Evolution of Life on Other Planets

Evolution of Life On Other Planets: Even the Gods Have GodsA comprehensive review of scientific findings, published in prestigious scientific journals, is presented to explain how life from other planets evolved on Earth. These first Earthlings (archae, bacteria, and cyanobacteria) contained the genes and the genetic information for altering the environment, the "evolution" of multicellular eukaryotes, and the metamorphosis of all subsequent species.

These included exons, introns, transposable elements, informational and operational genes, RNA, ribozomes, mitochondria, and all the core genetic machinery for translating, expressing, and repeatedly duplicating genes and the entire genome. Prokaryotic genes were initially combined to fashion the first eukaryotes and/or were donated and transferred to unicellular then multicellular eukaryotes and then subsequently expressed in response to biologically engineered environmental influences, often in busts of explosive evolutionary change, as typified by the Cambrian Explosion.

Genes biologically alter the environment such as via the secretion of waste products, e.g. methane, oxygen, calcium carbonate, sulphides, ferrous iron, etc., which acts on gene expression. However, these genes and life on Earth did not randomly evolve. Evolution is metamorphosis. These genes were inherited from ancestral species who acquired these genes and these genetic instructions from living creatures that long ago lived on other planets. (Excerpt from brainmind.com.)

Watch the full documentary now

323
6.50
12345678910
Ratings: 6.50/10 from 22 users.

More great documentaries

Comments and User Reviews

  • Achems Razor

    Interesting.

    This Doc. sounded more like "Panspermia" to me than anything else.

  • Charles B.

    Yes, it's "panspermia" as far as it believes that all our DNA came from other planets, but I actually like it. Had I not a strong Christian faith, this is what I would most likely find most attractive. Much more than raw eveolution.

    Question 1: Where did life come from: Outter space in the form of bacteria and viruses (thank you supernova that blew up all those lovely words so that we might live). These contained all the blueprints for "metamorphic evolution" which is not based on Darwin's flawed theory which says that all change is random. We are products of "Inheratance," not a radom mutation with is alwost always fatal or negative in nature for the host.

    Question 2: where did life in outerspace come from? It's eternal without a beginning, but our minds cannot phathum such a thing; get over it.

    Question 3: Who is God? Not directly answered but alluded to that if there is a God, then he/she is some butt-kicking super stud alien from an older planet "seeded" bofore our own with the same materials and therefore in an advanced state of metemophasis. But, even he has a "god" somewhere more advanced than him, or her.

    I didn't want to rate this film, but I liked the Beethoven music throughout the documentary. LOL! How dramatic! :-)

    I supposed that I too believe in "eternal life" in that I believe in an eternal God from which all creation came from, but where I differ from the documentary is that God's creation is purposeful, and this documentary states that everything is by some element of chance as to where and how and when the materials from the blown up planets in the supernova reached a sutable environment to start their metamorphasis evolution, from "inheritance" not radam mutations.

    Metamorhpasis brings change brings a higher metamorphasis brings more change and so on and so on. Therefore, all life on all plantes will have similar beings as we all come from the same "seeds" from the blown up worlds of long long ago.

    Clever theory; baseless, but clever!

  • josken

    Charles, i didn't watch this documentary ,yet, but i must say i am really happy i found you at this forum :). It is fun to discuss things that you like with people that have the exact opposite opinion about it. I would surely like to hear why you think darwins theory is flaud! I am not as good educated about this topic (even though i learned it in school) as pot, but i watched a documentary about it on national geographic. Bear in mind that in science everything is called a theory. Like the atom model, it is called a theory as well. Even though every experiment done in a laboratory points out this theory is true. Every way of producing any chemical substance is done by this theory. It still is a theory. It is the same with darwins theory.

    What i can't understand is why religious people can't accept this theory. I saw an episode of south park which said it perfectly imo: Can't evolution be the answer to how and not to why? What i mean is: god might created the universe and then just let go... The big bang happened, planets formed, evolution happened and here we are... Science can explain a lot of things but it can't explain how something came from nothing... maybe god did that?

  • Charles B.

    Josken: Wow! That's a really good questions about why the Bible and evolution can't "co-exist," so-to-speak! I've thought about just that this past week in fact.

    First, let me say, this particular documentary (when you get around to seeing it) thumps pretty hard on Darwinian evolution. It says that it's just not logical and metamorphic evolution is all planned out (by very smart DNA). They actually say "DNA is very intelligent" and they mean just that--it's almost like the DNA is "planning" it's next metamorphosis into who knows what majestic and fantastically advanced being we will someday become "if we don't go extinct first."

    Aside from all that, this was my personal thought on the theory of evolution and my understanding of creation by God. Genesis 1:1 says "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." and Genesis 1:2 says "The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep . . ." depending on which translation you use.

    My father is also a very good Biblical scholar, and he told me that the earth was originally cared for by Lucifer (before his rebellion and fall A.K.A. Satan). Between verses one and two, there was a vast amount of history where Satanic rebellion on Earth was suppressed resulting in destruction of the Earth. It would seem odd that God would create anything "formless and void" and then produce life on it as seen in Genesis 1:2 and following. Therefore, I believe also that something more has happened there that is not recorded as it was not necessary to know at the time Genesis was given to Moses to record.

