Scientists claim to have found evidence of ALIEN LIFE

I have no doubt that there is other life, off this planet. Microbial life forms could easily find its way on a passing meteor. Small living Organisms, and Bacteria are the SUPREME living entity, and have lived in some of the harshes places on this planet, Far out manureuving humans as the dominate organism. And will continue to be the dominate, fast acting, mulitplying, and combating our medicines. IF We are only to keep up with these little guys, we would be doing good

It is highly probably that life on Earth originated from elsewhere in the Universe, in fact it is statistically more than likely.

Some more articles on this:

Life DID begin on Mars - then we all travelled to Earth on a meteorite: Element crucial to the origin of life 'would only have been available on the red planet'
Molybdenum mineral is thought to have been crucial to the origin of life
Material may have been available on the surface of Mars and not on Earth
This could suggest that life came to Earth on a Martian meteorite

Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk... .html#ixzz2eagGoVtB

www.space.com...

Scientists have discovered unexpected ingredients for life — organic molecules never seen before in meteorites — inside a chunk of space rock that fell to Earth over California last year, scientists say.

The discovery comes from an analysis of the so-called Sutter's Mill meteorite, which lit up the California night sky with a dazzling fireball in April 2012. Meteorite fragments from the event may shed light on the primordial ooze that helped give rise to life on Earth, researchers said.

Meteors that streak across Earth's sky mostly are fragments of the asteroids that lie between Mars and Jupiter. Meteorites can be rich in organic compounds, including some found among life on Earth.

theabsolutetruth
It is highly probably that life on Earth originated from elsewhere in the Universe, in fact it is statistically more than likely.

I agree that it is statistically more likely that life started on any of the billions of other planets in our galaxy than it starting on any single planet (such as Earth). Those probabilities are obvious.

However, when you start talking about the probability of that life finding its way off of its planet of origin, then surviving a long ride in space on an asteroid, and then finding its way to Earth seems like just as unlikely as Earth life simply starting on Earth.

Some more articles on this:

Life DID begin on Mars - then we all travelled to Earth on a meteorite: Element crucial to the origin of life 'would only have been available on the red planet'
Molybdenum mineral is thought to have been crucial to the origin of life
Material may have been available on the surface of Mars and not on Earth
This could suggest that life came to Earth on a Martian meteorite

Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk... .html#ixzz2eagGoVtB

Are you saying it is MORE likely Earth life started on Mars? I'm not saying it couldn't have, but what makes you think it is statistically MORE likely to have started on Mars than on Earth?

www.space.com...

Scientists have discovered unexpected ingredients for life — organic molecules never seen before in meteorites — inside a chunk of space rock that fell to Earth over California last year, scientists say.

The discovery comes from an analysis of the so-called Sutter's Mill meteorite, which lit up the California night sky with a dazzling fireball in April 2012. Meteorite fragments from the event may shed light on the primordial ooze that helped give rise to life on Earth, researchers said.

Meteors that streak across Earth's sky mostly are fragments of the asteroids that lie between Mars and Jupiter. Meteorites can be rich in organic compounds, including some found among life on Earth.

I don't doubt that the ingredients for life on Earth came from comets and/or meteors. Scientists know that some nebulae contain organic compounds (the building blocks of life). HOWEVER, saying that the building blocks of life on Earth came from a comet or meteor is not that same as saying life itself came to Earth in that manner.



EDIT TO ADD:
For some reason, I can't make your excerpts appear in your replies that I am quoting here. I don't know if that is a problem with this "new look ATS", or if this new layout intentionally disallows excerpted material in quotes. Sorry.

**sorry, double post**

I think it's interesting that francis crick, who along with Watson deduced the double helix design of dna, believed that dna is way to complex to have evolved naturally. he believed in directed panspermia.

www.panspermia-theory.com...

reply to post by Soylent Green Is People


I did say this:

It is highly probably that life on Earth originated from elsewhere in the Universe, in fact it is statistically more than likely.

I think the origins of life on Earth, ie, the building blocks for life came from elsewhere in the Universe. As for the Mars article, I didn't write it but it is entirely plausible that other planets in the solar system were more suited to the formation of life than Earth, and just as we find minerals, compounds and now organic matter in meteorites, when Earth was being more constantly bombarded, it increases the chance of organic matter reaching Earth from elsewhere in the Solar System / Universe.

guardianlv.com...

