What do you think is the most probable scenario of how life arose on earth ?

I'm cool with Darwin, it's the only logical answer.
First to a poll? living right today

I am still a bit undecided between 3 and 4.
I realized that just now lol.. :o

4 most likely...but I feel strong tie to #2 as well.

This has nothing to do with Comparative Religion.
Moved to Religion, too theistic for Earth science.

This has nothing to do with Comparative Religion.
Moved to Religion, too theistic for Earth science.

Hmm ok, I was already wondering whether Comparative Religion was the right place. But it says in the index that 'origin belief' should go under Comparative Religion.

Yes, from the anthropological point of view - creation myths.

Yes, from the anthropological point of view - creation myths.

I was afraid of that :o
My apologies.

I'll ask Plazma to delete that part from the description, since it apparently has caused confusion, and origin belief is a part of mythology anyway.

Moderator's Note: a priori statements about the "truth" of a given religion in this thread will probably be edited or deleted without notice as preaching/sermoning/evangelizing. Proceed with this discussion without the application of logical fallacies and with the use of rational explanations and it will remain open.

I went with more or less number 4.

Earth, in its forming stage, at one time was a fireball of magma/lava. Nothing can live in that shit. Once it cooled down, I'm sure it was struck plenty of times by meteors/comets etc. To me, that makes seeding from an object falling from space seem like the most logical choice.
However, one other hypothesis can stem from that. In lieu of a random object with molecules for life hitting and seeding the earth, what if an ancient, intelligent race of extra terrestrials 'seeded' the earth; just like they showed at the end of that movie, Mission to Mars.

I highly recommend the "Warm pond" chapter of Paradigms Lost by John Casti, which is very relevant to this discussion.

If I get the opportunity, I'll try to post an excerpt here.

I went with more or less number 4.

Earth, in its forming stage, at one time was a fireball of magma/lava. Nothing can live in that shit. Once it cooled down, I'm sure it was struck plenty of times by meteors/comets etc. To me, that makes seeding from an object falling from space seem like the most logical choice.

The only problem with that is getting a human from a rock. When you throw in words like seeded it seems feasible, but is it really?

And i am not so sure what the difference is between:


A supernatural God created life on earth (like in the bible).
A natural 'God' created life on earth (such as E.T.'s)

I choose for numbre 3 It's the most likely explenation

The only problem with that is getting a human from a rock. When you throw in words like seeded it seems feasible, but is it really?

And i am not so sure what the difference is between:


A supernatural God created life on earth (like in the bible).
A natural 'God' created life on earth (such as E.T.'s)


Yeah but the human wouldn't be coming from a rock. A human would eventually come from the microbes within the rock that would evolve into humans over the course of a few billion years.
I don't consider an E.T. a natural 'god'; regardless of how much more advanced they are.

I choose for numbre 3 It's the most likely explenation


Could be but you need all the right ingredients, we are talking about making living, THINKING, reasoning beings from what exactly?

Even if you add in enormous amount of time (billions of years) and still it is difficult to imagine. Are you suggesting a missing compound was existent in this early life period or what is presenly available on Earth?

Yeah but the human wouldn't be coming from a rock. A human would eventually come from the microbes within the rock that would evolve into humans over the course of a few billion years.

I know Mike, what do you think of my other post?^

The only problem with that is getting a human from a rock. When you throw in words like seeded it seems feasible, but is it really?

And i am not so sure what the difference is between:


A supernatural God created life on earth (like in the bible).
A natural 'God' created life on earth (such as E.T.'s)


The difference is that one is supernatural and the other is natural. Most, if not all, religious people would reject the idea that God was/were a extraterrestrial being(s).

Yeah but the human wouldn't be coming from a rock. A human would eventually come from the microbes within the rock that would evolve into humans over the course of a few billion years.
I don't consider an E.T. a natural 'god'; regardless of how much more advanced they are.

That's why I wrote 'God' and not God ;)

I'll ask Plazma to delete that part from the description, since it apparently has caused confusion, and origin belief is a part of mythology anyway.

Moderator's Note: a priori statements about the "truth" of a given religion in this thread will probably be edited or deleted without notice as preaching/sermoning/evangelizing. Proceed with this discussion without the application of logical fallacies and with the use of rational explanations and it will remain open.

Thanks ! :)

Could be but you need all the right ingredients, we are talking about making living, THINKING, reasoning beings from what exactly?

Even if you add in enormous amount of time (billions of years) and still it is difficult to imagine. Are you suggesting a missing compound was existent in this early life period or what is presenly available on Earth?

Exactly! Since us humans have only been on the earth for a short time, the past billions of years before us is very hard to fathom. We haven't really been around long enough to document and record any major changes in the evolution of any given specie.

