Evolution

[lucky45]

Did mankind come to be from the evolution of some ameba or some single celled organisim that came together at the beginning of our planet? Or were we put here by some super intelligence from another planet? And just maybe these aliens are keeping watch over us! Who can say, Maybe all of the UFO reportings might have some truth to them.

[Phi for All]

Did mankind come to be from the evolution of some ameba or some single celled organisim that came together at the beginning of our planet?

All current evidence points to that conclusion.

 

Or were we put here by some super intelligence from another planet?

It's possible that life first originated on another planet and the Earth was "seeded" in some way, not necessarily by any intelligent process.

 

And just maybe these aliens are keeping watch over us!

While this is possible, it's not very probable based on current evidence.

 

Who can say, Maybe all of the UFO reportings might have some truth to them.

No. *All* of the UFO reports don't have some truth to them. In fact, there is currently no hard evidence that we have ever been visited by aliens.

 

 

 

On a side note, the Science News sub-forum is for calling attention to news articles related to science. You have posted several threads here that don't relate or link to news items in any way.

[lucky45]

Well, any replies?? What do you think, Can science prove that we were not planted here by aliens?

[mooeypoo]

Repeated thread merged, and thread moved to the speculation forum. Lucky, please stick to one thread per topic.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Well, any replies?? What do you think, Can science prove that we were not planted here by aliens?

There's a difference between aliens the "UFO" style (kidnapping innocent people for anal testing, for whatever reason, good enough to remain hidden but screw up their landings occasionally to get 'caught', etc) and aliens "possible life forms in space".

 

You should check out Panspermia:

Panspermia (Greek: πανσπερμία from πᾶς/πᾶν (pas/pan) "all" and σπέρμα (sperma) "seed") is the hypothesis that "seeds" of life exist already all over the Universe, that life on Earth may have originated through these "seeds", and that they may deliver or have delivered life to other habitable bodies.

 

That, though, doesn't mean we were "planted" by intelligent beings, it just means life originated in another planet and was seeded here through some asteroid or something.

 

Since life on Earth is very very similar to one another in the DNA level, it's very unlikely that humans were introduced completely from "outside" as an external element. If anything, the origin of life (the small tiny tiny cells ones) was "planted" here and not a full blown being.

 

You also need to make sure that in your hypothesis (that aliens might have planted us here?) you allow for falsifiable tests. That is, if your claim is that aliens made us on the planet and took great care to make us appear, to all intents and purposes, as if we were created here (which covers all the bases and is indistinguishable from the simpler hypothesis that we WERE created here) then no, we can't disprove it, but it's also unfalsifiable and therefore nonscientific.

 

 

 

~moo

[Mokele]

If we were planted here by aliens, we'd be fundamentally different from all other life. We aren't.

 

And frankly, panspermia is nothing but pseudoscience - untestable, wildly improbable, and with no real explanatory power.

[vuquta]

All current evidence points to that conclusion.

 

It's possible that life first originated on another planet and the Earth was "seeded" in some way, not necessarily by any intelligent process.

 

While this is possible, it's not very probable based on current evidence.

 

No. *All* of the UFO reports don't have some truth to them. In fact, there is currently no hard evidence that we have ever been visited by aliens.

 

 

 

On a side note, the Science News sub-forum is for calling attention to news articles related to science. You have posted several threads here that don't relate or link to news items in any way.

It's possible that life first originated on another planet and the Earth was "seeded" in some way, not necessarily by any intelligent process.

 

I talked with an OSU prof in charge of an experiment on the space station.

 

His experiment grew trees (small) from earth seeds in the "0' gravity.

 

The canopy and root structures were significantly smaller than the earth counter parts indicating the plants knew how to adjust to zero gravity.

 

Now, if life evolved in only a gravity environment, where did the seeds get the dna coding to alter correctly to zero gravity and not waste resources?

 

This was 4 or 5 years ago and I wish I kept the correspondence but I did not, though I think you might be able to goggle the results.

 

Anyway, even though he was a botanist, he had no opinion or logic on how the seeds adjusted this way.

 

Also, future generations behaved the same way.

 

In conclusion, either dna coding is more diverse than we could ever know or somehow the dna coding of the plant had zero gravity in its past.

[padren]

The canopy and root structures were significantly smaller than the earth counter parts indicating the plants knew how to adjust to zero gravity.

 

Another possible explanation is the density of roots/canopy structures respond to strain in general, which is generally caused by gravity. Gravity does not tend to change on Earth, but a more versatile response mechanism would allow a tree to adapt with different thickness/weight of branches which would dramatically impact the strain and necessary root structure to support it.

 

So, being able to respond to a "range of strain" would have the side effect of being able to cope with zero G better. It's also worth noting that growing plant seeds in micro-g has continued to be problematic, so to draw a conclusion from a handful of tree seedlings sounds like it would be cherry-picking examples that fit a singular conclusion.

