Through The Wormhole: How Did We Get Here?

2010, Science  -   70 Comments
Ratings: 8.11/10 from 36 users.

Through The Wormhole: How Did We Get Here?Everywhere we look, life exists in both the most hospitable of environments and in the most extreme. Yet we have only ever found life on our planet. How did the stuff of stars come together to create life as we know it? What do we really mean by 'life'? And will unlocking this mystery help us find life elsewhere?

About 4.6 billion years ago, our solar system resembled a giant cloud of swirling cosmic dust, hydrogen and other gases. As with the thousands of other such clouds in our galaxy, some of these molecules began condensing, gathering and creating their own gravity.

Eventually these small clumps formed what became our sun — a star surrounded by a quickly moving, flat disc made up of the cloud's leftovers. These leftovers also developed into our solar system's planets, asteroid belt and other interstellar bodies.

Earth's relative proximity to the sun meant that gases were largely burned away in those early days, leaving a rocky, metal-rich planet made from planetesimals, or smaller cosmic bodies. These same planetesimals also may have brought water and gases later. Often made of ice, they helped to plant the seeds for what would become a fertile, water-rich planet with a healthy atmosphere, capable of protecting life from the sun's harmful rays.

This is the fifth episode. See the list of all episodes here: Through The Wormhole.

More great documentaries

70 Comments / User Reviews

Leave a Reply to eireannach666 Cancel reply

  1. Matt Wellheuser

    As of this time, I am blocked from seeing this and one other episode for 'some' reason, however from your 'discussions' I can imply that it is basically evolution theory. There is something wrong with the mind that can't accept that two opposing theories might just be parts of a bigger theory, not even saying that either theory is fact or theory or that the more inclusive theory is even fact in and of itself. If it is given that science can explain everything down to the smallest and largest particle or 'universe', the question begs; how did that all happen?

  2. Mohd Azizi

    morgan freeman always told story about himself in the beginning

  3. zeronomo

    who really cares how the origin of life began most of us meer mortals are more concerned with just the daily struggle to pay your bills and feed our families , honestly most so called scientist are just parasities

    1. Likejuice

      Well a lot of people who choose to live life and not concern themselves with easy, trivial things like paying bills and eating have a curiosity about the unknown. I thank those people for giving me the internet, automobiles and 5 minute rice.

      It's sad you're caught up in the rat race and unable to just breath and be content with life and your surroundings. What's more sad is your lack of human spirit.

  4. Lance Marchetti

    I doubt seriously whether Sir William of Ockham would concur with your synopsis my friend. All the best with your research.

  5. Lance Marchetti

    Thanks RG Sickles for your insightful comments. I should hope then that the 'real minds' you speak of, have at least studied the serious inconsistencies within Theistic Evolution, if that's how you are implying the Cosmos came into existence. You speak of the 'wonderment of Creation', so why is it then that all the 'wise' comments being exchanged here do not mention the greatest mind of all (Jesus the Christ of Nazareth - the Creator of the Multiverse)? I guess that would incur the wrath of empiricists deluxe! least those who have not found the desired balance between logical and radical empiricism.
    Cheers... great debating by the way.

    1. Achems_Razor

      @Lance Marchetti:

      What? your deity, "Jesus the Christ of Nazareth" even if he even existed was a mere mortal, a tiny, tiny, carbon unit of no consequence to the vastness and time frame of the cosmos.

      And you say the creator of the multiverse also, which one out of ten multiverses are you referring too?

      Funny religee's!

  6. RG Sickels

    Hey, Lance:
    1. It does not matter how old the cosmos is. What matters is that we understand how old the cosmos is.
    2. "Why" we got here and "how" we got her are inextricably linked. You may prefer one priority over another but that is only your preference, not a universal mandate. There is no "should."
    3. Your suspicions (sic) are correct: evolution theorists are taking over the globe. That's because they (we) are scientifically, empirically, demonstrably, and unabashedly correct. It is not the world's thinking that needs to change, it is yours.
    4. I'll just skip a bunch of your gibberish and get back to the "why." Desperate souls in need of answers demand a Why. Thoughtful, truly soulful ones (many of whom do not believe in the soul - so what? - doesn't mean they don't have 'em) - can open their minds and hearts to the true wonderment of Creation, accept it, and say, "why not?" And therein lies Grace.
    5. Pseudo-Science: that's what you're doing. False knowledge. Get your act together before you duel with some of the real minds hanging around this joint.

