Origin of Life - Panspermia (2 of 3)

Watch as REAL SCIENTISTS(no giving up and resorting to goddidit) search for clues and hypothesize about how life arose on earth. This video mainly deals with the Panspermia. The idea that the earth was seeded with the building blocks of life.


Further Reading:

-- Origins of Life --

http://origins.jpl.nasa.gov/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panspermia
http://www.resa.net/nasa/origins_life...
http://www.origins.rpi.edu/research.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abiop...
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abiop...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_o...
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?arti...

• Category

  Howto & Style

[JoeyRamone63]

look,

You're apparently accepting what creationists tell you and you don't understand the fossil record. There are thousands of transitional fossils.  The bible is folklore. Do some research using scientific resources and not creationist propaganda. Use your brain...don't be intellectually lazy.

[Breetastic]

very true! But I mean hell. We're a speck of dust in the universe. There has bound to be crazy stuff out there that would shock and asnoish u and I. What sux the most is that we wont live long enough to truly discover the Universe.

[RSleepy]

". With Chandra Wickramasinghe, Hoyle promoted the hypothesis that the first life on Earth began in space, spreading through the universe via panspermia, and that evolution on earth is influenced by a steady influx of viruses arriving via comets. Wickramasinghe wrote in 2003 "In the highly polarized polemic between Darwinism and creationism, our position is unique. Although we do not align ourselves with either side, both sides treat us as opponents."

[horuslovechild2]

Make EARTH Beautiful for EVERY HUMAN First .......Then work out WHY... It's like Not feeding your children and letting them starve to death,.and instead wondering Why The person that built your house,Built it in the first place and Why in the area they built it .... Sounds a little Whack I know, but i think there's a little something in there for all of us....

[JoeyRamone63]

All fossils are transitional because the fossil record encompasses over 3 billion years of evolutionary development. If you're looking for one that exhibits easily identifiable traits of transition from one species to another, just look up the Tiktaalik.

[mothman1420]

What transitional fossils? Give me an example of one. 

[JoeyRamone63]

What, are you an expert in chemistry? It sure doesn't show. The fact that you ignore simple questions says a whole lot about your intentions. The articles I provided show that YOUR understanding of chemistry is quite flawed; there isn't just one or two proteins that can be formed from amino acids; there are innumerable possibilities and it's not something that can be easily reproduced. But, just because it's complicated doesn't mean it didn't or couldn't happen.

[5tonyvvvv]

Sir, they can't even get one single protein to form,forget about a living system...Yeah you dont know chemistry at all..I am done here..

[JoeyRamone63]

Looks like your claim of "left-handedness" has already been addressed and debunked (talkorigins[dot]org/indexcc/C­B/CB040[dot]html). Again, I ask you what is your alternative if you think abiogenesis is not correct? What other possibility is there for the origin of life if it did not happen slowly over millions of years starting with an initial spark of energy combined with amino acids?

[5tonyvvvv]

The instability of cytosine and ribose seriously cripples the RNA first proposal. What kills it is that getting the code sequence is impossible..digital code must be perfect in order to have a usable self replicating cycle...I dont know your chemistry background..but I am not sure if you know magnitude of this problem.

[5tonyvvvv]

These tests have been tried for 60 years,this simple process of life emerging from a chemical broth..no matter of time and chance even under amazing conditions in labs is impossible..It is a universally accepted fact of chemistry that chirality cannot be created in chemical molecules by a random process.or in a test tube, its highly unlikely.

[JoeyRamone63]

It seems to me that you are simply trying to use the fact that abiogenesis is not a fully-formed or fully-understood theory to somehow give credibility to some alternative theory; would that be your intent? If that is your intent, please tell me what that theory is and the evidence for it.. Otherwise, you're just saying abiogenesis is problematic in some areas and I think I would agree. However, if you read the article you would see that homochirality is not exactly a show-stopper.