sequence of events that occurred on the early Earth to create the first primitive cells.

Originally posted by deepred
The beginning and the end and time and creation may only be silly little words and concepts that we try to attach to things that we do not understand, that we are not mature enough to comprehend.

Perhaps we are in a never ending loop, a figure eight, without beginning or end.

Perhaps we are just a tree waiting to bear seed, seed that will be cast off, to grow in another garden somewhere far far away.

I suppose you could call this the "rinse and repeat' theory.

edit on 9-10-2010 by deepred because: jus cuz

You are a master of non sequitur. I suppose I could make up some cute metaphors of my own, but that would hardly contribute to the discussion.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
This is not a theory. This is a hypothesis. For it to be a theory you would need a level of evidence.

It is also not a very useful idea. At best that simply creates a position of regress, pushing back the origin of life to these alien creators and where they came from. At worst it creates an infinite regress, with each alien race being created by another one.

Where do you stop?

You simply need to revise the scientific definition of theory.

Glad to see fellow scientifically-minded folks on this board. As you pointed out, the OP uses "theory" in the lay sense of "hypothesis". The infinite regress would certainly be an issue, but the OP (in my interpretation) was primarily concerned with the origin of life on Earth, as opposed to elsewhere. No disagreements with you.

Originally posted by NorEaster

* The genesis of physical existence

What is the AutoGenesisism take on how life on earth started?

Originally posted by The Endtime Warrior

Originally posted by the siren
A new level of narcissism.

You're just mad cause you didn't think of it

I'm definitely not mad - your theory made me smile.. ...the idea of the whole world and everything that exists revolving around you.

Originally posted by imnotbncre8ive
With respect to origin of life *on Earth*, my money is mostly on Abiogenesis. I will put a smaller bet on Panspermia. And I will put an extremely (with added emphasis) small bet on Alien Design. Spontaneous Generation sounds like it is merely a special case of Abiogenesis. And we all (hopefully) know that Intelligent Design is a steamy turd.

If life on Earth began as a result of Panspermia or Alien Design, it begs the question of how such alien life began (assuming it was organic life like what we find on Earth). Ultimately, biological life emerges through some form of Abiogenesis. What remains is for us to learn the exact sequence of events that occurred on the early Earth to create the first primitive cells.

Thanks for your reply. I have to disagree with your sentence above that I have 'bolded' for emphasis - The idea of a creator is no less absurd than abiogenesis or panspermia or any of the other theories. None of them can be proved, and I'll go as far as saying there isn't even any evidence for any of them. As far as I'm concerned, we're all on a level paying field in this respect...except that some of us are wrong...perhaps all of us.

Originally posted by the siren

Originally posted by NorEaster

* The genesis of physical existence

What is the AutoGenesisism take on how life on earth started?

Auto-G doesn't really address the more ancillary developments like Earth-centric corporeal development. Keep in mind that corporeal (molecular) development is fairly redundant and based on foundational structure principles, as with all of physical existence. As I stated in the "genesis of everything" thread, all that exists as physical divides down into units of either event or information concerning that event. With that as the existential basis, there are many means for elemental progression to find a way to increase in organizational sophistication.

The one and only existential imperative is Survival, and we see it expressed in a variety of ways. "Masculine" expressions include Identity, Isolation, and Competition, while "Feminine" expressions include Association, Increase and Symbiosis. Most existential development efforts involve fluid combinations of Masculine and Feminine imperative expressions, with circumstance and contextual precedence providing guidance via "path of least resistance" trajectory adjustments. Physicists are pretty good at documenting this sort of activity, even if they have yet to bother looking into why things do what they do in a more primitive, holistic sense.

In essence, Auto-G examines the impact of pre-elemental existential foundations on all stages of corporeal (in its conceptual and widely diverse sense of physical expression) and informational progressive development. The corporeal is the result of a well-documented symbiotic "relationship" between event and information, with organized causation the initial and fundamental outcome of this association.

As far as Earth's development of elemental matter, we live as carbon-centric beings who are in an ongoing effort to create silicon-centric beings in our own image. We can actually know a lot of how we developed through our own efforts to develop our silicon-based servants. Channeled progression (precedence-tailored activity) with a balance between increase (complexity and sophistication) and a relentless competition between aspects of increase (finely-tuned efficiency and redundancy elimination). Balancing the Feminine with the Masculine to craft the most success and survivable product.

Obviously we emerged in a much more organic manner, but the symbiosis between causation and information was central to that development. The issue of information's permanence within the contextual environment (once something is a fact, as in such and such happened, it can never "not be a fact", as in such and such never happened) must be factored into all organized development, and placed into the central position concerning that organized development. Organized development requires consistency and redundancy - even if only the orbit of an electron around a neutron - and without the contextual precedence that a symbiotic relationship between event and information provides, organized activity is literally impossible.

AutoGenesisism works with this level of requirement and scales it all the way up to the "birth" of existential epitome expressions such as human beings and even the author of our own contextual environment - some call it God - and the imperative expression that drives such a being to initiate a contextual environment like ours to satisfy that imperative. Nothing simply is, and everything - when stripped of its ultra-sophisticated accessorizations - submits to the same handful of directives, regardless of how far along the development chain it exists.

Picture two spheres, one inside the other. The outer sphere is pure love/light energy. The inside is void. To spheres of opposite energy polarity, both sides self aware. The light of the outer sphere noticed a pinpoint of blackness and flowed through it in one instant. (what scientists call the big bang) Since all matter is energy condensed to a slow vibration, the light energy slowed bits of itself down to specific frequencies to create all that is, thus spreading itself out into the whole of the inner sphere.

The outer sphere could be called the Divine Universe and the inner sphere is this universe. And that is how it all went down.

reply to post by the siren

Thanks for your reply. I have to disagree with your sentence above that I have 'bolded' for emphasis - The idea of a creator is no less absurd than abiogenesis or panspermia or any of the other theories. None of them can be proved, and I'll go as far as saying there isn't even any evidence for any of them. As far as I'm concerned, we're all on a level paying field in this respect...except that some of us are wrong...perhaps all of us.

To be fair, in terms of abiogenisis, theories that have been supported by lab results have been presented, coupled with biological studies on the process of cells and geological and astrological studies showing us the conditions of what early conditions on Earth have lead to a fair understanding of how early cells likely developed.
It's a fascinating application of multiple fields and I'd encourage you to study them.
The main question with panspermia is, with new knowledge of our Cosmos, no longer much could it happen, but did it happen.
Space is littered with what is commonly referred to as the building blocks of life.

I'm going to go with , life that already existed on the planet was altered/augmented by outside influence and science applied by visiting advanced lifeforms.