    I'd like to go on but I'm tired. Have a good night.

  7. Lance Marchetti

    Here we go again with the 'Millionz of years' garble again... as long as we get it drummed into our skulls by National Geographic et al. that we're all very old indeed! So what? If the cosmos were a mere 10,000 years old... what would that matter?
    The question should be "Why Did We Get Here?" , not "How Did We Get Here?"
    I suspicion that certain ‘elite’ Evolution Theorists, parading as real scientists, have seized and taken control of the ‘Science’ Media across the globe. They like to dwell so much in the unobserved past that they've become so entirely convinced that Darwinian Evolution is a fact, that they themselves have become an autonomy on explaining to the world how we all got here . And if you differ, you’re labeld an *****! No-one else has any say; certainly not if one happens to be a believer in a Divine first cause for Life; especially if you have no doctorate, degree, or peer-review status.

    Pseudo-Science has gathered to herself, funding, government grants, elite club status, media connections… all to get a VITAL message across that Humanity came from somewhere and are going nowhere… for no apparent reason other than to exist without apparent cause. Go figure!

    Yet they steer clear of the 'Why'. Perhaps that would seem too 'religious' or philosophical, to endeavor to provide answers on Origins that may touch on the metaphysical. ('Genesis chapter 1’. In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.) Oops. That may just make us accountable to a Creator!
    Hence, I lay it out there… Science is afraid that religious ideas might take all her toys away.
    Religious belief will spoil the ’scientific’ fun of airing documentaries promoting more propaganda on man’s purposeless existence in the Universe! Shame!

    p.s If you’re scratching your head right now… you’re on the right track. ?

    Lance Marchetti
    South Africa

    1. tonimd

      Have you watched the whole series? One of the first episodes they go into the science behind a Creator. And the Evolution Theory can work with religion. I dont know why people are so stuck on the idea that they have to be separate.

      Now science doesnt touch on WHY we are here because that is subject to opinion, not facts and mathematics.

    2. Lance Marchetti

      Hi Tonimd. Yes, I have watched it all. Honest scholars who wish to discover Truth and discuss these matters must investigate all possible angles regarding a theory... I think you would agree.
      There is definitely a valid argument to Evolution and Religion being incompatible. A simple Google search e.g. "why evolution and God are incompatible" renders over a million results. Check out a few.

      'How' I got to the escort agency is not nearly as interesting as to 'Why' I was there. Because that's what people will talk about.

      So if Science (which we know means 'knowledge'), can merely render opinions on the knowledge of Man's purpose for existence... then against which Prime Truth is the opinion measured?

      All the Best.

    3. profdobro

      You are kidding right?

  8. Space_Cadet_1952

    H G Wells and Carl Gustav Jung should have got together. They would have collectively deduced that, as with 'The War of The Worlds' and 'The Collective Unconscious', we are in fact the real Martians who came to earth in exactly the manner and form as described in the story, except that we were in a micro- as opposed to a macro-scopic form. Further proving that all our cosmic life history is locked within our brains, if only we are able to extract it - like so-called 'lost information' from objects falling into a Black Hole.

    Truth resonates within us like an Eigen tone. That rush of excitement and emotion when we experience the sensations of a ‘light bulb’ moment. When the fog lifts and the landscape becomes clearly and sharply defined by brilliant sunshine.

    Hawking eventually admitted that he was wrong about Hawking Radiation in the end, and accepted the proofs submitted by The Plumber, Leonard Susskind, who admits to being a Martian, unlike Stephen Hawking who thinks he's from Earth. This just goes to prove that not only civilisation but life itself is all based on reliable plumbing. We plumbers instinctively know these elementary things when clearing blocked drains. If proof were needed that you don’t have to be an eminent astrophysicist to understand the big questions and find the answers, just a thinking plumber. LOL.

    1. Andrew Vallier

      hawking was not wrong about the radiation, he was wrong about the information of consumed objects being completely destroyed. technically, your plumber, Leonard Susskind is from earth. he was born and raised on the planet. the only martians are our ancestors that started life on this planet.

  9. jonathan jackward

    I would love to see anyone out there prove through any experiment that inorganic material can spontaneously create an organism or that it ever has, this is simply an assumption.

    1. Travis Sichel

      I would like too see you prove that it didn't.

      And all science is theory and assumptions, though its better then sticking our heads in the ground and not even trying.

