We are the aliens documentary

[William Gaatjes]

I found this documentary :

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3147808273125357593#

It is an old one, but i thought it could be a good fit when thinking about the posts in the electron / photon thread.
It's about extremophiles, possible bacteria and viruses from space lifting along comets and asteroids.

So you see mutz, i am certainly not the only one who thinks some of the life on earth came from outer space. Afcourse this life was just lifting along after some impact or had a change to evolve while being inside a pleasant environment shielded from to much radiation and cold. And afcourse not send by some advanced alien being. ^_^

A possibly idea :
Perhaps, the dinosaurs where the original lifeforms together with the then present bacteria and phages. Then after the meteorite came down, the dinosaurs became extinct, not only because of the nuclear winter from the meteorite but also because of possible new bacteria and phages which where possibly more hostile. We may be the result of evolution and merger from the original forms of life and the alien bacteria and phages.

 

[HeXen]

A possible idea:
Our ancestors, desperate, found earth suitable, but too hostile a world. So they used their anti gravity rays to slingshot a meteor towards earth to destroy all hostile life and start again with their decendants. As time past, knowlege of our origin became vague, distorted and/or lost as humans were forced to live off the land and start over. we can come up with possabilities all day

as for micro organisms from space, we are highly adaptable, likely to survive anything dangerous. i also find it rather boring less its intelligent.

 

[PsiStar]

Then of course ... you could study a little more & learn that there was a time when the earth was nothing more than a snow ball which was long before dinosaurs. It is pretty well understood with fossil record that there was a very different kind of life on the planet before snow ball.

There is already a great deal of science (not just purely fanciful independent conjecture) available for easy read that discusses life long before dinosaurs. This "science" is built on others' actual discoveries. Just in case you wanted to wanted to include in your thoughts the best discoveries and science to date. This is always subject to interpretation of course. You are commenting as if no one else has been "here" before; maybe if this were the 19th century.:\

And ... it was not a "nuclear winter". It has been likened to what a nuclear winter might be, which the earth has never actually experienced ... not to split hairs.

 

[William Gaatjes]

Then of course ... you could study a little more & learn that there was a time when the earth was nothing more than a snow ball which was long before dinosaurs. It is pretty well understood with fossil record that there was a very different kind of life on the planet before snow ball.

There is already a great deal of science (not just purely fanciful independent conjecture) available for easy read that discusses life long before dinosaurs. This "science" is built on others' actual discoveries. Just in case you wanted to wanted to include in your thoughts the best discoveries and science to date. This is always subject to interpretation of course. You are commenting as if no one else has been "here" before; maybe if this were the 19th century.:\

Why is it that every time some one who needs to boost his ego comes up with the absurd notion that i reveal everything i know in a single post ?
Besides i am not an oracle. And why is it that i am not allowed to share my idea's ? I am getting a bit of a feeling that i am not allowed to share my decent and respectful opinion on a open forum.

First, the earth is more then 4 billion years old. You really think in all that time nothing else happened ?

Second, i have a problem with the snowball earth theory. It is based on the same global warming notion from Al Gore, carbon dioxide. While water vapour is a more potent greenhouse gas, all is ever talked about is carbon dioxide. Now i am not disputing that carbon dioxide has an effect. I think a larger picture is needed. Besides i am the first to believe many ice ages happened. I like them.

Third what i have understood, this snowball earth theory is based for a part on the magnetization of rocks. In particular the strength. Now from position to position, the strength of the magnetic field varies. Over time the magnetic field on the same position varies a well. Yet, for this theory the field was assumed constant and used as proof for the geological position of rocks. Would you be so kind to explain to me how they used the magnetic field strength in rocks as a mean to determine the original geological position of that rock ? Because i do not know and would love to know. ( Part of me thinks of magnetic field polarity changes.)

And ... it was not a "nuclear winter". It has been likened to what a nuclear winter might be, which the earth has never actually experienced ... not to split hairs.

When i am talking about meteorites or asteroids, i am not talking about nuclear explosions. I was refering to a very cold global environment with low amounts of sunlight. You are splitting hairs indeed.

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

The thing I hate most about that documentary is that it feels the need for some reason to play that stupid, annoying X-files music.

A possibly idea :
Perhaps, the dinosaurs where the original lifeforms together with the then present bacteria and phages. Then after the meteorite came down, the dinosaurs became extinct, not only because of the nuclear winter from the meteorite but also because of possible new bacteria and phages which where possibly more hostile. We may be the result of evolution and merger from the original forms of life and the alien bacteria and phages.

What do you mean by "original life form"? All life on this planet originated from prokaryotic sources. Also, I would consider it quite unlikely that (1) Life evolved on another body found itself here, and (2) even if it did, it would have chemistry sufficiently similar to ours such that it could infect terrestrial eukaryotic life.