    My Two theories:

    Theory 1. Earth and all the universe was made at once (including things "in process" like stars being born, living, and dying). The earth for untold ages was governed by Lucifer (not yet Satan) and during his rebellion was destroyed and was made void and formless. Adam and Eve are made at a time much much much later in Earth's history when God "reforms" all life on earth, including man about 6 thousand years ago. My dad thinks things like dinosaurs were part of the old earth before the Adam and Eve era. I personally think that they were all part of the new Adam and Eve era as well as all things and were in the Garden of Eden also and that carbon dating and the such is very flawed in dating things from the past, giving falsely huge numbers and dates.

    Theory 2: This is one I've thought of myself. God is eternal (standard Christian theology). God is forever and ever and ever and ever and ever into eternal time past and into eternal time future. He has no hurry to accomplish what He knows He can and will do. Perhaps God did create the universe in a "Big Bang" and allowed it to "mature" by His guidance and laws of physics and His direct supervision until the time when it was time to make Adam and Even and all "life" on earth; His "universal" apple of His eye. The earth rocks (formless and void), the sun, stars, and all the rest of the "lifeless" universe etc. may indeed be very old, but the "creation" is only about 6 thousand years old from the time of Adam and Eve. It was then that "life" was made fully formed, perfect and in its complete diversity which is decreasing (not increasing) as seen today by massive species loss, and not evolution.

    Evolution is not God's way; instant creation of life is. I tend to think that "light" and all light sources such as stars and our own sun, were created instantly "in progress" and at the perfect ages they are now in a moment's time. Either that, or God began the process 13.5 billion years ago knowing the time when "light" would be needed on Earth for his most magnificent of creations: Adam and Eve.

    Either way, Darwinian evolution is just not Biblical; in order for Adam and Eve to be the first of their kind, they had to be the first of their kind! ;-) From there, they had children etc. and the world was populated that way.

    I also have a theory that Adam and Eve where created genetically perfect, and the reason why we age so quickly now is from genetic degeneration in some way. You can trace the lifespans mentioned in Genesis down from huge ages early on to "normal" ages right after the flood of Noah. Something changed. Our genetics are slowly corrupting and we are "aging" because of it. We are spiraling towards a "destruction point" but true to my nature, I know and understand and have faith that a new age is coming where there will be a new Heavens (space and all in it) and a new Earth (our planet) where death and slow destruction no longer exists (Revelation chapter 21). This will not be Eden revisited, as our understanding of life will never be as ignorant as Adam's was ever again, but perfection of being expanded in perpetuity.

    I love science; it helps us understand how God has done what He has done, and I love Him more and more with each new discovery! I think it sad and shameful when we use our immense potential for discovery to try and disprove He who loves us most and from whom all wisdom and understanding and knowledge and mystery comes. We will have all of eternity to explore and learn about our wonderful universe, for it has been created by God for Himself and for our pleasure as well. What exciting times we live in!

    Nonetheless, these are just "theories" and I am content to trust that God created and breathed life into His creation just as it says He did in Genesis. I can worry about the details after I meet Him face to Face, if I have any questions left at that time.

    I hope that answers a few of the deeper questions you might have. I've tried to have a well thought out understanding of what I believe to compliment my "faith". ;-)

  • josken

    Either way, Darwinian evolution is just not Biblical.

    I can't believe a man who loves science can say something like that. When investigating something you should do this with an open mind and not to try and verify your own beliefs. If we would have done that people would still believe the earth was flat for example.

    I to once believed in god (and i must say for now i don't really know if their is a god) and when i tried to think rationally about if their was one, i have to say it looks more logical to me that man needed a way to explain all nature phenomenon etc around him and uses gods to do this.
    Also I would rather have a god just like i used to like to have my father around when something bad happened. He told me what to do so i would always know what the right thing to do was. Instead of having to think about that (and be afraid to make the wrong choice). Having a god simplifies things. Because you have a reason not to steal, not to cheat, which godless people haven't got (to be honest most people who succeed in life do this true a faulty way of life) .

    "It was then that “life” was made fully formed, perfect and in its complete diversity which is decreasing (not increasing) as seen today by massive species loss, and not evolution."

    In my perceptive species die because we pollute their water, we destroy their habitat for agriculture, etc etc.
    In my opinion man is not created to be the Shepard but the destructor of his creation. In my opinion everything that is touched by man is dirtied (sorry couldn't find a better English word) by greed,jealousy, etc. He does this with nature, with people and also with religion. History has thought us many times that the church is a cruel and pushy institution. Letting the rich being able to forgive their sins trough money, keeping the little guy afraid so he would do his job even for nothing wages (check deans a pretty know man in Belgium because of what he did during the industrial revolution). Knowing these things about the church, i can not understand how you can believe that your god,a creature who created man as his equal, who says to love thine nabour as you love thyself would approve of such actions. And why you would believe in such an institution, knowing their book by heart etc, instead of just trying to live a good life, helping the people around you etc.

    Man should be free to believe in god or not, and i do not need a priest to tell me what i need to do or not do to go to heaven. That is just common sense. I just feel that religion is used to much as a way of oppression (look at burka's etc)and self enrichment instead of a way to make the world a better place.

    Power always creates corruption...

  • WTC7

    Josken,

    I agree with a lot of things you said above, as I myself don't believe that one needs a priest, or a book for that matter, to tell him/her what's wrong and what is right. In that same spirit, I must say that I cannot agree with you in the part where you say "Having a god simplifies things. Because you have a reason not to steal, not to cheat, which godless people haven’t got".

    Why is it that I can't agree with you on this one? It's because what you say implies that without a god people can't know about morality.

    There is an old friend of my family, a man who declared himself his whole adult life as a communist. He believes in no god. But he is as decent, as honest and as ethical person as it goes. (My father and he always had arguments about political and other issues, as my father was an anti-communist from the deeps of his heart. But they got along extremely well.)