 

 

As to the OP: As already stated, we are genetically so identical to all the other species on the planet (including amoebas) it really makes the most sense that we originated on Earth.

 

Secondarily - if Aliens were buzzing around us and watching us... they obviously don't want us to notice them since they don't come out and greet us. At the same time, if you can travel interstellar distances can't you drive without headlights on your spaceship??

 

It's safe to say that any interstellar space-faring species would either be entirely noticed because they want to be, or entirely unnoticed. The other prospect is they don't care either way and we just don't matter to them, but then we probably aren't seeded by them in that case.

[vuquta]

Another possible explanation is the density of roots/canopy structures respond to strain in general, which is generally caused by gravity. Gravity does not tend to change on Earth, but a more versatile response mechanism would allow a tree to adapt with different thickness/weight of branches which would dramatically impact the strain and necessary root structure to support it.

 

So, being able to respond to a "range of strain" would have the side effect of being able to cope with zero G better. It's also worth noting that growing plant seeds in micro-g has continued to be problematic, so to draw a conclusion from a handful of tree seedlings sounds like it would be cherry-picking examples that fit a singular conclusion.

 

 

As to the OP: As already stated, we are genetically so identical to all the other species on the planet (including amoebas) it really makes the most sense that we originated on Earth.

 

Secondarily - if Aliens were buzzing around us and watching us... they obviously don't want us to notice them since they don't come out and greet us. At the same time, if you can travel interstellar distances can't you drive without headlights on your spaceship??

 

It's safe to say that any interstellar space-faring species would either be entirely noticed because they want to be, or entirely unnoticed. The other prospect is they don't care either way and we just don't matter to them, but then we probably aren't seeded by them in that case.

 

Another possible explanation is the density of roots/canopy structures respond to strain in general, which is generally caused by gravity.

 

We discussed this.

 

The canopy is stimulated by the root structure by a hormone.

 

Thus, the root structure is the decision maker.

[Mokele]

Now, if life evolved in only a gravity environment, where did the seeds get the dna coding to alter correctly to zero gravity and not waste resources?

 

From an aquatic ancestor that lacked graviceptive root structures, like algae.

 

You know, the exact same organisms that we know plants evolved from.

[vuquta]

From an aquatic ancestor that lacked graviceptive root structures, like algae.

 

You know, the exact same organisms that we know plants evolved from.

 

Interesting, yea, let's say roots evolved on the ocean floor in a simulated 0 grav. That is reasonable.

 

At this point, that seems very reasonable.

 

Thanks for the interaction.

[Phi for All]

If we were planted here by aliens, we'd be fundamentally different from all other life. We aren't.

But if the original microorganisms all other life evolved from came from off planet, then it would be consistent and a viable hypothesis. But there's no reason we need to dream up aliens to do the seeding. The planet was hit by enough space debris to bring along plenty of hitchhikers, especially from the ice in comets.

[ydoaPs]

IMO, panspermia is pointless. We'll never know whether or not it's true, and it only pushes the problem back.

[john5746]

IMO, panspermia is pointless.

 

Not to mention the bad taste it leaves in your mouth....err that's what I've been told anyway.

[Mokele]

But if the original microorganisms all other life evolved from came from off planet, then it would be consistent and a viable hypothesis. But there's no reason we need to dream up aliens to do the seeding. The planet was hit by enough space debris to bring along plenty of hitchhikers, especially from the ice in comets.

 

Except that:

 

a) it's completely untestable

b) there are no comets from other star systems

c) there's no way for life to even get ON a comet or asteroid that wouldn't be lethal

d) it shows a gross lack of understanding of the sheer odds of anything hitting anything.

 

 

Say there's a world with life on it, hardy little bacteria. How does that life get off that world? Since bacteria don't make tiny little models of the USS Enterprise, you'd need some sort of massive impact to dislodge chunks of that planet. Even if we assume that the massive impact forces and temperatures *don't* kill everything, you now have some chunks of rock flying through space in random directions. Even between the two nearest planets in our solar system at their closest, that's like hitting a 1 inch marble with random debris from an impact over 500 feet away. Between solar systems, hitting an actual planet? That's like throwing a dart at a 1 inch target 7,000,000 miles away, if not worse. Never mind that it would take over 7 thousand years to get there, by which time any life form would be long dead - bacterial spores can remain dormant, but not that long, even in the benign environment of earth.

 

It's roughly the same odds as taking any rock from the ground, putting it in the deep freeze for 7000 years, then sucessfully throwing it a target the size of a grain of sand moving 300 mph located 80000 miles away.

 

How does Anyone take something with such ridiculous odds seriously?

[Genecks]

"God" made the universe.

The universe came to be.

Through the forces that be, man was made.

Logically, God made man.