And an asteroid impact is not a nuclear winter. A cold global environment with low amounts of sunlight does not make a nuclear winter.

 

[CycloWizard]

Why is it that every time some one who needs to boost his ego comes up with the absurd notion that i reveal everything i know in a single post ?
Besides i am not an oracle. And why is it that i am not allowed to share my idea's ? I am getting a bit of a feeling that i am not allowed to share my decent and respectful opinion on a open forum.

While you are entitled to your own opinion, you're not entitled to your own facts. The reason people seem to yell at you a lot is because you present a lot of pretty strange ideas as an explanation which is contrary to what science has already discovered. You can have as many ideas as you want, but you portray them as some sort of ground-breaking solution to a problem which has largely already been solved. As I have mentioned previously, I think this is a language barrier more than anything, but that's how you tend to come across. Those of us who frequent this forum get it at this point, but the less frequent visitors probably interpret it as ignorant conceit on your part.

First, the earth is more then 4 billion years old. You really think in all that time nothing else happened ?

Second, i have a problem with the snowball earth theory. It is based on the same global warming notion from Al Gore, carbon dioxide. While water vapour is a more potent greenhouse gas, all is ever talked about is carbon dioxide. Now i am not disputing that carbon dioxide has an effect. I think a larger picture is needed. Besides i am the first to believe many ice ages happened. I like them.

Carbon dioxide is targeted because it is a relatively weak barrier - its greenhouse effects are therefore highly concentration-dependent, at least in the dilute regime which has been the steady state for a long time. Water, on the other hand, is a very good greenhouse gas, so its concentration dependence is virtually zero at atmospheric concentrations. Most people think that Beer's "Law" is actually a law, but it's not - it is simply a constitutive relationship which holds in dilute regimes, just like Newton's "Law" of viscosity, Fick's "Law" of diffusion, Fourier's "Law" of heat conduction, and Hooke's "Law" of elasticity are only linear approximations which hold at asymptotically low values of the gradient driving force.

 

[William Gaatjes]

While you are entitled to your own opinion, you're not entitled to your own facts. The reason people seem to yell at you a lot is because you present a lot of pretty strange ideas as an explanation which is contrary to what science has already discovered. You can have as many ideas as you want, but you portray them as some sort of ground-breaking solution to a problem which has largely already been solved. As I have mentioned previously, I think this is a language barrier more than anything, but that's how you tend to come across. Those of us who frequent this forum get it at this point, but the less frequent visitors probably interpret it as ignorant conceit on your part.

I am enthusiastic. I think the problem is i think about subjects without being schooled in those subjects. When i am right about something or when it turns out that some idea that popped into my mind is already a "proven" theory, i feel very happy . Because i know i must be thinking in the right direction.

Some theories are proven enough to be used as design rules.
On the other hand, some other theories are no truth or proven. These are just models that with effort work good enough to accomplish a certain task. But most of these theories are in no means design rules. With a lot of theories it is just empiric: Trying until you get it right.

Carbon dioxide is targeted because it is a relatively weak barrier - its greenhouse effects are therefore highly concentration-dependent, at least in the dilute regime which has been the steady state for a long time. Water, on the other hand, is a very good greenhouse gas, so its concentration dependence is virtually zero at atmospheric concentrations. Most people think that Beer's "Law" is actually a law, but it's not - it is simply a constitutive relationship which holds in dilute regimes, just like Newton's "Law" of viscosity, Fick's "Law" of diffusion, Fourier's "Law" of heat conduction, and Hooke's "Law" of elasticity are only linear approximations which hold at asymptotically low values of the gradient driving force.

Beer's law : the effects of absorption ?
But what you are writing then is that there is no clear answer ?
Although i think we both agree that pollution could be a lot less and it would be a good thing. But i am getting of coarse.

 

[William Gaatjes]

The thing I hate most about that documentary is that it feels the need for some reason to play that stupid, annoying X-files music.

:awe:

What do you mean by "original life form"? All life on this planet originated from prokaryotic sources. Also, I would consider it quite unlikely that (1) Life evolved on another body found itself here, and (2) even if it did, it would have chemistry sufficiently similar to ours such that it could infect terrestrial eukaryotic life.

I do not think it is unlikely life originated on earth and received some "fresh" competition possible from at the time supporting(meaning not to extreme) habitats in the solar system. It has been a very long time. From another solar system or even galaxy, although not impossible i find it very unlikely.

And an asteroid impact is not a nuclear winter. A cold global environment with low amounts of sunlight does not make a nuclear winter.

I already made that clear. Perhaps an unfortunate choice of words : Nuclear winter. But for some reason you all seem to know exactly what i meant. ^_^

 

[PsiStar]

I am enthusiastic. I think the problem is i think about subjects without being schooled in those subjects. When i am right about something or when it turns out that some idea that popped into my mind is already a "proven" theory, i feel very happy . Because i know i must be thinking in the right direction.