    Hence, I'd say that what you are talking about is a social phenomenon, developed in the early human societies, that at one stage has been codified in the Bible (for example) as an already existing value, like a law for those who are to follow the faith offered (because there were always those who tried to act against the accepted values of decency and morality).

    But I enjoyed your post :-D

  • Charles B.

    josken: The Bible and science are not mutually exclusive, but when science tries to devoid the world of God, then I have to be true to myself and choose the Bible and what is says.

    As far as Darwinian evolution as a theory, it's not even a very good theory. Life is too complex and random mutations bring death and disease rather than life and grown 99.9% of the time (as this video admits). If Darwinian evolution were correct, there should be millions if not billions of missing links everywhere to be found in the fossil records, but there isn't. Metamorphic evolution would explain how a fully perfect formed creature could give birth to a totally different perfectly formed creature without the transitional missing links, but even that is just another form of devoiding the universe of God.

    If you don't want to put your faith in God, then that's your choice, but please don't put it in evolution, as it takes more "faith" to believe in evolution (which is mathmatically impossible) than to believe in God.

    Nonetheless, there is a Scripture in the Bible that says that God will be found by someone when they "search for Him with their whole heart." Half-hearted seekers need not apply.

    Also, there is a power to prayer and a sense of God's presence when you are in His will. Nonetheless, there are many times when God seems distance, but it is at those time we must "walk by faith and not by sight." But, I am quite convinced you shall never know God let alone understand the things of faith without diligently seeking Him first. That's just the way things work. As Mr. Razor says, "You find what you're looking for" (or something similar to that).

  • josken

    As i say in previous posts. I don't want to offend your religion, nor do i say that god does not exist. I simply get really frustrated that the church has had so many scandals and still wants to portray them selfs as the defender of the poor and helpless.
    That is why, if i would be a practitioner of my faith i would do it on my own instead of joining one of these institutions.

    @ wtc : (hard one for me to explain): A couple of years ago i learned at school (in religion) that people have 2 or 3 ways of having a conscience, i believe. It was said there (i don't know the exact numbers, if their were any) that if children don't do something (stopping for a red light, grabbing a cookie from the yar,etc) their conscience kicks in because they were tought (=teach) that if their behavior is bad they will be punished. So they leave the cookie in the yar not because it is bad and it is stealing. But they do that because they know that they will get punished if they do. The latter stage is that you don't do it because you know it is wrong. But a lot of adults (and i don't know the numbers as stated) stay in the first way. They will not run a red light because they fear of being caught etc. I have to say it works with me that way as well. So what i tried to say was that for these people god simplifys things because if you don't care what the moral value of something is (don't steal etc) there isn't really a reason not to do it. As I said i was raised a Christian, and one day i started thinking about god and doing bad things. And i realized: the only one stopping me from doing bad things is me, and if i do bad things it won't matter unless i get caught...

    @ charles: i don't understand what you mean about the missing links and the random mutations. Evolution is just a numbers game. If you have such large populations it is just bound to happen. It is like that in the universe their are so many planets (because it is infinite) that there bound to be other planets like earth. Mutations in these large populations are rather small and it depends on the enviorment witch mutation has an advantage. This slight advantage over time get this mutation to be the norm. This of course means that some mutations will be bad and that these creatures will die. But when you look at the population evolution will make sure that the best survive.

    Aren't the darwin islands proof of his theory anyway?

    Grtz

  • Charles B.

    Even on the Galapagos Islands, a finch is still a finch and a tortoise is still a tortoise and an iguana is still an iguana. If adaptations happened, they still didn't change into a different type of animal. There is a documentary over the islands on this website I think. Why don't we watch it? I do so love Tortoises. I read an news article that they are trying to resurrect Lonesome George's type of tortoise by finding the mixed genes from other tortoises in other places on different islands. I hope they can.

  • HaTe_MaChInE

    Pretty sure Darwin had no theory of evolution. He wrote on natural selection.

    Natural selection has been proved many times. It is easiest seen in agriculture. Insects have become immune to many pesticides. The current generation of insects are better and stronger at resisting pesticides... but nothing else. Obviously mutation is a great benefit to any species that must adapt. These new species of insects might actually be incapable of surviving in what was once there natural environment, but it does not change the fact that the had to change to survive.

    Corn is another great example of natural selection. The most fruitful corn plants had a better chance of being replanted. Corn has changed so much in the last 500 years that modern corn is incapable of surviving on its one. It must be planted and tended or it will not survive.

    Both cases can easily show natural selection but also show that just because something adapts doesn't mean that is always better.

    So dna is not "smart"... it just allows organisms to be very adaptable. And although the idea(not a scientific theory) that life comes from the cosmos is an interesting notion there is plenty of organic material here on earth to start life without it be pre-packaged and sent here.

    It is human nature to want to believe in greater powers then ourselves. It is comforting to think that is something greater out there. The only problem is there is no proof.

    There is some pretty good evidence that "morality" is both nurture and nature. Many cultures accept suicide. In many non-western cultures to stop a suicide is immoral. That goes against most of our western nurture. I wonder if it was nature, nurture, or god that said it was a good idea to burn witches?

    The problem with science is that it is more complicated then religion so religion seems like a good answer. It is easy to say that the universe started with the stars already burning.

    "And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:"
    "And the evening and the morning were the fourth day."

    But the bible tells us that stars were not created until after oceans, dry land, and even trees and plants.

