Comments on: Evolution of Life On Other Planets: Even the Gods Have Gods

By: Demoorelizer

Demoorelizer — Fri, 20 Apr 2012 11:25:00 +0000

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!

By: Rc Montebon

Rc Montebon — Sat, 18 Feb 2012 01:09:00 +0000

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?

By: Gene Vienneau

Gene Vienneau — Tue, 14 Feb 2012 20:26:00 +0000

I like ice cream

By: Xercès Des Stèles

Xercès Des Stèles — Tue, 23 Aug 2011 01:09:00 +0000

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.

By: Sean Mahon

Sean Mahon — Tue, 05 Apr 2011 16:31:00 +0000

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

By: Christian Smith

Christian Smith — Wed, 02 Mar 2011 08:22:00 +0000

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

By: Mad

Mad — Mon, 24 Jan 2011 03:42:44 +0000

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

By: Abhi

Abhi — Sat, 25 Dec 2010 10:43:19 +0000

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.

By: riley

riley — Sat, 11 Dec 2010 19:42:22 +0000

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.

By: Erica

Erica — Sat, 11 Dec 2010 17:56:58 +0000

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.

By: Shammeerr

Shammeerr — Sun, 05 Dec 2010 05:55:28 +0000

*id iot

By: Sean

Sean — Sat, 06 Nov 2010 00:34:55 +0000

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.

By: Kurrrt

Kurrrt — Tue, 02 Nov 2010 13:29:42 +0000

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

By: Galloway Grumblefield

Galloway Grumblefield — Fri, 03 Sep 2010 23:16:58 +0000

@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.

By: Epicurus

Epicurus — Fri, 03 Sep 2010 23:14:56 +0000

@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.