So, you are saying that you are impressed with your own ideas? And, perhaps what is even more impressive is that you are not "... schooled in those subjects". Believe it or not, some/many here figured that out.

Why is it that every time some one who needs to boost his ego comes up with the absurd notion that i reveal everything i know in a single post ?

Hmmmm, whose ego? And, by your own admission about not being schooled in those subjects, there is the chance that you are revealing everything that you know!



Actually, in a:twisted:way, I enjoy reading your posts. I would like to respond more, but as others have said

There's a bunch of things wrong with what you said, but I'm too lazy to correct them.

and I fall into this category also. Sometimes it is just the logic that is used to get from idea "A" + "B" to conclusion "C". There must be search engines where you are

 

[CycloWizard]

Beer's law : the effects of absorption ?
But what you are writing then is that there is no clear answer ?
Although i think we both agree that pollution could be a lot less and it would be a good thing. But i am getting of coarse.

Beer's law is simply a linear approximation for the dependence of absorption on concentration which generally holds in dilute regimes. More generally, absorption follows a logarithmic curve which plateaus at higher concentrations. Water happens to be present in the atmosphere in the plateau region of maximum absorption almost all the time. Carbon dioxide is present in the rapid rise at the start of the curve such that a small change in concentration gives a relatively large change in absorption. Compounding the problem is that the absorption window of CO_2 is almost identical to the gap in the absorption spectrum of water. I know this doesn't have anything to do with the thread, but I thought you would be interested in the knowledge anyway.

 

[William Gaatjes]

So, you are saying that you are impressed with your own ideas? And, perhaps what is even more impressive is that you are not "... schooled in those subjects". Believe it or not, some/many here figured that out.

Hmmmm, whose ego? And, by your own admission about not being schooled in those subjects, there is the chance that you are revealing everything that you know!



Actually, in a:twisted:way, I enjoy reading your posts. I would like to respond more, but as others have saidand I fall into this category also. Sometimes it is just the logic that is used to get from idea "A" + "B" to conclusion "C". There must be search engines where you are

I do not possess ego. Only a desire to gather and collect and show.
Ego has no use for me. I see people full of it all the time. And those same people always make mistakes and usual the same mistakes. Glorifying yourself as a matter of interest... So very easy to spot in a crowd.

I am part of those people who think knowing how to use formula's is more important then just memorizing all those formula's and not knowing what those formula's can be used for. The variables from a formula are important. The formula itself is just a means to show the relationship between those variables. This is my point of view and i think/ assume to know many people agree.

And i should in all honesty mention i do am schooled, just in a more general way. I did not differentiate myself for a certain subject in general. I have a more broad view but i do miss the details. But as i assume you have mentioned : Libraries and books and museums and afcourse the wonderful internet speed up the searching for information. It is in my opinion more interesting to have a broad view in general and use a narrow view on the subject of interest while gathering information. What use are the dots if you cannot connect them together ?

A very natural way it is, nothing special. At a certain moment, it is not the processing of information that is an issue, it is not being able to have all that information directly available when needed. But maybe possibly, in the future someone will discover what almost everyone desires... A direct link to a network like the internet. No more use of keyboards and displays. I do not hope fueled by a war. Wars speed up technological development and when you can no longer see who is you your foe and who is your friend... This can be of great help but at what price ?
But i am getting of coarse again.


I will give you an example. At a certain age of the earth there was a lack of oxygen in the ocean. This is highly possible. But :

How to determine age :
1. The locking of magnetic field polarity and strength in rock. Now this can only happen when the ferromagnetic parts of the rock(thus the rock itself) was in a fluid state meaning it was not rigid.
2. Argon dating.

The problem is you need molten rock. Magma, lava and more i can not think of right now. Where do you get this ? A vulcano or a rupture where tectonic plates do their work.

Part of the theory used are bacteria in the presence of hydrogen sulfide.
What i can not make up of such research if these are sulfur reducing bacteria (consuming sulfur) or hydrogen sulfide producing bacteria. Because both exist.

Bacteria that consume hydrogen sulfide.
Bateria that produce hydrogen sulfide.

The problem is that vulcano's release sulfur as well.

Who was there first ?

It are these kind of questions that i feel never get answered.

Substantial evidence all to often...

When it comes to an increase of carbon dioxide, i do not fear the increase in carbon dioxide itself. I fear the lifeform that feasts from it while being a toxic hazard to other life forms.

EDIT :
You might want to keep track of the lifefoms where the deepwater horizon accident happened. There will be a shift in the ecosystem. Hopefully not a shift that will be a problem for all life in that area and in the long run a problem for a larger area. Mr pedantic already mentioned a certain group...