    UNKNOWN QUOTE
    "If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. "

  • Let's try logic

    When one poses a theory on this comment forum they might want to have some evidence or reference to back up that theory. If somebody claims to be a scientific and religious person, they should try to have some scientifice evidence or theory which paralels the religious claim.
    I find an opening line of this documentary amusing, "Only life gives rise to life." This is made as a statement, or meant to sound scientific, though it fails. This statement sounds akin to combining creationism with philosphy. Oh, well life must have to arise from life. I think it has been proven that the universe had a beginning and that it is still expanding. I believe there is evidence for this.

  • charles B IV

    CHarles b as in bell?

  • Charles B.

    Charles B IV:

    Sorry, I'm not a "Bell". I'm a different Charles B. My wife gets upset when I give out both my first and last name, but I have sometimes. Are you now the new "KingCharles" I saw on the comment's list?

  • Jonas X

    There is nothing RANDOM with the evolution theory. It is survival of the fittest, not some random pop up of a wing or leg. Don't you go to school in the US? And the "theory" is not flawed compared to the bible.
    If an animal have something that makes it a bit better than hes friend, he will most of the time be the one that mates and get offspring spreading that good gene that helped him to survive and of the offspring 1 out of 3 will survive and guess what...
    And if you want to see evolution in progress speed up by human control, look at your dog. Every dog is decent from wild wolves. Even a Chihuahua... by selection some properties, good or not so good for survival has been transfered to the next generation over and over. The transformation took about 2000 years. And it was not some work by creation of a god.
    By the way, you don't believe in Thor, Odin or some other ancient Nordic gods, how come? They had far more convincing stories that made them more realistic and their story of how the universe was made is almost the same as Christianity, but we can explain thunderstorms and the moon etc now so we abandoned them and every other God, except one for some people...

  • LadaDance

    dedicated to those who easily follow the wrong footsteps...
    what a nonsense!!!! plenty of disinformation including graphs and images!! so what’s he’s saying : it was all programmed from the beginning for us to eventually appear and dominate??? what a ***!#@$ lie!! think of monster lizards for example (dinosaurs) – if they didn’t dramatically dissappear from the arena of mutant life – there’d be no room whatsoever for mammals like us to flourish!!! u’d probably see yrself as one of the lil Madagascarian dwarf lemurs at a MAX!!!
    people!! eduacte yrself – read some books for ’s sake! written not by paranoid bunch of psychopaths!!! Freud would only cry these days……

  • Guest

    idk. i can't claim to know if this is true or not, but they seem a little too sure of themselves.

  • Guest

    i spoke too soon. yes, regulatory genes DO exist, but it doesn't change the fact that RANDOM mutations do occur. these add up over time. look at the simplest organisms on earth. they DO NOT share most the dna which more complex lifeforms possess.

  • Ryan

    i hope people don't believe this. the last thing we need is more people believing evolution is false. it's just not and you don't need to be a genius to understand it either. it's just sad that so many people are ignorant of its premises. it is common sense.

  • Nobodies Right

    @Guest...yes they do

  • allan

    If their is a god, may he strike me down now. Nah, he won't do it, he wouldn't dare, that pussy.

  • neil

    is it good or bad to watch ?
    @_@

  • Sveet

    As hate machine stated earlier, one must make a division between evolution and natural selection, and the ability thereof of natural selection to cause life as we know it.

    If you heard that we proved that the creation of life on this planet is capable solely through chance, you are wrong. There is a possibility but alot of theory right now goes on the preconditions that through random chance (mutation which is the cornerstone of evolution) that life is in terms of information theory just plain unlikely.

    Thats kinda why we have the theory of panspermia right...hey even dawkins is down with it...

    Andrew

  • Emily

    Hey, it's always good to hear all arguments for or against any scientific theory. Curiosity and speculation are what give rise to scientific advancement, after all. This is a very interesting documentary, but please note the mood being presented here. Everything is explained as fact, yet not a shred of actual evidence is presented. New evidence for Darwinian evolution is constantly reinforcing the theory, and the ideas presented in this documentary are just that; ideas.

  • Kurt

    I follow know one, or words, or books. I'm carving my own path. The creator that made me flesh is within me. This creator within tells me to carve my own path, where the truth lies, nowhere else. No outside the of the body place or projected God can instruct me otherwise. Simply being the best human as I can is my will and destiny. If only we all can do this- we need no GOVERNMENT, RELIGION, or MONITARY systems. This is the only planet within light years that has these three evils. Which offer us nothing but sadness, fear, and greed.

  • Riley

    since this planet has abundant life, and no other planet in the near environs has anything like such abundant life, and the nearest planets outside our solar system are, shall we say, a bit further away...

    WHY does the thesis that the primal mechanisms of life arose elsewhere have such appeal?

    for those who so believe, the question still remains to account for their ultimate origins, wherever they occured.

    the idea that conditions on an asteroid or comet where, somehow, more dynamic, or congenial for the combinatorics of conditions than the surface and interior of a geoloically active and hydrated planet, with all the elements which compose life at the ready, in liquid phase

    make absolutely no sense to me.

    we know that much water and lighter elements were deposited upon earth by extraterrestrial bodies during the periods of bombardment (when the planets were forming / formed, sorting out the orbits), and so the participation of later acquisition of vital materials is not a controversial notion at all.

    but to think that much of the magic happened in the cold of interplanetary or interstellar space - the feasibility or appeal of that notion, in comparison to the more conventional understanding, escapes me. some rudimentary polymerization yes, beyond that - not much.