 

If man were perfect, then man would be God, and there would really be no use for man.

Thus, man is perfect within himself to serve his purpose...

Perhaps it was all done to see if another God could eventually be precipitated via evolution.

The more sophisticated you are, the closer you are to God. Be proud of yourself.

Edited January 16, 2010 by Genecks

[ydoaPs]

Except that:

 

a) it's completely untestable

b) there are no comets from other star systems

c) there's no way for life to even get ON a comet or asteroid that wouldn't be lethal

d) it shows a gross lack of understanding of the sheer odds of anything hitting anything.

 

 

Say there's a world with life on it, hardy little bacteria. How does that life get off that world? Since bacteria don't make tiny little models of the USS Enterprise, you'd need some sort of massive impact to dislodge chunks of that planet. Even if we assume that the massive impact forces and temperatures *don't* kill everything, you now have some chunks of rock flying through space in random directions. Even between the two nearest planets in our solar system at their closest, that's like hitting a 1 inch marble with random debris from an impact over 500 feet away. Between solar systems, hitting an actual planet? That's like throwing a dart at a 1 inch target 7,000,000 miles away, if not worse. Never mind that it would take over 7 thousand years to get there, by which time any life form would be long dead - bacterial spores can remain dormant, but not that long, even in the benign environment of earth.

 

It's roughly the same odds as taking any rock from the ground, putting it in the deep freeze for 7000 years, then sucessfully throwing it a target the size of a grain of sand moving 300 mph located 80000 miles away.

 

How does Anyone take something with such ridiculous odds seriously?

It's like trying to hit a bullet with a smaller bullet while wearing a blindfold and riding a horse.

[Moontanman]

Mokele, there is evidence that rocks from near by planets like mars have indeed been found on the Earth.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_meteorite

 

It is also thought possible that microbes could be transfered that way, even multicellular organisms could be transfered that way Water bears are a good example or possibly brine shrimp eggs.

[Genecks]

Yeah, I don't know why we don't send a bunch of microorganisms to Mars as a backup plan.

Personally, I like my little shed on Tharsis.

 

 

We've sent equipment to the moon and to Mars, so let's just send the microbes already.

Yes, it might interfere with the search for alternative life. However, it gives the ability for life to exist in case we blow ourselves up.

Edited January 16, 2010 by Genecks

[Mokele]

Mokele, there is evidence that rocks from near by planets like mars have indeed been found on the Earth.

 

Most of which have been floating out there for millions of years, far longer than any life could possibly have survived.

 

Never mind that it's never been shown that any life form of any sort could survive re-entry without being fried. Even a stony asteroid would heat up pretty fiercely, possibly enough to cook any hitchhikers in the center and *definitely* enough to cook any on the surface.

 

This, of course, ignores whether or not any life could survive the initial impact event that was needed to *create* these meteorites in the first place, which I'm also skeptical of.

 

It is also thought possible that microbes could be transfered that way, even multicellular organisms could be transfered that way Water bears are a good example or possibly brine shrimp eggs.

 

Neither water bears nor any other multicellular organism can withstand sustained exposure to outer space for the time necessary to make such a trip and remain viable - too cold, too long, with too much radiation.

 

Also, something to bear in mind - not every bacteria can survive in space - hell, most can't even survive in culture flasks. What are the odds that any random clump of dirt will happen to have the perfect colonizing extremeophile.

 

And what would it eat? This goes for autotrophs, too, which need particular environments to gather energy.

 

 

 

It sounds pretty and all, but at the end of the day, there's zero evidence, no plausible way to test it, literally astronomical odds, and incredible biological difficulty. The only support for it is, basically, nothing but special pleading: "What if exactly the right microbe was in exactly the right place at exactly the right time when exactly the right asteroid hit and sent it on exactly the right trajectory for exactly the right time to exactly the right place on exactly the right planet?"

 

 

It is logically inconsistent to dismiss Bigfoot, Nessie, Alien Abduction, and astrology as devoid of evidence, but to cling to panspermia as if it was a viable theory. Bring me a body of the Abominable Snowman or an alien with DNA exactly like ours and we'll talk, until then, both deserve equal levels of scientific scrutiny.

[Mr Skeptic]

I don't think it's quite fair to compare Earth life to the sort of critters necessary for panspermia to be a viable theory. Earth is quite unlike space -- has a thick atmosphere, small temperature range, and protection from radiation for starters. Would it not be possible for life to survive and even thrive in harsher environments -- asteroids, perhaps? That would greatly increase the probability of it spreading to other systems, and so that is what believers in that theory should expect to find, no? Conveniently, life on earth for the most part would erase these adaptations.

 

Another way to look at it, is that to take panspermia at face value, you assume that transferring life across solar systems is easier than for life to evolve at that system.