 

[William Gaatjes]

Beer's law is simply a linear approximation for the dependence of absorption on concentration which generally holds in dilute regimes. More generally, absorption follows a logarithmic curve which plateaus at higher concentrations. Water happens to be present in the atmosphere in the plateau region of maximum absorption almost all the time. Carbon dioxide is present in the rapid rise at the start of the curve such that a small change in concentration gives a relatively large change in absorption. Compounding the problem is that the absorption window of CO_2 is almost identical to the gap in the absorption spectrum of water. I know this doesn't have anything to do with the thread, but I thought you would be interested in the knowledge anyway.

I am indeed, thank you very much.

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

I do not think it is unlikely life originated on earth and received some "fresh" competition possible from at the time supporting(meaning not to extreme) habitats in the solar system. It has been a very long time. From another solar system or even galaxy, although not impossible i find it very unlikely.

Aside from the fact that we are a very tiny target to hit on a space scale, it is likely that our planet being an environment with lots of oxygen, any organisms that get here would not survive in the open long enough to infect anything but anaerobic bacteria.

I am enthusiastic. I think the problem is i think about subjects without being schooled in those subjects. When i am right about something or when it turns out that some idea that popped into my mind is already a "proven" theory, i feel very happy . Because i know i must be thinking in the right direction.

There are many problems with this. I'll try be as complete as I can.

1) It's not a good idea to base a scientific conclusion off of just one person's discoveries. One of the important things about science is that it is based off cumulative information. No matter how "ground-breaking" or "insightful" someone's research seems to be, especially for the biological sciences, it must be taken in context with similar research that has already been done and is already in the literature. In fact, there's an organization called the Cochrane Collaboration that does exactly this for medical research. So the gist of what I'm trying to say is that listening to one person's research and feeling morally superior and indignantly outraged (or whatever you feel; it's not the important part) because the general scientific consensus is different to this is kind of useless.

2) It's not a very good idea to comment on things that you know nothing about, but you probably knew this already. This includes knowing nothing about a subject, but thinking that 10 minutes on Wikipedia is enough to change all that. It's not.

3) Scientific theories, by their nature, cannot be proven. If it can be proven, it's not a theory.

4) Have you ever heard of fractals, like the Mandelbrot set? The basic premise behind fractals is determinism - the idea that a very tiny change in initial conditions can produce a very large deviation in final product - one that is much larger than what would intuitively be expected. I kind of think of your last statement like this. Even if you're looking in 'the right direction', this is hardly a guarantee that you're looking at the right end product, or even that you're going to be close if you follow through.

Some theories are proven enough to be used as design rules.
On the other hand, some other theories are no truth or proven. These are just models that with effort work good enough to accomplish a certain task. But most of these theories are in no means design rules. With a lot of theories it is just empiric: Trying until you get it right.

I think this is a bizarre position to take.

Let's say you have two theories, A and B. Let's say they were proposed at exactly the same instant, and the initial theoretical and empirical backing for these theories were both equally sound. And furthermore, let's say they both have one very obscure instance in which they can be demonstrably proven false. Ok?

Now let's say that both theories become subject to a month of the same rigorous testing to test the theories. And after that month, purely by chance researchers find the condition in which theory A is proven false. Repeated testing shows that this, indeed, is the case.

So what happens? People look at theory A in a new light, wonder why they didn't think of that obscure situation earlier, and work to develop a new theory. So Theory A's story ends here.

But theory B...the researchers testing theory B do not find the (different) obscure condition in which theory B is false, and so in time, the community gains confidence in the theory and they start using it more widely to test the theory and to check the validity of other, newer theories. Over time, people take theory B so much for granted that they think of it as how you mention: they think of the theory as being a design rule of the universe.

Now what if, one day, people stumble upon the one obscure circumstance in which theory B is false? By then people take theory B so much for granted that it doesn't enter into their minds for one instance that this could possibly be a circumstance in which theory B is false. They assume that in this case the results of using theory B as a predictive tool are valid; after all, the previous million circumstances all went in favor of theory B, why should this be any different?

So at the end of this long spiel, my conclusion is this; it is never good enough to take a theory for granted; because we just haven't found that one set of conditions in which the results aren't quite what we expected.

 

[William Gaatjes]

Aside from the fact that we are a very tiny target to hit on a space scale, it is likely that our planet being an environment with lots of oxygen, any organisms that get here would not survive in the open long enough to infect anything but anaerobic bacteria.

Phages will do that trick, in my opinion. Phages are anaerobic and can transfer genetic material. Besides if memory services me right, there are other ways as well. But i do not know if a lack of oxygen is needed or oxygen is needed.

There are many problems with this. I'll try be as complete as I can.