The difference is that one is supernatural and the other is natural. Most, if not all, religious people would reject the idea that God was/were a extraterrestrial being(s).

Well i think given our combined present intellectual ability both can be classified as supernatural. Also, if there was proof of 'GOD' this would not be considered supernatural anymore.

Well i think given our combined present intellectual ability both can be classified as supernatural. Also, if there was proof of 'GOD' this would not be considered supernatural anymore.

I don't see how an intelligent being from another world would be supernatural, it would be fully within the realm of the natural.
God on the other hand is outside the natural world. I you want to debate this further please find one of the many threads concerning this, where many theists have insisted God is supernatural.

Dont get mad because you may be wrong.

You also said this:

religious people would reject the idea that God was/were a extraterrestrial being(s).

How would this being NOT be extraterrestrial?

Dont get mad because you may be wrong.

You also said this:



How would this being NOT be extraterrestrial?

No, I didn't get mad lol :)
I'm sorry if I came across as such..

I just didn't want to say 'aliens'.
I meant aliens like this:
http://www.world-mysteries.com/schild_alien1.jpg
For example..

One other thing i am not clear on is this:


A natural 'God' created life on earth (such as E.T.'s)


Can you be more specific on 'created' or was it just transport? Either way it may not rule out option 1.

One other thing i am not clear on is this:

Can you be more specific on 'created' or was it just transport? Either way it may not rule out option 1.

Created like caused to come into existence by any means necessary.
Some options can overlap but I set the options up in such a manner that each next option rules out the former. Take a look :)
Anyway, the question was 'what's more probable', not what actually happened. We will probably never know that anyway.

I understand. But if they are like the image you show above why would we look the way we do?

And would you say the work was done here on Earth or was it transported from another planet? Vegetation can be seeded but how about living organisms? This is an enormous undertaking

I understand. But if they are like the image you show above why would we look the way we do?

The image was just an example of aliens (E.T.'s), they can look radically different of course.
Furthermore, no alien ever claimed to have created us in their own image ;)
Maybe they optimized us for out environment at the time. Anyway, looks will have chanced by now by cause of evolution.


And would you say the work was done here on Earth or was it transported from another planet? Vegetation can be seeded but how about living organisms? This is an enormous undertaking

I don't know.
You realize you want me to give specifics on something I don't even believe in right ? I chose option 3 :)

So can you explain post #16? Go through it step by step, i know you are thinking go through the other sites but there should be no reason it cannot be gone through in a concise manner.

Could be but you need all the right ingredients, we are talking about making living, THINKING, reasoning beings from what exactly?

Even if you add in enormous amount of time (billions of years) and still it is difficult to imagine. Are you suggesting a missing compound was existent in this early life period or what is presenly available on Earth?

The conditions on the primordial earth were very different from todays conditions.

Primordial soup
In 1936 Aleksandr Ivanovich Oparin, in his "The Origin of Life on Earth", suggested that organic molecules could be created in an oxygen-less atmosphere, through the action of sunlight. These molecules, he suggested, combine in ever-more complex fashion until they are dissolved into a coacervate droplet. These droplets could then fuse with other droplets and break apart into two replicas of the original. This could be viewed as a primitive form of reproduction and metabolism. Favorable attributes such as increased durability in the structure would survive more often than nonfavorable attributes.
Around the same time J. B. S. Haldane suggested that the earth's pre-biotic oceans - very different from their modern counterparts - would have formed a "hot dilute soup" in which organic compounds, the building blocks of life, could have formed. This idea was called biopoiesis or biopoesis, the process of living matter evolving from self-replicating but nonliving molecules.
In 1953, taking their cue from Oparin and Haldane, the chemist Stanley L. Miller working under Harold C. Urey carried out an experiment on the "primeval soup". Within two weeks a racemic mixture, containing 13 of the 22 amino acids used to synthesize proteins in cells, had formed from the highly reduced mixture of methane, ammonia, water vapor and hydrogen. While Miller and Urey did not actually create life, they demonstrated that more complex molecules could emerge spontaneously from simpler chemicals. The environment simulated atmospheric conditions as the researchers understood them to have been on the primeval earth, including an external energy source in the form of a spark, representing lightning, and an atmosphere largely devoid of oxygen. Since that time there have been other experiments that continue to look into possible ways for life to have formed from non-living chemicals, e.g. the experiments conducted by Joan Oró in 1961.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

It takes just four different molecules to make DNA or RNA (so nothing like the cretinous odds creationists quote) and once they start stringing together, you have a possibility of life. Volcanic vents in the oceans where chemical mixes can occur is a current idea on how that happened. Some believe it could have been aided by a bombardment from space which we know did occur.

There are currently a number of laboratories around the world working on creating life from inanimate materials (New Scientist 12 Feb 2005) and they expect results in a decade or two.