  • Sick of Lies

    Charles B. YOU always hit the head on the nail...

  • evolution for the win

    Kurt I pictured you saying that with a joint and or a bong near by...

    If you have watched numerous documentaries regarding evolution, darwinism, and the origins of life (and im talking new ones not ones that are even 5 years old) You should now realize that without a doubt we are the product of:

    A big star explodes in sky
    Debris collects and forms planets
    planets based on gravitational pull make their way around the sun (the star which exploded)
    Earth within that perfect distance from the sun is now able to sustain life
    Atoms have a little song n dance in the water, more complex organisms start to form and evolve based on their surroundings, survival of fittest, etc.

    Only thing that cant be or ive never heard an explanation on is where did that energy come from to cause that explosion? Cause personal I do believe there is a god and it's energy.

  • jacks

    SETI - Photo courtesy of NASAFor decades, speculation about extraterrestrial life[1] has been boosted by tales of flying saucers and encounters with aliens. In 1996 this was fueled from another source. NASA researchers claimed to have found evidence for simple life forms in a meteorite, allegedly from Mars, found in Antarctica.

    Since then, this “proof” of life in the “Mars rock” has very much lost lost favor among the scientific community.[2] The supposed “nanofossils” were probably no more than magnetite whiskers plus artifacts of the experimental process.[3]
    Despite this, the 2 kg rock ignited a new surge of “Mars fever.” In the next 20 years, the Americans, Europeans, Japanese, and Russians plan around 20 projects to explore our neighboring planet, which is some 78 million kilometers away at its closest approach to us.

    Meanwhile, belief in extraterrestrial intelligence continues to grow with an almost religious fervor.

    The UFO Wave
    Harvard University psychiatry professor Dr. John E. Mack recently attracted worldwide attention with his collection of cases of people claiming they were “abducted by aliens.”

    There was also the release of a film of an alleged autopsy on an alien from a crash in New Mexico close to the U.S. Air Force Base at Roswell. The blurry footage, which most have dismissed as an obvious and crude forgery, was nevertheless the main attraction at the 1995 UFO World Congress in Dusseldorf, Germany.

    Then of course there was the “alien invasion” film Independence Day, which grossed more in its opening week than any other previous film.

    A recent poll in Germany revealed that 17 percent of the population believe in visits by alien craft, while 31 percent believe there is intelligent life in other galaxies.

    What should Christians think about UFO accounts?

    Science
    1. Never a single contact with an “extraterrestrial”

    In 1900, the French Academy of Science offered a prize of 100,000 francs for the first person to make contact with an alien civilization—so long as the alien was not from Mars, because the academy was convinced that Martian civilization was an established fact!

    Since then, not a trace of “little green men,” or indeed any life, has been found on any of the planets that our probes have explored, including Mars.

    Despite this, a great number of astronomers think that, since life supposedly evolved here on earth, it must have evolved near one of the many stars out there. Around the world SETI (Search for Extra Terrestrial Intelligence) researchers have scanned the sky, looking in vain for signals from intelligent beings. Despite all the listening, on thousands of frequencies over many years, nothing indicating intelligent life has ever been heard.

    2. Conditions must be “just right”

    Life on any planet can only survive provided a great number of very stringent requirements are met. For example, the planet must be at the right distance from its sun, so as to be neither too hot nor too cold. In particular, it must be in a very narrow temperature range so that liquid water exists.

    Even if planets around other stars are confirmed, it is extremely improbable that any of them would fulfill all the requirements needed for life. Just having liquid water is completely insufficient, despite the excitement created when such was possibly detected on the surface of Jupiter's moon, Europa. (The fluid is now thought to be sulfuric acid.)

    3. Life cannot form spontaneously anyway

    Without intelligent, creative input, lifeless chemicals cannot form themselves into living things.[4] This is the theory of spontaneous generation, disproved by the great creationist founder of microbiology, Louis Pasteur. Without unfounded evolutionary speculation, UFOlogy would not have its present grip on the public imagination.

    4. Vast distances

    Even if we assumed life existed somewhere else in the universe, a visit by extraterrestrials to earth, such as is claimed in UFO reports, seems completely impracticable, if not impossible. The distances (and therefore the likely travel times) are unimaginably vast.

    The closest star to the earth, Proxima Centauri (a-Centauri C) is 40.7 million million kilometers (approximately 25 million million miles) away. The Apollo flights took three days to get to the moon. At the same speed, one would need 870,000 years to get to the nearest star. Of course, one could accelerate (particularly unmanned) probes to a greater speed.

    At the incredible speed of one-tenth the speed of light, the trip, one way would still take 43 years. However, one would need enormous amounts of energy for such an acceleration, roughly equivalent to the electricity consumption of the entire world's population for one month.

    Furthermore, in every cubic kilometer of space, there are an estimated 100,000 dust particles (made up of silicates and ice) weighing only a tenth of a gram. At such a velocity, colliding with even one of these tiny objects could destroy a spaceship.[5]

    So what about UFOs?
    How then, should one understand the UFO phenomena and all the associate hype? In the German magazine Focus, it was recently stated “90% of UFO reports turn out to be a humbug, but there is a residual 10% which are not easy to dismiss.”[6]

    The article quoted sociologist Gerald Eberlain as saying:

    Research has shown that people who are not affiliated with any church, but who claim they are religious, are particularly susceptible to the possible existence of extraterrestrials. For them, UFOlogy is a substitute religion.[7]

    The Bible gives a description of reality concerning all living things. The living God reveals himself as the Triune One—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. In heaven, there are the angels, powerful created beings who also serve mankind on earth.
    There is another kingdom—that of the devil and the demons.[8] Ephesians 2:2 talks about the “prince of the power of the air,” whose reign is on earth.

