Radical Theory Says “Life Had Multiple Origins in the Universe”

Here is a new take on the origins of life, which postulates a much earlier, and from diverse locations of the combination of elements floating around the universe just waiting for suitable worlds to evolve – Deskarati

Life originated in a nebular cloud, over 10 billion years ago, but may have had multiple origins in multiple locations, including in galaxies older than the Milky Way according to Rudolf Schild of Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and Rhawn Joseph of the Brain Research Laboratory. Multiple origins, they believe, could account for the different domains of life: archae, bacteria, eukaryotes.

The first steps toward life may have been achieved when self-replicating nano-particles initially comprised of a mixture of carbon, calcium, oxygen, hydrogen, phosphorus, sugars, and other elements and gasses were combined and radiated, forming a nucleus around which a lipid-like permeable membrane was established, and within which DNA-bases were laddered together with phosphates and sugars; a process which may have taken billions of years.

DNA-based life, they propose, may be a “cosmic imperative” such that life can only achieve life upon acquiring a DNA genome. Alternatively, the “Universal Genetic Code” may have won out over inferior codes through natural selection. When the first microbe evolved, it immediately began multiplying and spreading throughout the cosmos via panspermia carried by solar winds, Bolide impact, comets, ejection of living planets prior to supernova which are then captured by a newly forming solar system, galactic collisions and following the exchange of stars between galaxies.

We suggest reading the rest of this interesting theory here Radical Theory Says “Life Had Multiple Origins in the Universe”.

This entry was posted in Cosmology, Evolution. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Radical Theory Says “Life Had Multiple Origins in the Universe”

  1. alfy says:

    Oh dear! A “radical new theory”? No, actually a hoary old theory trailing clouds of dust. Originally called the concept of “Panspermia” in the 19 C (or was it the late 18 C) it was resurrected by Fred Hoyle in the mid 20C. Reading the original article one is struck by the number of “mays” in it. This is always a giveaway that there is not a shred of hard evidence to support the theory.

    Broadly summarised, this theory says, “Oh dear. It is all very complicated. All the variegated life forms on earth could not possibly have arisen here. Where did they come from? I know! They must have come from outer space.” This is the argument of Erich von Daniken. Human beings are so complicated that they could not have arisen here: they must have come from outer space.
    I find this a rather nihilistic view. Natural selection and what we know of biochemistry is quite sufficient to account for the origins of life on earth. If you once accept the view that life originated elsewhere it puts research back by millennnia. It is difficult enough to establish how life might have arisen here, billions of years ago, but how do you explain how it arose on unknown bodies vast astronomical distances away?

    I am afraid that is mainly astronomers like Hoyle, Wickramasighe, and Schild who come up with these daft views, and biochemists like Oparin (and a whole raft of others whose names escape me for the moment) who have shown over decades of painstaking research that the spontaneous origins of complex organic molecules is not only possible but can be routinely demonstrated. This is the basis for the origins of life on earth.

    There is an old and sound scientific principle called Occam’s Razor. I shall spare you the Latin, but what it says is that in putting forward scientific explanations you should avoid, wherever possible all unwarranted assumptions. The simplest explanations are the best. Schild and his biological friend Joseph should go back and study this principle.

  2. Deskarati says:

    Hope you don’t mind Alfy, I’ve emailed a copy of your comments to Rudy Schild for his comments. I wonder if he’ll respond!

Comments are closed.