 

---

 

A thought occurs to me. The probability of life traveling from one star to another via comets, seems like it would be much easier to calculate than the probability for life to evolve. And, rejecting panspermia as the most likely explanation for life on a given planet, should be equivalent to saying that life is more likely to evolve in place than get transferred. So, with that assumption you could set a minimum probability for life to evolve, for self-consistency purposes.

[Mokele]

I don't think it's quite fair to compare Earth life to the sort of critters necessary for panspermia to be a viable theory.

 

But if you *don't* use Earth life as a basis, you're just making shit up to fit the theory. I can have lifeforms living out in the void of space full-time if I'm allowed to just make up anything I want about them. That's science-fiction, not science.

 

Would it not be possible for life to survive and even thrive in harsher environments -- asteroids, perhaps? That would greatly increase the probability of it spreading to other systems, and so that is what believers in that theory should expect to find, no?

 

The big problem of life in space is the lack of fuel. You can get sunlight and heat and such if you're an autotroph, but without the raw materials to polymerize and store that energy in chemical bonds, you're screwed. Not to mention that all living things wear out and break, so you'll always need to replace damaged chemical structures with outside raw materials.

 

The probability of life traveling from one star to another via comets, seems like it would be much easier to calculate than the probability for life to evolve. And, rejecting panspermia as the most likely explanation for life on a given planet, should be equivalent to saying that life is more likely to evolve in place than get transferred. So, with that assumption you could set a minimum probability for life to evolve, for self-consistency purposes.

 

Yes and no - it's not just the hits, it's the misses. We've got 8 planets and a crapton of moons, but only one has any known life. Mars may not be much, but it's certainly more habitable than deep space or an asteroid. So either seeding is incredibly rare, or only can take hold on worlds where the conditions would lead to life anyway.

 

 

There's a huge gap between "maybe that could happen" and "viable, scientific theory". Panspermia has never closed that gap, instead relying upon nothing more than special pleading and just being "cool" enough to capture attention. It's a parasitic meme.

[Genecks]

Are you saying a person can't engineer a bacteria to live on Mars?

 

I think we need to start an exogenesis project.

That's right.

 

We need to find a way to send a spacecraft FAR out into space, plant some microorganisms that can eventually evolve to sustain life (machine dispersed every 100 million years if necessary), and make those people question how they came into existence.

 

Yeah, that sounds about right.

We'll have some neighbors.

 

In a sense, I think exogenesis is plausible.

If we can do it, then someone else could have done it.

Edited January 17, 2010 by Genecks

[Science89Freak]

All current evidence points to that conclusion.

 

It's possible that life first originated on another planet and the Earth was "seeded" in some way, not necessarily by any intelligent process.

 

While this is possible, it's not very probable based on current evidence.

 

No. *All* of the UFO reports don't have some truth to them. In fact, there is currently no hard evidence that we have ever been visited by aliens.

 

 

 

On a side note, the Science News sub-forum is for calling attention to news articles related to science. You have posted several threads here that don't relate or link to news items in any way.

Let me just say first off, do you really think if there is an extraterrestrial culture/race out there that are advanced enough to travel to our planet, from somewhere we aren't even capable of detecting never mind travelling to yet that it WOULD EVEN be a possibility of producing any real evidence of their existence if they didn't want us to.

[Moontanman]

First of all the idea that aliens would somehow be compelled to visit the Earth if they were in our solar system is assuming a lot. Are we really that interesting? There is every reason to think that aliens would avoid gravity wells and use resources in space like asteroids and comets to construct artificial space colonies.

 

No need to visit the Earth at all, any aliens who traveled from even the nearest star would be used to living in artificial habitats for many generations and probably have no use for planets and the possibility of infectious organisms and the difficulty of negotiating gravity wells.

 

The Lagrange points of Jupiter could be swarming with millions of aliens. So assuming aliens would even want to visit the earth is as they say "ass u me" I think that star traveling aliens would have long ago lost any need for planets.

 

BTW Mokele assuming that any rocks blasted off Mars or Venus would necessarily be in space for millions of years before they landed on the Earth is ignoring statistics, while most would never hit the Earth, and many would be in space for millions of years, statistically a very few could be in space a very short period of time before they hit the Earth.

 

There are always data points points outside the bell curve, lots of rocks have been blasted from Mars, Venus, and the Earth, to assume all of them are in space for millions of years is unreasonable. Bacteria buried deep in a rock could survive as spores for quite some time and some would almost certainly find their way to another planet in amazingly short periods of time. i agree that brine shrimp eggs or water bears are unlikely but they are not impossible.

 

i think that if UFOs are real aliens, they are most likely colonizers that are living in space and their only interest in the Earth is "what if we get into space and contest their claims to those resources" i am of course assuming no FTL super aliens

[truedeity]

considering that the human race is not really that smart, i would like to say, we dont know.