1) It's not a good idea to base a scientific conclusion off of just one person's discoveries. One of the important things about science is that it is based off cumulative information. No matter how "ground-breaking" or "insightful" someone's research seems to be, especially for the biological sciences, it must be taken in context with similar research that has already been done and is already in the literature. In fact, there's an organization called the that does exactly this for medical research. So the gist of what I'm trying to say is that listening to one person's research and feeling morally superior and indignantly outraged (or whatever you feel; it's not the important part) because the general scientific consensus is different to this is kind of useless.

2) It's not a very good idea to comment on things that you know nothing about, but you probably knew this already. This includes knowing nothing about a subject, but thinking that 10 minutes on Wikipedia is enough to change all that. It's not.

3) Scientific theories, by their nature, cannot be proven. If it can be proven, it's not a theory.

4) Have you ever heard of fractals, like the Mandelbrot set? The basic premise behind fractals is determinism - the idea that a very tiny change in initial conditions can produce a very large deviation in final product - one that is much larger than what would intuitively be expected. I kind of think of your last statement like this. Even if you're looking in 'the right direction', this is hardly a guarantee that you're looking at the right end product, or even that you're going to be close if you follow through.


I think this is a bizarre position to take.

Let's say you have two theories, A and B. Let's say they were proposed at exactly the same instant, and the initial theoretical and empirical backing for these theories were both equally sound. And furthermore, let's say they both have one very obscure instance in which they can be demonstrably proven false. Ok?

Now let's say that both theories become subject to a month of the same rigorous testing to test the theories. And after that month, purely by chance researchers find the condition in which theory A is proven false. Repeated testing shows that this, indeed, is the case.

So what happens? People look at theory A in a new light, wonder why they didn't think of that obscure situation earlier, and work to develop a new theory. So Theory A's story ends here.

But theory B...the researchers testing theory B do not find the (different) obscure condition in which theory B is false, and so in time, the community gains confidence in the theory and they start using it more widely to test the theory and to check the validity of other, newer theories. Over time, people take theory B so much for granted that they think of it as how you mention: they think of the theory as being a design rule of the universe.

Now what if, one day, people stumble upon the one obscure circumstance in which theory B is false? By then people take theory B so much for granted that it doesn't enter into their minds for one instance that this could possibly be a circumstance in which theory B is false. They assume that in this case the results of using theory B as a predictive tool are valid; after all, the previous million circumstances all went in favor of theory B, why should this be any different?

So at the end of this long spiel, my conclusion is this; it is never good enough to take a theory for granted; because we just haven't found that one set of conditions in which the results aren't quite what we expected.

1-4.
I hardly use wikipedia for this kind of information. I found it has many flaws.

Cochrane Collaboration, very interesting. I have to read more on that.

Fractals, i know them.

I would love to answer in a more explaining way, but i am busy right now. I will edit this post later when i have scheduled the time.

 

[beginner99]

Aside from the fact that we are a very tiny target to hit on a space scale, it is likely that our planet being an environment with lots of oxygen, any organisms that get here would not survive in the open long enough to infect anything but anaerobic bacteria.

*sign*

The idea that live came from outer space is like the "god theory". It explains absolutley nothing (like how life actually stared) it just introduces another layer that is completely useless. Just liek god explains nothing. who made the universe? god who made god? no idea.

Of course it might theoretically be possible that life came to earth on a comet/asteroid. But then there is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor. This principle states that the simplest solution usually is the correct one. So which is simpler:
a)
life originated in outer space and by an almost impossible coincidence a piece of that planet somehow landed on earth and earth was suitable for that life to flourish on earth too
b)
life originated on earth

The only realistic solution for me would be if life orginated on mars and somehow got transferred to Earth. Why? short distance, there are known fragments of mars on earth, there are tons of hints that mars once was more life-friendly then it is now.

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/mars_knocks_021107.html

one can easly conclude otherwise, eg that mars has quite few rocks of earth and maybe mars once had life that came from earth. imagine that nasa discovers some dna or even live bacteria on mars very similar to earth like bacteria. Now way to tell were they actually came from.

 

[A_Dying_Wren]

I found this documentary :

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3147808273125357593#

It is an old one, but i thought it could be a good fit when thinking about the posts in the electron / photon thread.
It's about extremophiles, possible bacteria and viruses from space lifting along comets and asteroids.

So you see mutz, i am certainly not the only one who thinks some of the life on earth came from outer space. Afcourse this life was just lifting along after some impact or had a change to evolve while being inside a pleasant environment shielded from to much radiation and cold. And afcourse not send by some advanced alien being. ^_^

A possibly idea :
Perhaps, the dinosaurs where the original lifeforms together with the then present bacteria and phages. Then after the meteorite came down, the dinosaurs became extinct, not only because of the nuclear winter from the meteorite but also because of possible new bacteria and phages which where possibly more hostile. We may be the result of evolution and merger from the original forms of life and the alien bacteria and phages.