    2. thedilema

      your right, who are we to say science is taking the right path when the universe or whatever could be leading us astary. To be honest we've only really understood science in the last 100 years... but when we strip it back to the roots we dont have a scooby doo what its about.

    3. millieboo47

      Me too i know what you trying to say.

  10. SFF

    Nice big announcement NASA...your 4 months too late.

  11. Andrew

    Thanks its working now ! :)

  12. Andrew

    Great series but when i click the watch video now it says

    invaild or unknjown video link
    can someone re up it please?


  13. Greywall

    “What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe?… Up to now, most scientists have been too occupied with the development of new theories that describe what the universe is to ask the question why?” - "Stephen Hawking"

  14. Epicurean_Logic

    Thanks for filling the gap there @Scott, got sidetrackd for a while!! So lets do a little math... Ok, where were we? Oh yes, a higher view of Algebra.


    Closure: Not really that useful for Algebraic manipulation! more of a requirement for sets of numbers and the operations that combine them (add and multiply); the result must aslo be in the set... more of a requirement! nuff said.


    Identity elements: 0 is the additive identity and 1 is the multiplicative identity, basically adding 0 to any number or multiplying any number by 1 leaves the original number unchanged, So

    1 + 0 = 1, 5 * 1 = 5

    12 + 0 = 12, 28 * 1 = 28

    m + 0 = m, n * 0 = n

    In terms of algebraic manipulation this turns out to be useful and often is overlooked!!

    30/30 =1, 284/284 = 1, k/k =1 ... (#)

    so given a horrible expression like 39/47 + p/k for example we can always simplify by using the multiplicative identity element 1. How do we do that? easy... since the identity has the property that we can multiply it by anything and the statement/equation doesn't change in the above example,

    39/47 * 1 = 39/47 * k/k (=1 by aforementioned statements #)

    So 39/47 + p/k = 39/47(k/k) + p/k(47/47) (k/k and 47/47 were chosen that we can link the sums!!)

    = 39k/47k +47p/47k (now you see why!! to add fractions we make the downstairs part of the fraction the same)

    =(39k + 47p)/47k (final statement)

    his may not look to useful but you will use it so many times that it is worth having a closer look at it)

    The additive identity element 0 has the following use in algebraic manipulation: horrible expression #2,

    37/p - 17q = 42/p ($)

    adding anything to both sides has the overall effect of adding 0 (think about it), so lets subtract 37/p to both sides, why? because it will simplify the expression.

    ($) => 37/p - 17q - 37/p = 42/p - 37/p

    => 37/p -37/p - 17q = 42/p - 37/p (by commutativity)

    => -17q = 5/p therefore q = -5/17p (final statement)


    The only other rule is for inverses! again not too useful for our current purpose!


    The only other thing left to say is dont worry, take your time, smoke a cigarillo and have a think about it!!

    Quote: Mr K.A Stroud - 'The ability to work at ones own pace throughout is of utmost importance in maintaining motivation and attaining mastery'

  15. Scott


  16. Epicurean_Logic

    Interlude: He Tells of the Perfect Beauty

    O cloud-pale eyelids, dream-dimmed eyes,
    The poets labouring all their days
    To build a perfect beauty in rhyme
    Are overthrown by a woman's gaze....


  17. Epicurean_Logic

    @ez2b12, In the commutativity part the plus and multiply parts got squished together this is a little clearer.

    5 + 9 = 9 + 5 ' ..... ' 5 * 9 = 9 * 5

    7 + (-3) = (-3) + 7 ' ..... '7 * (-3) = (-3) * 7

    % + $ = $ + % ' ...... ' (-$) * % = % * (-$)

    The '.......' have no math significance they are just a way to show the spacings between the seperate statements.

  18. Epicurean_Logic

    @ ez2b12, sometimes going up a level and looking down at things allows you to see the bigger picture more clearly.

    An higher level overview of Algebra:

    Take a set of objects (usually numbers) AND an operation that links these objects (The fundamental operations are *equals*, *add* and *multiply*) then if certain conditions are satisfied we can call the objects and operations an Algebra.

    (The more natural way to think of algebra is ' how to manipulate numbers and operations')

    What are the conditons? The real answer is anything that produces meaningful results. For our purposes we have a very familiar set of conditions (called axioms). You know the axioms but probably havn't seen them described in this formal way. The purpose is to introduce you to the bigger picture so that when you are doing the mundane and mechanical manipulations you can picture an overview of what is happening.