Proteins resurrected from reconstructions of prototypic forms may have existed in single-celled organisms that are the progenitors of all life.

The results of a study of one such protein were reported by Spanish and US scientists in the journal Structure.

Through computer analysis, gene sequences in a protein called thioredoxin, sampled from many modern organisms, were tracked backwards to those that may have been extant four billion years ago. Bacteria were utilized to create chemically active proteins using the ancient models. This process allowed scientists to determine the molecular structure and the properties of the predecessor protein.

The thioredoxin protein was selected because it is an enzyme with a variety of metabolic functions in cells, and is shared by almost all earthly life, from the simplest bacteria to human beings. It may be hypothesized that the single-celled ancestor of all life on Earth may have had the gene.

There is also speculation that ancient protein rode on meteorites to Earth four billion years ago, emigrating from other planets such as Mars, as these planets experienced climatic changes that made them increasingly hostile to the protein. Mars may well have been a more conducive place for protein to be than Earth during the first 500 million years after the solar system’s formation.

knoxie
I think it's interesting that francis crick, who along with Watson deduced the double helix design of dna, believed that dna is way to complex to have evolved naturally. he believed in directed panspermia.

www.panspermia-theory.com...

According to that article, Crick believed that the double-helix of DNA could not have evolved naturally.

Excerpt from your link:

The late Nobel prize winner Professor Francis Crick, OM FRS, along with British chemist Leslie Orgel proposed the theory of directed panspermia in 1973. A co-discoverer of the double helical structure of the DNA molecule, Crick found it impossible that the complexity of DNA could have evolved naturally.

Crick goes on to say that perhaps some other form of life created/built our DNA, and then sent it to Earth.


OK -- I suppose it is possible (I wouldn't call it "impossible")...

However, My next question would be this: Where did that other form of life come from? -- i.e., Under Crick's assertion, where did the beings who built our DNA (and direct it toward Earth) come from?

Didn't THAT life need to start somewhere? And if that life was complex enough to build DNA and "direct" it to Earth, then I would say complex life in the universe can in fact spontaneously start.

double post again...grrr

I need to get used to this new look. I keep clicking on "quote" when I really want "edit"

Well, I think spores could be ejected into space during a large asteroid/meteor strike. Spores are pretty hardy and could float around in space, or bound up in rocky material waiting for a suitable environment to propagate.

We might be surrounded by various alien species right now and not even realize it. Who knows, a percentage of Earth's organisms might have originated somewhere else.

I mean, mushrooms kind of look alien to me.

roughycannon
reply to post by TrueAmerican

 

My point is that the life came from nothing at one point in the past anyway so why not earth? I really don't get why its more plausible that it started on another planet and then came here via a meteor surely it according to occam's razor it more likely started here...

Yeah, by positing that life came from elsewhere, we are simply postponing the abiogenesis explanation burden, and not resolving it. So at first blush that would seem to violate a parsimonious approach to the question, by avoiding part of the argument in order to solve it, yes. However, we do not need in this case to postulate that abiogenesis occurred - we exist - so we actually can table that aspect of the argument and deconstruct the issue to a single layer. Therefore:

The Razor would actually say this:
You are presented a large haystack, and are told that there are a set = or > than 1 needles in this haystack. In other words there are 1+ needles in this enormous haystack. You walk up and look inside the haystack and on your first glance you find a needle.

Which statement holds the Ockham's Razor ?

1. There are an enormous number of needles in the haystack you were presented, or

2. You are extraordinarily lucky and found the needle on your first try.

TheEthicalSkeptic

roughycannon
reply to post by TrueAmerican

 

My point is that the life came from nothing at one point in the past anyway so why not earth? I really don't get why its more plausible that it started on another planet and then came here via a meteor surely it according to occam's razor it more likely started here...

Yeah, by positing that life came from elsewhere, we are simply postponing the abiogenesis explanation burden, and not resolving it. So at first blush that would seem to violate a parsimonious approach to the question, by avoiding part of the argument in order to solve it, yes. However, we do not need in this case to postulate that abiogenesis occurred - we exist - so we actually can table that aspect of the argument and deconstruct the issue to a single layer. Therefore:

The Razor would actually say this:
You are presented a large haystack, and are told that there are a set = or > than 1 needles in this haystack. In other words there are 1+ needles in this enormous haystack. You walk up and look inside the haystack and on your first glance you find a needle.

