Skip to content

Alternative 3: Aliens Responsible for Life on Earth

🔒
Human? Slide comment captcha below and wait for the unlock button. (Cookies required)

6 thoughts on “Alternative 3: Aliens Responsible for Life on Earth

  1. This still doesn’t answer the question where did life come from? That life came to planet earth from aliens is beside the point. The question still stands, where did life originate? Saying it got here from outside the atmosphere of earth just pushes the question back not solve it!

    1. Hi Keb,
      From what I’ve read, life could have originated on Earth, on another planet, or inside comets with nothing but raw materials, physical processes and chemistry as the source.

      In the natural sciences, abiogenesis, or origin of life, is the study of how life on Earth emerged from inanimate organic and inorganic molecules.

      The origin of life (OOL) problem remains one of the more challenging scientific questions of all time. …we propose that following recent experimental and theoretical advances in systems chemistry, the underlying principle governing the emergence of life on the Earth can in its broadest sense be specified, and may be stated as follows: all stable (persistent) replicating systems will tend to evolve over time towards systems of greater stability. The stability kind referred to, however, is dynamic kinetic stability, and quite distinct from the traditional thermodynamic stability which conventionally dominates physical and chemical thinking. Significantly, that stability kind is generally found to be enhanced by increasing complexification, since added features in the replicating system that improve replication efficiency will be reproduced, thereby offering an explanation for the emergence of life’s extraordinary complexity. On the basis of that simple principle, a fundamental reassessment of the underlying chemistry–biology relationship is possible, one with broad ramifications. In the context of the OOL question, this novel perspective can assist in clarifying central ahistoric aspects of abiogenesis, as opposed to the many historic aspects that have probably been forever lost in the mists of time. – link

      1. Okay, perhaps a dumb question: If we can take both sides to the extreme without any gray area in-between: Creationists with the agnostic and gnostic on one side (which is the point of this post, to ask who these alien scientists or elohim were) and the atheist on the other side.
        Isn’t this the real conflict between the two?
        Whether there was an intelligence that produced life or were natural compounds introduced by whatever means, in a by the chance way, which made life possible on a world where life could be supported?
        It seems to me the only question is, how it was done…by either side. (An over simplification perhaps.)

        If abiogensis is the study of how the amino acids were produced and combined on the earth and the creaitionists say life was created on the earth by a god or gods; then the only difference between the two is how it was done. So isn’t the real question: Did chemistry produce the acids and proteins or did an intelligence cause the chemical process? According to science life is a self replicating cycle as long as the environment will sustain it. So it stands to reason that chemical reactions are the cause of life but the same question remains…was it an intelligence that set up the process and made conditions right for the process or were conditions correct just by a flip of the dice? A meteorite or asteroid may contain the compounds but life cannot be sustained in either environment. Since it was caused by a chemical process then perhaps the atheist as well as the creationist can both agree: ‘Yes, it was chemical but we do not agree on the origins.”
        Therefore my same comment persists, where did life originate? To say it may be in a dozen or so galaxies on a myriad of planets still does not answer when it started and how. To say it was recombined when the galaxies waned and re-exploded, just one example of the many theories out there, still gives no origin. I am saying, yes, I believe a chemical reaction occurred, that I have no argument with. What I don’t understand are these absolute faiths in theories stated by either side saying that any opposing view has no ‘fallible’ argument. It’s the same as making an absolute statement about there not being any absolutes. I believe there are arguments on both sides that neither can casually discard.

        Does that make sense?

      2. It does make sense, and thanks for leaving this comment. It seems to me that even if we are able to get life started in a model of a primordial environment, proving it could have happened by chance, we still will not know if that is the way it happened. It gets into cosmology. If the universe is an endless cycle, then the most advanced life forms from the previous cycle may have set up the chemical reactions to spawn life in this cycle. We can only speculate, but I enjoy doing so.

  2. Now is not a good time to doubt the existence of substitute medicine; now is the time to embrace it and even indulge if you must.

Leave a Reply

Slide the puzzle piece or if you are a bot, use text CAPTCHA .