Extraterrestrial (microbial) life found in meteorite

Originally posted by intrptr
reply to post by OccamsRazor04

 

but right now life has been found nowhere else.

And thats your "evidence"?

We haven't been to even one other star yet. How can you say that? Oh, thats right, you didn't say that there is no life elsewhere or that it evolved here or that it came here.


Wait... what are you saying?

Yes. That is my evidence. Life has not been found anywhere other than Earth. What was your evidence again? Oh .. your intuition. Well gee, who can argue with that.

Since you are somehow unable to discern what I am saying I will say it again. We have life on Earth. Life has not been found anywhere else. Life having come here from another planet is possible, but there is zero evidence to say it happened. Life evolving here on its own is possible, we have zero evidence to prove it did. We know life is here, we have no idea how it started. You claim you already know the answer 100% without any evidence. I claim I will wait for actual evidence. You keep on keeping on though my friend!

reply to post by OccamsRazor04

We know life is here, we have no idea how it started.

Thats like saying you don't know where that tree came from. I'll tell you...
a seed from another tree. Now follow that back as far as you can tolerate until your mind goes blank.

If you want to start a garden anywhere you are going to need seeds. If you want to raise chickens you are going to need eggs.

If you want a baby you need a womb. If you are going to deny that is the beginning of the next generation from the last generation, then you are going to need a mind.

Oh.... never mind.

Originally posted by intrptr
reply to post by OccamsRazor04

 

We know life is here, we have no idea how it started.

Thats like saying you don't know where that tree came from. I'll tell you...
a seed from another tree. Now follow that back as far as you can tolerate until your mind goes blank.

If you want to start a garden anywhere you are going to need seeds. If you want to raise chickens you are going to need eggs.

If you want a baby you need a womb. If you are going to deny that is the beginning of the next generation from the last generation, then you are going to need a mind.

Oh.... never mind.

Yes, and I can look, and I can see the other trees. We have evidence. I am unsure why your mind is unable to comprehend such a simple concept. So tell me, where did the "seed" that brought life here come from? Where is it? Show it to me.

I am going to follow your train of thought. Life here had to be brought from another planet because that is the only way life starts. Now follow that back until your mind goes blank. If you want to start life on a planet you need life on another planet first. If you are going to deny the beginning of life on one planet comes from the generation of life from the last planet you are going to have to tell me how life started on the very first planet. You seem to forget the hole in your argument. One of us needs a mind ....

An interesting article and an interesting "story" to keep an eye on for the next wee while. I'm not going one way or another at this stage, I just want to say I'll keep an eye on any updates people post about it. Lots of life out there, it's only a matter of time before something will fall into our hands... I mean, the technology already has, hasn't it?

I see we are drifting into semantics again. Let's see if I can clarify things a little. We have two "measures" fact and theory. Fact is based on actual physical measured evidence. Theory is based on statistics, possibly assumptions, partial confirmations etc.

So, using facts :

Life on Earth 100% true
Life elsewhere 0% true (NB 0% true not false they are not opposite in this case)
Life evolved here 0% true (we don't know it might be via meteorite)
Life evolved elsewhere and came here 0% true (we don't know it might have evolved here)

Let me explain "0% true" vs "false", which ties in with the ridiculous prove a negative nonsense we keep seeing on ATS. In order for the statement "Life elsewhere is false" we would have to measure the non existance of life everywhere. This is impossible therefore nobody can ever say Life elsewhere is false. We can say life elsewhere is 0% true because we haven't been anywhere yet, or rather in our own exceptionally small back yard!

Using Theory :
Life on earth 100% true (obviously)
Life elsewhere ...pick a number ! depending on your belief and whatever conjecture you use to state the theory "Life is highly likely to exist elsewhere". Drakes equation for example.

The probability of life elsewhere at say 10% would mean unlikely but there is circumstantial evidence it may be. If the probability was 90% then the evidence would have to be quite substantial but falling short of absolute proof. It is exceedingly difficult to put a number on this.

But here's the thing it cannot ever be zero for the simple reason we are here and we have not visited every single lump of rock in the universe. Life exists on at least one planet so far, ours, therefore the probability of life elsewhere cannot be zero but the fact its elsewhere is still zero. What we can say is that as more discoveries are made the probability moves higher or lower. So far, I would say that as we see the niche's life can exist in the probability (based on environmental factors) for life is increasing. Also, as our understanding of the universe increases the probability is also increasing. For example we had assumed planets around binary stars would be rare due to gravitational instability. This has now been shown to be wrong and given the sheer number of binary stars then the number of planetary systems has shot up! In addition the number rocky planets at habitable distances has had its number increased significantly.

Despite the increasing number of habitable planets and thus the increasing probability of life elsewhere the fact that life exists elsewhere is still zero.

It is amazing, when it comes to microbs, the hunt is on by all the top scientist, but when you mention aliens to the them in 1964 April 24th, you couldn't get them to touch it with a ten foot poll. That is publicly anyway, employment matters but truth splatters ! But things that don't speak and can't walk, are passed on like wildfire!

reply to post by OccamsRazor04

So tell me, where did the "seed" that brought life here come from?