    The axioms:


    The distributive law: is a fancy name for 'factorisation and expanding' that we are all familiar with from school days! e.g.

    (1+4)6 = 1*6 + 4*6 = ... {expanding brackets}
    7*2 + 4*2 = 2(7+4) = ... {factorising}
    (g+o)d = g*d + o*d {a more general statement}

    Note: the distributive law is the ONLY axiom that allows us to link addition and multiplication together!!
    The others deal exclusively with either add or multiply.


    The associative law: again a fancy way to say that given three objects (numbers) the order in which we add or multiply doesn't matter; more formally,

    (5 + 9) + 7 = 5 + (9 + 7) , (5 * 9) * 7 = 5 * (9 * 7)

    3 + ( 2 + 8 ) = (3 + 2) + 8 , 3 * ( 2 * 8 ) = (3 * 2) * 8

    a + ( b + c ) = (a + b) + c , a * ( b * c ) = (a * b) * c

    Note: the associative law deals exclusively with either add OR multiply.


    Commutativity: A fancy way to say that given 2 object, the order in which we comine them (using either add OR multiply) is not important. So

    5 + 9 = 9 + 5 5 * 9 = 9 * 5

    7 + (-3) = (-3) + 7 7 * (-3) = (-3) * 7

    % + $ = $ + % (-$) * % = % * (-$)

    Note: The minus operation is a shorthand notation for adding negative numbers and vice versa, so 3 + (-7) = 3 - 7 and also q + (-p) = q - p , a - b = a + (-b) ...


    There is a lot to think about here so i will pause at this stage and let you digest this information, before we proceed.
    Any question or clarifications needed?

  19. Scott

    @ ez2b12

    Funny, the situation you described about being a musician and philosopher but really being a math guy at heart is like the opposite of my life. lol
    I was pressured into becoming an engineer, but really I'm a musician. I ended up dropping out.
    I highly recommend getting ahead of the game school-wise. Math classes come at you hard and fast. Not to worry you though. Good luck!!

  20. eireannach666


    No Irish woman can resist the Pouges , dude. Or if they are a little more aggressive the Drop Kick Murphys.

    Also try , Seamus Heaney.

  21. Epicurean_Logic

    @ eire

    ok i get it. The banging my head stuff.. lol.. this girl has really pushed my buttons... you know the score... I didn't realize that he was a gaelic cousin... bah, please don't comment on how dumb a statement that

    Thanks, and if you have have any other brainwaves on some nice gaelic lyrics let me know. I have to crash now and catch up soon.

  22. Epicurean_Logic


    what do you mean by i get trapped in myself? Yes, Yeats i'm on it... two vast and trunkless legs of stone...

  23. eireannach666

    In a good way.

  24. eireannach666


    Joyce is a pretty deep individual , or was. RIP.

    But , I could see that. I read your posts on that on doc on here , and others. You get trapped inside yourself. lol

  25. Epicurean_Logic


    James Joyce is a bit far out there, all that stream of consciousness stuff just does my head in. Something cool and meaningful but not too soppy.


    catch up later buddy.

  26. Epicurean_Logic

    @Eire nice to catch up with you again buddy. Horns to you sir...

    I have a matter of deep importance to talk to you about and.... its about an Irish gal that has got me crazy, crazy banging my head against the wall push my buttons crazy...

    Can you help me? I need some good gaelic love poetry or famous quotes to impress her with... any ideas?

  27. eireannach666


    NICE! My friend thank you. Ive been looking for something right along these lines!Good show.

  28. eireannach666

    Well well, sup Epi_Log.Glad you could join us. I see you already got into the maths with ez.


    Epi knows his maths , man. Id advise ears open and eyes fixed. Im sure hes got me beat on that. Even though Im pretty familiar with these maths , I doubt I could teach more on it than Epi_Log.

    I will also be looking into your links Epi. So thanks for joining in!

  29. Epicurean_Logic

    The prefix 'Ana' means back or again and 'lysis' means solution. Literally back solution.

    sorry i am a bit drunk and i forgot to post that part.

  30. Epicurean_Logic

    The act tests that you mentioned are good, the only problem that i see is that they presume some preliminary knowledge! Sometimes not so obvious. If you get stuck on any use the answers and work backwards to the question this method sometimes helps. If you still can't see it let me know. A cursory look at the trig part tells me that there are some parts that require a deeper knowledge of the subject. Just ask me!