Enmos, what does that paragraph from 1936 prove?

Kaneda, now Darwins theory is conveniently beginning to include external mechanism, seeding or a variation. The reason is because originally and as it is written in the poll will not be able to hold up to scrutiny for much longer. Especially since we now are fully aware how dependant living organisms are to one another.

And what is the latest word on transitional species?

What do you guys think of this:

http://www.kgs.ku.edu/Publications/Bulletins/ED15/01_nature.html

Scroll down to the image and examine it. What is your conclusion?

Suffice it to say, this is an artistic interpretation. The differences may possibly be even wider so if anyone has links adressing this specifically i will be happy to look at them.

I don't know which one it is, but the fact that there is no evidence for abiogenesis doesn't bother atheists

Oh yeah SkinWalker, what's this? Applying logic is irrational?

Life on earth came into existence 'by itself' through abiotic processes.


If biology has taught me anything its this. =p

Life on earth came into existence 'by itself' through abiotic processes.


If biology has taught me anything its this. =p

But there's no evidence that it happened at all, DNA and RNA and the molecular machines in cells are very complex, even more complex than computers

But there's no evidence that it happened at all, DNA and RNA and the molecular machines in cells are very complex, even more complex than computers

Thats why its just a theory :D

Thats why its just a theory :D

Why is an intelligent cause not viable?

When you have something so complex that it rivals computers and no evidence for any natural explanations why isn't an intelligent cause viable (besides the fact that science is naturalism)?

Bio-engineers say that bacteria (the simplest form of life) on the genetic level uses many of the same tricks as computer inverters

Did I say it wasnt?

Did I say it wasnt?

Yes, you said life came into existence by itself

Yes, you said life came into existence by itself

Thats what I believe :D

I like the river analogy in The Blind Watchmaker.

*SNL* MAY-ken copies :p

So we have a universe that likes SNL for some reason then there's also entropy and information theory.

Which sentence is more entropic? Do sentences have entropy? Does information have entropy? Do the sentences listed below both contain the same amount of information? Are they the same? If not - which does the universe "prefer" :)? How does that big fat sun change the equations? Does the earth contain all of the information there is to have about the Earth?
Which of these lines of information are more entropic?
00110011001100110011001100110011001100110011001100 110011
00110011001100110011001100110011001100110011001100 110011
00110011001100110011001100110011001100110011001100 110011
00110011001100110011001100110011001100110011001100 110011
00110011001100110011001100110011001100110011001100 110011
00110011001100110011001100110011001100110011001100 110011
or
(0011)x70?

Enmos, what does that paragraph from 1936 prove?

Kaneda, now Darwins theory is conveniently beginning to include external mechanism, seeding or a variation. The reason is because originally and as it is written in the poll will not be able to hold up to scrutiny for much longer. Especially since we now are fully aware how dependant living organisms are to one another.

And what is the latest word on transitional species?

It's doesn't prove a thing. Remember this thread is not about proof, it's just about what you think is the most probable.

It's always great when the (atheist) moderator favors your (atheist) position

This thread is not about atheism or proof of anything. It's about what you think is the most probable cause of life on earth.
So take your whining elsewhere.

I believe that we are from another universe that was created before ours. It is very similiar to the Star Treck episode :http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Alternative_Factor_%28TOS_episode%29

I believe that we are from another universe that was created before ours. It is very similiar to the Star Treck episode :http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Alternative_Factor_%28TOS_episode%29

Yes, this is close to the truth in my opinion, either that or panspermia at best

Thinking something is the most likely explanation and believing it despite all new information are two very different things.

Not in this thread :rolleyes: , you're the one trying to cause problems

I think it is likely to do with the many-worlds and many-minds interpretation, we exist in a universe where life exists this way

No, not in this one.

What do you mean many-worlds/many-minds, how could that have created life ?

No, not in this one.

What do you mean many-worlds/many-minds, how could that have created life ?

There's an infinite amount of universes and an infinite amount of minds, we exist in this universe where life happened this way, with this system, our mind plays a part in this

I never meditated on this for an answer, maybe I should

There's an infinite amount of universes and an infinite amount of minds, we exist in this universe where life happened this way, with this system, our mind plays a part in this

I never meditated on this for an answer, maybe I should

Yeah but how did it arise in this universe, what is this 'way'/'system' you are talking about ?

this is nuts
you guys cannot keep offering bogus scenarios as options in the poll
this is a science forum
stop entertaining and perpetuating junk science

this is nuts
you guys cannot keep offering bogus scenarios as options in the poll
this is a science forum
stop entertaining and perpetuating junk science
the problem is that science cannot offer anything falsifiable - even though there is a (empirical) "science" that surrounds the understanding of the origins of the universe it cannot be compared to, say, the science of iron smelting

this is nuts
you guys cannot keep offering bogus scenarios as options in the poll
this is a science forum
stop entertaining and perpetuating junk science

So what are your thoughts on the matter ?