I have heard many crazy and jaw-droppingly ridiculous things in the past weeks but I think this takes the cake. It is simply not possible for bacteria from elsewhere to suddenly drop in and dominate existing bacteria. For one, there's be obvious incompatibilities if such a bacteria was to have a different genetic code, different amino acids, different whole darn chemistry. If such a bacterium was to have similar backgrounds to us having perhaps come from the same origin, a) it would be a very old relic of the past as no other planet in the solar system is biotic (with the possible exception of certain far-out moons) and b) it could well still be incompatible even if it had DNA. Just the presence of oxygen alone could kill it.

I do not possess ego. Only a desire to gather and collect and show.
Ego has no use for me. I see people full of it all the time. And those same people always make mistakes and usual the same mistakes. Glorifying yourself as a matter of interest... So very easy to spot in a crowd.

I am part of those people who think knowing how to use formula's is more important then just memorizing all those formula's and not knowing what those formula's can be used for. The variables from a formula are important. The formula itself is just a means to show the relationship between those variables. This is my point of view and i think/ assume to know many people agree.

And i should in all honesty mention i do am schooled, just in a more general way. I did not differentiate myself for a certain subject in general. I have a more broad view but i do miss the details. But as i assume you have mentioned : Libraries and books and museums and afcourse the wonderful internet speed up the searching for information. It is in my opinion more interesting to have a broad view in general and use a narrow view on the subject of interest while gathering information. What use are the dots if you cannot connect them together ?

A very natural way it is, nothing special. At a certain moment, it is not the processing of information that is an issue, it is not being able to have all that information directly available when needed. But maybe possibly, in the future someone will discover what almost everyone desires... A direct link to a network like the internet. No more use of keyboards and displays. I do not hope fueled by a war. Wars speed up technological development and when you can no longer see who is you your foe and who is your friend... This can be of great help but at what price ?
But i am getting of coarse again.


I will give you an example. At a certain age of the earth there was a lack of oxygen in the ocean. This is highly possible. But :

How to determine age :
1. The locking of magnetic field polarity and strength in rock. Now this can only happen when the ferromagnetic parts of the rock(thus the rock itself) was in a fluid state meaning it was not rigid.
2. Argon dating.

The problem is you need molten rock. Magma, lava and more i can not think of right now. Where do you get this ? A vulcano or a rupture where tectonic plates do their work.

Part of the theory used are bacteria in the presence of hydrogen sulfide.
What i can not make up of such research if these are sulfur reducing bacteria (consuming sulfur) or hydrogen sulfide producing bacteria. Because both exist.

Bacteria that consume hydrogen sulfide.
Bateria that produce hydrogen sulfide.

The problem is that vulcano's release sulfur as well.

Who was there first ?

It are these kind of questions that i feel never get answered.

Substantial evidence all to often...

When it comes to an increase of carbon dioxide, i do not fear the increase in carbon dioxide itself. I fear the lifeform that feasts from it while being a toxic hazard to other life forms.

I am awed by the subtlety and sheerness of your absolute arrogance. Everyone possesses an ego to varying extents. You are not beyond us mere mortals in that regard.

And then you have the utter nerve to insinuate that there are vital questions about the origin of life that multitudes of scientists have deliberately ignored to leave to your great self to solve. Not that you actually pose any sort of dilemna with your bacteria.

1. Earth spews out H2S from natural processes
2. Bacteria consume H2S
3. Bacteria may produce more H2S.

Whats so hard to understand about that? Surely you do not suggest that either the bacteria are forming the H2S which the Earth spews out or that bacteria came before Earth's early formation?

"lifeforms that feast on carbon dioxide". you mean things us mere mortals call plants and some photosynthesizing bacteria? of course some are toxic but they're not at the present any sort of looming threat as you suggest.

Phages will do that trick, in my opinion. Phages are anaerobic and can transfer genetic material. Besides if memory services me right, there are other ways as well. But i do not know if a lack of oxygen is needed or oxygen is needed.



1-4.
I hardly use wikipedia for this kind of information. I found it has many flaws.

Cochrane Collaboration, very interesting. I have to read more on that.

Fractals, i know them.

I would love to answer in a more explaining way, but i am busy right now. I will edit this post later when i have scheduled the time.

There's more to survival than just not consuming oxygen. Oxygen was actually fairly toxic for very early prokaryotes.

Wikipedia may be wrong at times but its pretty darn accurate to do with science.

Again, learn the definition of occam's razor and take it to heart. Believe it or not, such ungrounded philosophers of science as yourself went out of fashion centuries ago.