From somewhere else.

It looks pretty unambiguous as a multi-faceted object. I suppose that other researchers will be allowed to eyeball the meteorite as some stage, or maybe already.
That they also are of the opinon that there may have been 'living' organisms before the meteorite entered the atmosphere is something to ponder, but where to look for the info?

reply to post by yorkshirelad


Thank you for an excellent post on a topic which is filled with emotional opinions due to different reasons - which is really cool, but sometimes you just need to get some perspective.

I can be extremely unsympathetic and childish when people can't see the logic in my belief (life is of course thriving on other planets), but what is logic for me (based on a non-scientific point of view) is nonsense to others. They may require an image, equation, or doctoral thesis on the subject or maybe the subject is just not part of their belief system. No matter where we are in relation to the subject, there is something we all have in common: we lack evidence of life or no life on other planets than Earth!

I think, however, that there have been so many new discoveries in space just the last year, the probability of finding evidence of extraterrestrial life increases rapidly - and I believe that we will get an answer in 2013 (you gotta believe in something) or maybe this is it. But no matter how much I want someone or something to support what I believe in, I like the rest of you must wait patiently for the big unveiling.

Enough about that. Cross my fingers and hope to be right



//HamP

Originally posted by intrptr
reply to post by OccamsRazor04

 

So tell me, where did the "seed" that brought life here come from?

From somewhere else.

But that life needed to start somewhere, also.

If the ultimate origin of that life was through some sort of abiogenesis (life emerging from non-life) on another planet, then why couldn't life Earth also have undergone an abiogenesis on Earth?

You pointed out earlier that a tree comes from a seed, and that seed came from another tree, and so on and so on...and if we keep looking back, we would see where that seed came from, and it could have come from outer space.

I suppose that is possible, but it is also possible to look back long enough ago to find the first chemical reaction that replicated itself (that's basically what life is, so that could be the first life). However, that first-time self replicating chemical process could have originated on earth from the combination of previously NON-self replicating reactions (i.e., abiogenesis).

reply to post by FireballStorm


I've also noticed the skys were constantly red almost every day abuot a little less then a month ago and now it seems that the skys at night are all different types of colors..

no need for a differnt perspective on this seeing most of you seem to have it ALL figured out.

there are diatoms bacteria and red rain cells that are floating around in our upper atmosphere. The space shuttle comes back covered with them but it doesn't always rain red rain or cause problems that some would link to meteors.

fossilization has been observed by scientist to take place as quick as 15 minutes i.e. Mount St Helens, Mt Pinatubo, Pompay fossilization was proven to also be very quick.

So don't rest assured that this is proof.

I know there is life in deep space. But it may not be what we would like it to be.

Bacteria are part of a microbial system of destruction for the breaking down of both organic and inorganic materials.

reply to post by Soylent Green Is People

to look back long enough ago to find the first chemical reaction that replicated itself (that's basically what life is, so that could be the first life)

Chemical reactions are not life. Life utilizes chemical reaction to sustain itself, but that doesn't mean life began as a chemical reaction. Far from it. Life is that "extra element" that we don't yet have a formula for. If you could divide life down to its chemical constituents (thats easy) that still doesn't give us a recipe for life.

Its easy also to make life from life. A cell divides and you have two. But that first cell is not some "primitive" life form. It is a complete self sustaining package with everything it needs to eat live and reproduce. It even heals itself. And that is just a cell. To make more of them, we need an original.

Look at a human egg. Look at the womb. How humans divide is the most complex "bio genesis" there is. That is encoded in the DNA of every human cell. About as close to a master plan as it gets. By design. Not random mutation over "bazillnia". If you want to make more life you have to start with life.

I know I'm not doing a very good job of explaining it.

reply to post by intrptr

A self-replicating chemical reaction that can continue to replicate itself is life.
I agree that we don't know how a self-replicating reaction would come to spontaneous just "happen".

However, the greater question I have about the panspermia idea is that the life ORIGINALLY had to spontaneous come about somewhere. Maybe Earth was seeded by a meteor from elsewhere...and that meteor got it's life from a planet whose star exploded...and that life came from another meteor...etc, etc...

...but where did the FIRST life come from?

reply to post by Soylent Green Is People

life ORIGINALLY had to spontaneous come about somewhere. Maybe Earth was seeded by a meteor from elsewhere...and that meteor got it's life from a planet whose star exploded...and that life came from another meteor...etc, etc...

Big bunch of stringed maybes... the problem I have with meteor sperm is the intense heat and pressure involved with reentry and impact. Temperature, ionizing radiation, and G forces are enormous. Thats what keeps earths biosphere sterile. Nothing infectious can get through. Unless we bring it back (See Andromeda Strain, the Original).

...but where did the FIRST life come from?

Somewhere else.