I take it you chose option one then..


Enmos,

I chose option 5 because Allah is not the same God as the one in the Bible.

Allah is completely other to the cosmos.

(From my understanding anyway).

So what are your thoughts on the matter ?

still thinking and require clarification
indulge please

A supernatural God created life on earth (like in the bible).

dismissed as a fallacy of misplaced concreteness. reification. if you will

A natural 'God' created life on earth (such as E.T.'s)

unworkable. its gotta be one or the other. i require conventional terminology. creative semantical structuring merely confuse and is prone to contradiction. there is no such thing as a "natural god".it is either nature or god

as for et, why not. not too long from now we might be doing the same so it is not illogical to make such a proposal ie: if we can do it so can they

i say why not

Life on earth came into existence 'by itself' through abiotic processes.

why not

Life on earth was seeded by organic molecules from space.
Something else..

same as above excepting for the displacement in time
why not

this "...on earth" suddenly appears to muddle
hmmm

2 3 4 are stages of the same process
no real distinction

ah, got it

how would you like your steak, madam?

yup
sums it up just so!

;)

still thinking and require clarification
indulge please

A supernatural God created life on earth (like in the bible).

dismissed as a fallacy of misplaced concreteness. reification. if you will

A natural 'God' created life on earth (such as E.T.'s)

unworkable. its gotta be one or the other. i require conventional terminology. creative semantical structuring merely confuse and is prone to contradiction. there is no such thing as a "natural god".it is either nature or god

as for et, why not. not too long from now we might be doing the same so it is not illogical to make such a proposal ie: if we can do it so can they

i say why not

Life on earth came into existence 'by itself' through abiotic processes.

why not

Life on earth was seeded by organic molecules from space.
Something else..

same as above excepting for the displacement in time
why not

this "...on earth" suddenly appears to muddle
hmmm

'On earth' is an essential part of the question.

A natural 'God' created life on earth (such as E.T.'s)
That's why I wrote 'God' and not God. Implying that one might view the extraterrestrial race (for example) as Gods for creating life on earth. But in fact they are as natural as you and me. Seems clear to me :shrug:

Life on earth came into existence 'by itself' through abiotic processes.
Notice 'abiotic'.
Life on earth was seeded by organic molecules from space.
Notice 'organic'.
These two options are not the same.

'Why not' is a respectable answer, but the question was what do you think is most probable. I don't expect a scientific article on your decision..

When you have something so complex that it rivals computers

Oh Dear!
Vital One, computers are complex but really, by comparison to life, the universe, everything, computers and computer technology are but a grain of sand on the beaches of the world/universe.

p.s god created computers too!?

'Why not' is a respectable answer, but the question was what do you think is most probable. I don't expect a scientific article on your decision..

my mind is firing blanks at every frikkin turn so lemme try some random formulations?


*i cannot even assess probability due to the extreme lack of info
*life begun on earth the moment et hit the atmosphere
*et's lab concoctions are quite plausible as a theory
*organic molecules plausible as it may be, merely push the problem into outer space. how did the molecules come about? et concoctions on mars? abiotic processes on ngc3535?
*the same for et. how did that sucker come about
*abiotic processes are plausible
*abiotic is an extremely rare steak
*organic molecules are medium rare steak
*et's a well done steak
*god's shit is charred, bottom of the barrel sludge with a dash of puke
*must read more
*probability cannot be assigned
*probability cannot be assigned
*probability cannot be assigned
*probability cannot be assigned
*whats left, belief? feels just right? faith? nahh not my style

sorry buddy
shall look into every paper ever done on these options. stack em in rows.
the highest will get my vote

many regards enmos
no disrespect intended

/equilibrium disrupted by topic

again..."on earth" muddles
why should it? (muddle that is)

edit: ok, equal weight for 2, 3 and 4

Life on earth came into existence 'by itself' through abiotic processes.
Notice 'abiotic'.
Life on earth was seeded by organic molecules from space.
Notice 'organic'.
These two options are not the same. The organic molecules from space could have been part of the abiotic processes - it's almost certain (unless space and meteors and such were much different 4 billion years ago) that the earth was pelted with many tons of various organic molecules.

It seems more likely that actual living things emerged on the planet, in some place protected from the conditions of space, though. Easier.

One point: once anything capable of even partial and multi-stage reproduction (such as certain clays), under even rare circumstances, got going, there was nothing to stop it - it would have covered the planet in evolved variations of itself within a few million years easily.

a fungus?

The organic molecules from space could have been part of the abiotic processes -

citation - ..as gustav suggested...."

/waiting