From: jtem01@gmail.com   
      
   Two over reaching theories.   
      
   #1. Abiogenesis.   
      
   This is the idea that life spontaneously formed from   
   non life.   
      
   A lot of people have a rather difficult time wrapping   
   their head around this:  A pile of dirt turned into   
   something alive. At least today. In the past it was a   
   very common explanation though. Mice, for example,   
   spontaneously formed all the time, according to the   
   people of the past. Leave a pile of rags in the corner   
   and sooner or later mice will spontaneously appear,   
   living in it!   
      
   Bugs were the same way, apparently...   
      
   So at one point abiogenesis was the stupid man's   
   explanation for life.... you didn't see mice, now   
   you see mice, they obviously formed spontaneously!   
      
   NOTE:  Even today people argue over how captive bodies   
   of water (lakes/ponds) can have fish, frogs and other   
   life!  Where did it come from?   
      
   Anyway, so the ignorant people liked abiogenesis, life   
   from non life, and now all the smart people do. Only   
   they favor extremely simple/simplistic life that very   
   slowly evolved into more complex forms, eventually   
   branching off into everything we see today.   
      
   Biggest problem with abiogenesis?   
      
   IT'S NOT SCIENCE!   
      
   It's not a theory, it's not a hypothesis, it's a matter   
   of faith. And just like other religious beliefs, no   
   amount of failed experiments can ever falsify the belief.   
      
   People have been trying to reproduce abiogenesis under   
   laboratory conditions for more than 60 years, and failing   
   every single time. But the believe persists despite the   
   lack of evidence.   
      
   #2.  Panspermia   
      
   There's different flavors of panspermia but they all come   
   down to the earth being seeded with life.   
      
   The ultimate and perhaps earliest version of panspermia   
   has life appearing as a consequence of the Big Bang, in   
   space, only to fall on planets everywhere across the   
   universe. And where that life could take root and grow,   
   it did, the earth being one such place.   
      
   THE LEAST exotic flavor of panspermia has life maybe   
   spontaneously forming elsewhere and then "cross contaminating"   
   the earth. The most likely culprit? Mars!   
      
      
      
   I tend to favor Panspermia as the origins of life on earth.   
   Just because if we assume that life can spontaneously form,   
   it had to happen many times before it had a chance to happen   
   here.   
      
   Mars cooled quicker, developed the conditions we believe   
   where life took root, earlier than the earth. So if abiogenesis   
   is possible it likely happened there, and if life began in   
   space as a consequence of the Big Bang, it took root & grew   
   on Mars before it could here. So Mars is the likely source of   
   life on earth... it had hundreds of millions of years to   
   evolve, most likely, before an asteroid impact or super   
   volcano ejected life into space, only to fall here.   
      
      
      
      
      
   --   
   https://jtem.tumblr.com/   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)