Which statement holds the Ockham's Razor ?

1. There are an enormous number of needles in the haystack you were presented, or

2. You are extraordinarily lucky and found the needle on your first try.

edit on 11-9-2013 by TheEthicalSkeptic because: (no reason given)

3. You are a needle.

I have to admit, I have sometimes wondered if various plagues/influenzas throughout history have extra-terrestrial origin.

Probably not, but it's a curious thought....

draknoir2
3. You are a needle.

That is the classic qualifier - when the observer and the observed are one in the same, what do we do? Does that therefore modify the argument? and how.

reply to post by TheEthicalSkeptic


Strong Anthropic Principle vs. Weak Anthropic Principle.

draknoir2
reply to post by TheEthicalSkeptic

 

Strong Anthropic Principle vs. Weak Anthropic Principle.

Yeah, I read Frank Tipler's The Physics of Immortality and while fascinated with the work, did not find an argument in the Strong Anthropic Principle which allowed qualification of the observer and the observed, other than establishing a potential 'purpose' under his construct.

Equally the Weak Anthropic Principle, were it to be given the Razor (and I think it should be, under the observer bias caution), really does not qualify the observer nor the observed.

If the set of those observed is unconstrained, and the set of the observers is unconstrained (and they both have to be in our case, in absence of specific knowledge to the contrary) - then the fact that the two are the same - is irrelevant until evidence compels us to think otherwise.

So 3. We are the needle. would not apply, until evidence could be established to propose a constrained observer or observed set.

reply to post by TheEthicalSkeptic


Philosophy aside, at this point neither abiogenisis nor panspermia, or any combination thereof, can be ruled out on this planet, or elsewhere in the the solar system, for that matter. I'm thinking there are quite a few needles on the galactic scale.

reply to post by 727Sky


I never bought that there is a time line of existence on the universe,I believe it always just was, and is and will be. One, it seems like scientist keep changing there mind and its get older and older as time goes on.(well its obviously always getting older but scientist seem to be changing the birth year) And two it doesn't seem like the universe is something that can be created, if that makes any sense.

TheLotLizard
I believe life is everywhere. Not as the way most people would think it.

Its just we have to look in ways we never thought before.

My thoughts exactly.

Maybe this explains Morgellans disease with synthetic fibers growing in the skin.

If it's in the MSM, it has an agenda behind it...

Here is a fact that you will NEVER see in the mainstream media:

Aliens and UFOs are NOT what they appear to be.

I don't believe a WORD science says any more than I believe a single word the MSM says.

They have BOTH been turned into mass mind control tools.

Just like the below quote says, our preconceptions are blinding most of us to reality.

"The thousands of contacts with the entities indicate that they are liars and put-on artists." ~ John Keel

Many of them claim to be here to “save” us from looming disaster. And they speak “good” things to us. Others appear to be non-friendly. Don’t be fooled. Things are not always what they appear to be. There is evidence that these are simply two “fronts” to a clever game orchestrated by the same group. They are intelligent and able to communicate with us. But they are liars and con artists. You could never trust them.

But there is good reason to believe that it goes much deeper. The entities can be identified as the Legion of Lucifer, who are filled with insane hatred for the human race. Their aim is our eventual destruction. In fact, the current wars, crime and corruption in our communities point straight at this sinister and deadly organization exerting their control in the highest echelons of government, business, science, religion and medicine, worldwide. If you didn’t know, a master plan is in place to bring down America, China… the whole world, very soon. Don’t let your preconceptions blind you to this reality. Forbidden Secret

"...the Illuminati eventually controlled the science departments in all colleges and institutions of higher learning. The plan was to stifle scientific knowledge and then twist what was left to fit the science they wanted the people to believe. They accomplished this by adopting new rules in regards to scientific research.

Science - The Illuminati Religion and Mind Control Tool for the Masses

"Throughout recorded history, the Illuminati has successfully withheld from humankind major aspects of history and science in order to subjugate the masses"

By manipulating the souls evolving on earth, the Illuminati have deliberately suppressed the spiritual facts of life, not to mention liberating technologies, which could bring plenitude to all.

Secrets of Suppressed Science and History