 

[William Gaatjes]

I have heard many crazy and jaw-droppingly ridiculous things in the past weeks but I think this takes the cake. It is simply not possible for bacteria from elsewhere to suddenly drop in and dominate existing bacteria. For one, there's be obvious incompatibilities if such a bacteria was to have a different genetic code, different amino acids, different whole darn chemistry. If such a bacterium was to have similar backgrounds to us having perhaps come from the same origin, a) it would be a very old relic of the past as no other planet in the solar system is biotic (with the possible exception of certain far-out moons) and b) it could well still be incompatible even if it had DNA. Just the presence of oxygen alone could kill it.



I am awed by the subtlety and sheerness of your absolute arrogance. Everyone possesses an ego to varying extents. You are not beyond us mere mortals in that regard.

And then you have the utter nerve to insinuate that there are vital questions about the origin of life that multitudes of scientists have deliberately ignored to leave to your great self to solve. Not that you actually pose any sort of dilemna with your bacteria.

1. Earth spews out H2S from natural processes
2. Bacteria consume H2S
3. Bacteria may produce more H2S.

Whats so hard to understand about that? Surely you do not suggest that either the bacteria are forming the H2S which the Earth spews out or that bacteria came before Earth's early formation?

"lifeforms that feast on carbon dioxide". you mean things us mere mortals call plants and some photosynthesizing bacteria? of course some are toxic but they're not at the present any sort of looming threat as you suggest.



There's more to survival than just not consuming oxygen. Oxygen was actually fairly toxic for very early prokaryotes.

Wikipedia may be wrong at times but its pretty darn accurate to do with science.

Again, learn the definition of occam's razor and take it to heart. Believe it or not, such ungrounded philosophers of science as yourself went out of fashion centuries ago.

Sigh... such a long post and in essence you are saying no more then :
I do not agree with you.

Give me something interesting to work with or use occam's razor on your self. Literally or in a figurative way is up to you.

Now i have to return to my programming which i find more important then reading some obvious cackle.

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

Sigh... such a long post and in essence you are saying no more then :
I do not agree with you.

Give me something interesting to work with or use occam's razor on your self. Literally or in a figurative way is up to you.

Now i have to return to my programming which i find more important then reading some obvious cackle.

No, don't use Occam's Razor on yourself, seeing as it's of little help in scientific endeavour - more a collection of coincidentally affirmative anecdotes rather than any predictive theory.

*sign*

The idea that live came from outer space is like the "god theory". It explains absolutley nothing (like how life actually stared) it just introduces another layer that is completely useless. Just liek god explains nothing. who made the universe? god who made god? no idea.

Of course it might theoretically be possible that life came to earth on a comet/asteroid. But then there is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor. This principle states that the simplest solution usually is the correct one. So which is simpler:
a)
life originated in outer space and by an almost impossible coincidence a piece of that planet somehow landed on earth and earth was suitable for that life to flourish on earth too
b)
life originated on earth

The only realistic solution for me would be if life orginated on mars and somehow got transferred to Earth. Why? short distance, there are known fragments of mars on earth, there are tons of hints that mars once was more life-friendly then it is now.

http://www.space.com/scienceastronom...ks_021107.html

one can easly conclude otherwise, eg that mars has quite few rocks of earth and maybe mars once had life that came from earth. imagine that nasa discovers some dna or even live bacteria on mars very similar to earth like bacteria. Now way to tell were they actually came from.

I'd like to stop and ask: so what? What is the point of this?

Phages will do that trick, in my opinion. Phages are anaerobic and can transfer genetic material. Besides if memory services me right, there are other ways as well. But i do not know if a lack of oxygen is needed or oxygen is needed.

Aside from the fact that 1) phages need RNA/DNA, which is not necessarily ascribed the importance to extra-terrestrial life as it is to terrestrial life, 2) even if phages did use RNA/DNA they probably won't code for the same amino acids as terrestrial DNA does, therefore making rather ineffectual precipitates of proteins rather than the proteins themselves, and 3), for most life it's not a case of oxygen being a point of quaint interest. Either you survive in oxygen, use it to oxidize things, and have repair mechanisms to correct the (substantial) nucleic acid damage that living in oxygen requires, or you die.

 

[PsiStar]

@William. Some of our younger friends on AT have a term for threads that do not live up to what the title portends and/or is in the wrong forum. Simply & perhaps too politely == "fail"!

This is the "Highly Technical" forum. If you or anyone, and I saw this image elsewhere on AT, start a thread that is in "Highly Technical" forum that is not actually technical, instead of in "Off Topic" since there is not a "Fantasy" forum, you may just be met with ...

This has nothing to do suppressing opinion. "Highly Technical" strongly suggests facts.

 

[GlacierFreeze]

I am enthusiastic. I think the problem is i think about subjects without being schooled in those subjects. When i am right about something or when it turns out that some idea that popped into my mind is already a "proven" theory, i feel very happy . Because i know i must be thinking in the right direction.