    The devil has his own repertoire of deception in the form of various occult practices and a multitude of religious rites. It could be that behind those unexplainable UFO reports there is the work of the arch-deceiver.[9] UFO reports, by definition, remain nebulous and not identifiable. People who do not know Christ are easily fascinated by all sorts of phenomena that are difficult to explain. For Christians there is Jesus' warning in Matthew 24:4 to “Take heed that no man deceive you.” What is the best antidote to deception? Paul exhorts us, in 2 Timothy 2:15, “study” the Scripture, so we might “accurately handle the word of truth.”

    Secret Bases?… Government Cover-ups?
    Many UFO enthusiasts spread the “urban myth” of secret U.S. government experiments on aliens, etc.—an idea reinforced by the movie Independence Day. However, does a cover-up make sense when, under the inspiration of atheists like the late Carl Sagan, the U.S. government has spent millions of taxpayers' dollars listening “out there” for signs of intelligent extraterrestrial life? Many other evolutionary humanists, like Sagan, passionately believe that intelligent life has evolved “out there” in addition to earth, and would pounce on any hard evidence for this idea. Consider the media frenzy about the “life in Mars rock” fiasco. To imagine that a much more exciting discovery would be kept secret for decades defies credibility.

    Feasibility of Inter-stellar Travel
    The following calculations are given for the benefit of the more technically minded.

    1.For a spacecraft to acquire a speed of c/10, the kinetic energy needed is given accurately enough by the non-relativistic formula of mv2. For a very small unmanned spacecraft of 10 kg, this is x 10 kg x (3 x 107 m/s)2 = 4.5 x 1015 J, or approximately the whole world's electricity production for a month.
    For a manned spacecraft weighing several tons, the energy requirements would greatly exceed the world's annual electricity consumption. For the city-sized spacecraft in Independence Day, the energy requirements would be staggering. And when the spacecraft slowed again, it would use up to almost this amount of energy in braking.

    If the spacecraft had to accelerate to c/10, slow down, and speed up many times, the energy needed would be many times greater.

    It would probably be impossible for enough fuel to be carried without some sort of antimatter drive. If perfect annihilation—complete conversion of matter to energy (E=mc2)—where possible, 1 ton of antimatter could annihilate 1 ton of ordinary matter to produce: 2000 kg x (3 x 108 m/s)2, or 1.8 x 1020 J. And this is the absolute maximum amount of energy that could be produced from a given mass of fuel. A real spacecraft could be nowhere near this efficient.

    2.The kinetic energy of a speck of dust with a mass of just 0.1 gram impacting at a tenth the speed of light, calculated from the spacecraft's reference frame, is mv2, or

    x 10-4 kg x (3 x 107 m/s)2 = 4.5 x 1010 J.

    The combustion energy of TNT is 4,520 kJ/kg, or 4.52 x 109 J/ton. So 4.5 x 1010 J is equivalent to 9.95 tons of TNT. Therefore, the impact energy of a 0.1 g object hitting a spacecraft traveling at c/10 would be equivalent to an explosion of about 10 tons of TNT.

  • jacks

    im sorry... but we are alone, im sure promise....

  • Achems Razor

    @ jacks:

    Okay, a scientific expose on how interstellar travel is nigh impossible.

    Now give us a scientific expose of how space travel is nigh impossible and how everything came into existence by your gods, without any bible circular logic. You have presented some hard facts, do the same with your religion.

  • John Seals

    @ Jacks

    You should be ashamed for trying to pass such childish gibberish off as truth. Who are you to say chemicals can not spontaneousely assemble themselves to create life. We know that given the right conditions and elements we get the spontaneouse generation of amino acids- one of the building blocks of life. Scientists also feel very sure that they will one day discover the right recipe and the right environment to yield life. In the end we may have to except that it was a quantum fluctuation that created the universe. Perhaps the fluctuation that created the universe yeilded all the proceeding systems that now flourish- life, weather, oceanic, all systems. Who knows- surely not you or me. The answer to every question that was worth asking turned out to be logical- why should we abandon that experience when it comes to our creation? So people like you and your zombie friends can feel safe? Sorry but it causes to much damage. The rights of the individual end where they begin to encroach on the rights of another. Belief is poisonous segregation of the masses in order to define and control. Believe in nothing but the scientific method- which says not to believe in anything.

  • mike

    dna evolved like everything else.random mutation is governed,through natural selection. clearly this guy does not understand natural selection. what a joke this was. if your eyes are glased over with his made up projections and asumtions and lack of knowlege of what sceintist do not claim.. i sugest watching the blind watchmaker, richard dawkins does a wonderful job of explaining natural selection. dna has no goals in mind,nor does evolution.

    all this guy did was move the goal post to another planet.live had to start from chemicals and natural processes somewhere. we know for a fact that all the chemicals and amino acids are pleantyful on earth. and are finding ,the same things on other planets and extraterestrial bodies as well. abiogenisis explains how live most likely started..natural selection and the processes of evolution takes over from there.

    get a real education based on evidence.not speculation and lack of evidence like this guy has done. the scientific method works...making stuff up to fill in gaps,,is religion

  • Randy

    Yeaaah...

    Huxley said, "...perhaps this planet is HELL for some other world..." Yeah, I can see that, certainly.