PS: Considering the Universe is infinitely big and has been around for infinity, then that is an answer of sorts. At least for me. Terra Forming is a concept well accepted by Sci-Fi writers before this century. I have read so any books by them and they all accept that life is seeded (like you would seed a garden) from planet to planet by intent. That whatever ancient civilizations are out there do this for a living. We keep seed and embryo banks in cryostasis... it is logical. Interstellar arks of sorts traversing star systems, self contained. Filled with seeds embryos and enough supplies and personnel to establish green houses and early gardens on planets that can sustain life. Life easily procreates in a hospitable environment.

Way out on a limb. I hear people talk about the beings assigned here to watch over the planet and its affairs in every writing that has ever been written by cultures every when. I don't see any reason to doubt that on some level. I don't know the exactness of it just rings true. The alternative is mutating slime molds. And we are the only life. Bah...

Originally posted by intrptr
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People

...but where did the FIRST life come from?

Somewhere else.

OK. Then it again comes down to this question:

If life was able to have formed someplace else, then it could have formed on Earth, too. What makes "someplace else" so much more magical than Earth?

Personally, I think it is possible that life could have started spontaneously on many, many, many planets. Life may be just what happens when you give a few amino acids a few 100 million years to react with each other. We may not understand how life gets that initial kick-start, but just because we don't know doesn't mean it isn't a relatively common thing (cosmologically speaking).

Then again, maybe spontaneous life IS extremely rare, and it is easier for it to float around on a comet than it is to have it just spontaneously come into being. HOWEVER, I simply don't know, so I'm not going to say for sure one way or the other (although I'm leaning towards life starting on many planets).

It sounds like you are taking the opposite view, and saying that the spontaneous formation of life is so very rare that it is much more likely to be carried to a planet by a comet/meteor than it is for a planet to spontaneuosly give rise to life.

Originally posted by intrptr
I have read so any books by them and they all accept that life is seeded (like you would seed a garden) from planet to planet by intent. That whatever ancient civilizations are out there do this for a living. We keep seed and embryo banks in cryostasis... it is logical. Interstellar arks of sorts traversing star systems, self contained

So you think there may have been an alien guiding force behind the seeding of life on Earth...

...Then where did THOSE aliens come from? And if you answer "Earlier Aliens seeded them", then my next question will be "where did those EARLIER aliens come from"

Been there done that - Move along folks. These silly stories pop up from time to time and its best to squash them immediately like you would little squirmy bacteria on your counter tops, or better yet - miniature cockroaches. There's nothing else to see here - just another of those oh so many cases of wishful mistakes - as they say "mistaken identity."

A litle short piece on GOD & ET's:

There is this well know Italian mystic Maria Valtorta (1897-1961) who wrote some the most incredible writings regarding the life of Jesus and his Holy Mother Mary!
Maria states very clearly that this information comes directly from Jesus himself! Pope Pius XII said regarding Maria Valtorta writing “ Poem of the Man~God (the life of Jesus as it was told to her): "Publish this work as it is. There is no need to give an opinion on its origin, if it be extraordinary or not. Whoever reads it will understand."!

Taken from one of Maria’s notebook date: June 19, 1943 regarding ET’s caught my eyes being a long time Coast listener. The whole passage is provided in the link below but here is a short passage I think you might like.

"But how is it that they have never considered that the 'great Babylon' is the whole Earth? I would be a very small and limited God the Creator if I had created only the Earth as an inhabited world! With a beat of My will I have brought forth worlds upon worlds from nothing and cast them as luminous fine dust into the immensity of the firmament.

"The Earth, about which you are so proud and fierce, is nothing but one of the bits of fine dust rotating in unboundedness, and not the biggest one. It is certainly the most corrupt one, though. Lives upon lives are teeming in the millions of worlds which are the joy of your gaze on peaceful nights, and the perfection of God will appear to you when, with the intellectual sight of your spirits rejoined to God, you are able to see the wonders of those worlds.


valtorta.org...

reply to post by HamP1980

I enjoyed reading your post. Welcome to ATS!

Let me be the first to star you...

reply to post by Soylent Green Is People

So you think there may have been an alien guiding force behind the seeding of life on Earth...

...Then where did THOSE aliens come from? And if you answer "Earlier Aliens seeded them", then my next question will be "where did those EARLIER aliens come from"

You and I can't see beyond the veil of life (I mean death) just like we can't see but a tiny bit of the known electro-magnetic spectrum with the eyes we have. We only see color. But we know that it is there.

Same with defining the end or beginning of something. We want to define it, give it boundaries, but that is impossible from our 3D perspective. We are going to have to die first to see what comes next. I already know that if my hand could stretch out that it would never touch the end of the Universe. Unlike in the "Truman Show", the Universe just keeps going. That means that every possibility has happened including both of our arguments.

When you ask where does it end I say it doesn't. So we're both right and wrong because we don't know what is out there. And I think I am going to get a headache if I have to answer that one more time. Haven't we had this discussion before?

Where does it end?
It doesn't.
But it has to.
No it doesn't.
Why not?
I don't know.