.....

Translation: "I don't know what I'm talking about because I have no background or experience in such subject and get excited when I correctly make a lucky guess."

And theories aren't proven. And it doesn't mean you're thinking in the right direction, merely in an unproven direction.

 

[mutz]

So you see mutz, i am certainly not the only one who thinks some of the life on earth came from outer space.

hh, sorry mr. william :$, totally missed this thread ,
though..
wasn't i the one who was at first suggesting it :hmm:..?

A possibly idea :
Perhaps, the dinosaurs where the original lifeforms together with the then present bacteria and phages.

,
think deeper, and harder..,
dinosaurs didn't just appear suddenly ,
something had to evolve, in order to become such mammal...
and if humans, has dramatically changed in the last 250 million years,
imagine what can happen, in 2-2.5 billion years since earth has stabilized and grass has started to appear on the planes and rocky hills ..

We may be the result of evolution and merger from the original forms of life and the alien bacteria and phages.

:hmm:..

 

[beginner99]

I'd like to stop and ask: so what? What is the point of this?

That it would not be all that surprising if live on earth came from Mars and hence we would actually be aliens (or extraterrestrials).

The second point being that there is no way to confirm this idea because if earth-like organisms were found on Mars, there does not seem to be anyway to proof where the actually appeared first, earth or Mars.

 

[Murloc]

this is nothing technical, it involves stuff understandable by anyone, so I would transfer it to off topic.

When I read afcourse the second time I decided that I would not read the rest of the topic.

 

[A_Dying_Wren]

Sigh... such a long post and in essence you are saying no more then :
I do not agree with you.

Give me something interesting to work with or use occam's razor on your self. Literally or in a figurative way is up to you.

Now i have to return to my programming which i find more important then reading some obvious cackle.

I am using occam's razor in that I'm not spewing out random unsubstantiated theories. But yes, please go off to your programming and cease such clogging of the "highly technical" forum.

 

[William Gaatjes]

I am using occam's razor in that I'm not spewing out random unsubstantiated theories. But yes, please go off to your programming and cease such clogging of the "highly technical" forum.

A short post because i do not have time nor do i want to spend to much time replying to closed minds. Closed minds because of personal interests mainly. A true scientist would just want to find out how the mechanism works, while a manager scientist, just wants the grant.

I can have a whole debate on the use of occam's razor but i will not. I do not think i summed it up above but it will do.

When talking about bacteria and the effect these can have :
On an average human being, there live at least 8 times more micro organisms then body cells. It is kind of easy to understand that every living multicellular creature has microorganism living on it. Usual in symbiosis. Now plants are not an exception. You all think and make the same mistake as someone who invents a god because he does not want to accept what his eyes cannot see. The whole planet is covered with microorganisms. Deep in the rock, and way high up in the air, afcourse in the seas as well. We are here by the grace of those microorganisms. Not because of some divine illusion. Because of plants and primarily algae and bacteria (where did you think the plants and algae got their photosynthesis from in the first place) releasing oxygen we live, but that does not mean that oxygen is a requirement. All you need is energy, and preferably in the right range when using certain combination of elements. I remember seeing the little walking molecular "man" on a strand of dna( i saw a computer graphed video, that is) . It is molecules that because of "background noise" start to move. This background noise can be created deliberately as in cells, or it is just really back ground noise. Noise in the form of radiation. Every part of this planet is covered in microorganisms. Speaking of rocks, there has been a bacteria found living in a solitary sterile environment. In rock that is more then 3 billion years old.


And something you forget as well is horizontal dna transfer. Part of genes are just going to be transferred. When the distant moons will be explored, you will understand. Separated species by time. But not seperated by energy or elemental build up.


Archaea , to mention for example where the first. Oxygen is a highly reactive element...

Communication, where did it come from ?
Some bacteria use molecules in a way similar as pheromones.
Up to now, the research has been focused on bacteria that cause disease and all these bacteria communicate with each other. Because of this communication, survival strategies of the bacteria changes because of the activation of different genes. This way of communication, how did it develop ? i do not know. Maybe it is a remanent of phages. I am not a biological expert.

I am sure that many, many bacteria use this form of communication.
However, exceptions will always exist. That is life.

Research in molecular biology is the start of the next technological evolution in mankind. Because distinct borders between cold electronics and biological electronics will disappear(already are ). But there will always be a distinct border because of the nature of life itself.

In my post, i conveniently left out the effects of cosmic rays , gravity, volcanic eruption, solar activity and the resulting solar winds and solar flares, magnetic activity and the rhythmic connecting (reconnection) of magnetic fields of the earth and the sun and the transfer of ions and electrons, mainly to the earth. Similar effects as lightning above a cloud, but between sun and planets. Particle accelaration.


I am not going to put references here. Seek for it yourself.