    Dio wrote, "Tell a little truth with many lies, it's the only way I've found..."

    This guy seems to have captured that here.

    To me anyway...

  • Galloway Grumblefield

    Why must life have come from some other planet? Isn't this just pushing the ball down the road? Why couldn't life have its origin on earth? I don't discount the possibility that cells originated from elsewhere, but I am looking for a reason why someone would make this assumption.

  • Epicurus

    @galloway, the simple explanation that that hypothesis would be proposed is because so far we have had a very hard time formulating a working theory that would see life rise here on earth.

    so we have a number of hypothesis for panspermia, and abiogenesis yet no complete theories.

    i personally think the Miller-Urey experiment is the best we have so far.

    good question though, and you are VERY right that it is merely pushing the ball down the road but actually backwards. it explains how life got here, but not how it formed. which is the real question.

  • Galloway Grumblefield

    @Jacks:
    "Research has shown that people who are not affiliated with any church, but who claim they are religious, are particularly susceptible to the possible existence of extraterrestrials. For them, UFOlogy is a substitute religion."

    Yeah, but another way of stating that is to say that devout believers who are affiliated with a church tend to discount all other theories of genesis because they have rationalized and assimilated their religious dogma. For instance, creationists tend to be of the Abrahamic religions, because their creation narrative conforms to their interpretation of the Bible. To say that spiritual, but not religiously affiliated people are more likely to accept the possibility of ufos is easy to explain, when you add that spiritual people who are not religiously affiliated are also more likely to accept evolution than their religiously affiliated counterparts.

  • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDLL8kFn2wo Kurrrt

    Coded Gene expression w/feedback within the change of environment. It's a pounding of information, like every doc should be.

  • Sean

    I highly doubt that the Earth is the only planet in the entire universe that has allowed for complex creatures to evolve. The Universe as a whole is about 3 times the age of our solar system. There are 100's of billions of galaxies in the Universe. This video doesn't go into anything related to origin of biological life, but to me it seems to state the obvious. Stars and solar systems are born, they live, then they die. The remnants are eventually recycled and new solar systems are born. Just like humans, who are born, live, reproduce, and die, the cosmos is alive and operates in cycles. This video illustrates that the Universe is homogenous, and that life may be an intrinsic feature of the Universe. Many people feel that they must divide the material of the cosmos into categories of living and non-living things, which creates the question of how living things originated. Perhaps what is presented in this video is accurate, and that everything in the universe is alive, and the ways in which life unfolds, interacts with the environment, and metamorphs is programmed into the very fabric of everything that exists. Panspermia makes more sense to me than abiogenesis.

  • Shammeerr

    *id iot

  • Erica

    The idea of bacteria surviving and traveling to other planets via asteroids is very interesting and plausible. However, the evolution leading up to Homo sapiens sapiens could not be repeated on another planet. Our successful reproduction is what determines which genes get passed on. On another planet, even if it was nearly identical, the most intelligent life forms to evolve would most likely not look like us- too much depends on chance gene mutations and environmental changes.

  • riley

    have seen/heard elsewhere that there is a possibility of life originating on mars and pushing here via asteroids because:

    mars might have been habitable earlier than earth

    this would provide a larger window for abiogenesis to have occured because it happened so quickly on earth (between ~4.2 => 3.8 bya)

    however, there is also the notion that even with a total melt off of the oceans (resulting from large asteroid collisions), regions far enough below the surface could have shielded life even under such catastrophic extremes (the interior goldilocks zone, within the crust at depths of up to )

    some also speculate that comets - having clay, water, radioactive materials, the requisite elements, and a huge mass considered in aggregate - are a far likelier source for the origin of life than EITHER earth or mars.

    there is a lot of tumult & speculation in this field (origins of life, study of archaic life) - which is part of its attraction.

  • Abhi

    why it is not sound original & authentic to me:

    1. It is anti-theory,originals don't cross so explicitly.
    2. Why we see effects of evolution on simple thing as mosquitoes, they become more & more resistable to vaccines.
    3. How does 'smart DNA' know it is the right time to show up?
    4. I agree that there are only 4 base constituents of DNA (CTAG) and arranging them differently gives different species but this doesn't mean that some species you never saw exists. It is like some dish my girlfriend can cook because things which she will cook from exist but it doesn't exist yet.
    5. These DNAs are made of nitrogenous base, sugar, phosphates and if these elements already exists in universe why not some new kind of Alien_DNA can exist which contains some other elements & then the genetic library will be completely different.
    I will say this doc shown us some strong scientific facts but it is not something I will buy so easily.
    **Fun Fact: I do not hate religious people :) , I will say religion helped us built this society but too much of it is harmful.

  • Mad

    I would seriously live on Mars or the Moon and never come back to earth if I could survive and procreate.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1113004470 Christian Smith

    life most likely started int the earths interior where great pressures help to fuse together the building blocks of life. in this way gravity is your father luke

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100001275253452 Sean Mahon

    are u saying with a simple amino acid that u can create a dog or what ever that speaks?I am sure ur in box must be filled with Pro Darwin hate mail.
    I agree with your findings 1000 percent when a theory is inly partially realized such as darwins it only shows that the theory itself was flawed but a great investigative point to start from

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Xercès-Des-Stèles/100002540053129 Xercès Des Stèles

    i think its true its gonna happen, during my life time? no, but i feel like i'm gonna be influenced in some way by those who can profit from my fear of it.

  • http://www.facebook.com/rc.montebon Rc Montebon

    i wonder how life begins and our connection with life. why we are created? what is the purpose of man's creation? who brought us in planet earth and in what way planet earth exists? does it mean also that there are other human beings in other parts of the universe? how universe came into being and why we correlate with it?

  • Demoorelizer

    I feel like this entire documentary was produced by a science person and transcribed into script and read by non scientists. Because some of the things they say do not make sense. Darwin's theory doesn't explain gene regulation in DNA, and Darwin's theory isn't all about just being random, it's about change towards greater reproductive potential which stays inheritable.
    The idea that DNA can code from any animal on the planet starting at the first genome that inhabited this planet is strange. It ignores size and complexity along with the regulatory(broad) proteins that are different in other organisms.
    I mean theres single and double stranded
    Different genome sizes ranging from 160K bp to 670B kp. (bacteria to ameoba)

    Seriously the english major that wrote this doc has no idea how to convey science. Saying things are fact and that we come from other planets and discounting theories based upon the verbatum of their definition and disregarding the entire context of the theory is idiotic.
    DARWIN'S THEORY ISN'T F#%$ING RANDOM!

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1494181868 Len Mckee

    If you haven't yet read it, the Urantia Book does present a perfect fit for "creation through evolution." Science is the search for truth ... well, that is what religion claims also -- but there is a huge gulf between the two. IMO Science is eons ahead of religion in it's practicle search for truth. Religion is still stuck on tradation and mysticism and any effort to move beyond is too often viewed as heretical. When considering practicality and the cosmos, the whole "heaven or hell" concept just doesn't add up. Why would God design such a plan that in just a few short years of earth life, that one MUST make that most important determinations. There just isn't enough time to do such, and most make decisions based on tradition and the norms. For instance, what one would choose to believe as reality in the dark ages is surely not what one would choose to think today.

  • http://twitter.com/mingala3 Zaw ne yaa

    I thank a lot to moderator and contributors of this site, wishing you all luck.

  • http://www.facebook.com/sanjay.dosaj.14 Sanjay Dosaj

    I have a paper accepted in a reputed international journal for evolution of life on Mars. This is shortly going to be published. It gives a comprehensive strategy to plant life on the red planet.

  • Pysmythe

    Now here is something I am immensely interested in!
    When you say "plant life," do you mean as in life, in general, or actual plants? And if the latter, does it involve some kind of long-term terraforming first, or could the plants (or bacteria?) themselves be engineered to do that?
    Also, would it be possible to read your article somewhere online when it comes out?

  • chelsea

    Currently humans here on earth are on course to cause our own extinction, and that of many other species on earth.. One problem I see with this theory is that it is very homocentric-- just because we are intelligent doesn't mean that DNA exists to create us, or that humans are the only possible ingelligent species. Dolphins have bigger brains than humans pound for pound--what if they had billions more years to evolve? Perhaps there are extremely advanced dolphins on other planets.) If this theory is correct, I wonder if the societal problems we suffer of callousness for our fellow humans, greed, and inability to plan for the future are expected courses of events? Will we evolve before we destroy ourselves? Or perhaps we are not capable of overcoming the damage done-- what if this is as far as humans have ever gotten?

  • Eric Tong

    Very interesting video. The show tries to weave science and evolution with the concept of a creator/God. To me science and religion are the two sides of the same coin (minus all the religious predictions of life and death), similar to how you have the frontal lobe for reasoning and interaction between physical information (speech, emotion, etc) and you have the temporal lobe for visualization, dreams, and other ethereal things.

    If you are into computers, the operating system would be in the frontal lobe with its programs and harddrive (and this harddrive can remember everything), the RAM and CPU would be temporal lobe, your input (feel, taste, touch, smell, see, and probably another one known as instinct) and output (physical movement, speech, and action) would be everything else.

    As one would expect we are still evolving or more so learning more about everything around us. I'm not sure where I read it from but some article said that "We are receiving and processing much more information in a day than what was contained in a whole week (or month) a few centuries ago.

    Do you ever look up to or feel jealous toward someone who is better than you? We all have. But here science is telling us 90% of your DNA; your life is unwritten, start writing it. Who knows what you could accomplish if you actually used all the sources at your disposal with the will and persistence to carry it out as completely as possible.

    The greatest achievements in life aren't those gained by luck or a stroke of ingenuity, but the ones in which you tread through rain, hail, blizzard, and firestorms to attain.

  • Kip Keino

    Google: 'Mastodons on Mars' and you'll get a fun-to-read e-book which touches on some of the topics in the video.

  • Rough McHewn

    Good comment.
    It is equally true that we homo sapiens would or could not be replicated again on Earth: Too many variables!
    Evolution requires the survival or the fittest in its environment at that particular time.

  • Rough McHewn

    Too much for me.
    It seems as though he wants to ignore natural selection in the evolutionary process which is the key to what Darwin discovered.
    This documentary seems to be saying that if we were to replicate the conditions, a T-Rex could pop up at a moments notice. I have my doubts.
    For me, it is as easy to imagine that life as we know it started here on earth, as to imagine that it started somewhere else and was transported here. Neither one impossible, but the same "seed" producing the exact same array of species in the same order, wherever it lands, in spite of great variability in conditions: no, I'm from Missouri.

  • Abhijit Parial

    5 mins in I exclaimed, fear science!

  • root

    Panspermia is an interesting hypothesis for the origin of life on Earth, but this offers no scientific evidence for it.

    It cannot be discounted, but then there is the problem of where did the original DNA come from.
    So really it's just kicking the can down the road.