    Also as a side note: The method of taking the solution and working backwards to the answer in order to justify or prove an answer is a classical Greek method that they called Analysis (different from our modern usage of the word in relation to calculus) They were very proud of this method and it can often provide a route through a problem that is not obvious by other methods.

  31. Epicurean_Logic

    You have hit upon an interesting point there @ez2b12, a very high percentage of undergraduate degrees have a mandatory maths component, i'm afraid it's maths for most of the youngsters even though they would rather have their teeth pulled. Get used to it early on kids!!

    You are doing exactly the right things by staring early and brushing up on algebra and trig. If there was a golden rule that could get you on the right track it would be nice, but as you know the are many small rules that build up to a powerful system! You can't just apply the god did it theorem:)) that is prevalent on a lot of posts... not your obviously.

    I might have given you a slightly advanced set of work with the prvious links and i don't really like many of the algebra and trig links that i have lokked at so far. A good textbook might be a better option, although if you find any free good links i would be interested to know about them.

    I take it that you know about SOH CAH TOA, it's the starting point for trig! as far as algebra goes it's practice, practice, practice...

  32. ez2b12

    Not very good at all. Trig was as far as I got in highschool. I am starting college again in the fall, majoring in some type of physics probably. I can't wait to get back to math. I always loved it and was really good at it. Its wierd, I grew up as an artist playing and writing music. I loved philosophy and theology, so I majored in the latter. As I get older though I realize that this is not and may have never been who i really was. I grew up in a time when to be an artist was the in thing you know, and I was a good musician. But I looked at music in a logical sence, probably why it never went further than a few clubs and one cd that I produced and distributed myself. It was a math game in my head. Now I realize that math and science where what I really wanted to be involved in. I hope it is not too late, I am 37 now. Luckily I still have the privilidge of going, most my age have too many resposibilities. I still remember most of my trig and algebra but I never took calculus or geometry. I am really behind but looking forward to catching up.


    LONG LIVE - i know he's dead- Feynman! I would LOVE if he were in on these debates. He'd either enlighten us all or twist our brains into knots. Oh, and LONG LIVE VLATKO!

  34. eireannach666

    “We are trying to prove ourselves wrong as quickly as possible, because only in that way can we find progress.”

    ~Richard Feynman

  35. eireannach666

    Nah , your ok ez. I dont mind discussing things with yo. I come off that way on a regular. Im not like that either. As long as your not trying to shove religion into it or into me , Im cool. So dont worry.

    I will say this , though. Quantum explains thing on a different level than classic mechanics (micro/macro) but what is key is that they both have their place. Not all Q/T is in the dark to us.

    Try googling Feynman and read some of his stuff.(amongst others) Im sure it will give you some alternate links as well.

    How are you with interpreting advanced equations/physics/calculus?

  36. ez2b12

    Yeah I've seen all the docs that explain QT and M_theory. How it is a calculation of probablitlties as no one can tell where a particle that acts like a wave might be at any certain time. They also said that it failed to describe a particle in motion and that it will not unify with all of the tested accepted theory. i think any one of any intelligence knows that they are on to something and that we must be wrong about a lot. But that is no where near the deep level of understanding that is required to start formulating conclusions about the origin of the elements and all. Besides if I am not mistaken the two theories do not conflict any way. The same guys that preach QT say that the heavier elements where created inside stars.
    I hope I am not coming off agressively. For some reason I feel as if I am. I am not an agressive person and I do not mean to say i know anything for sure. This is all my opinion as a layman that is very interested.

  37. eireannach666


    Quantum is based on ALOT of fact and good science. In fact its not really concluding anything , really , more like calculating probabilities based on the facts. An educated conclusion , maybe but that is not really the word Id use.

    And you are right about one thing , though , that is that nobody fully knows Q/T but there are alot of people that have an understanding. I personally have done huge amounts of research on Q/T as have alot of people here and in throughout the world. But hey Im to expert. Just an educated leprechaun that has a love for science and maths.

  38. ez2b12

    That sounded harsh, sorry. I am in a wierd mood and can't express myself right. I need sleep, I'll hollar at yall later

  39. ez2b12

    True if the new science (QM or string theory or M-theory) turns out to be right we may all be wrong. That's why so many have trouble accepting them as reality. I for one would need to do a lot more research and talk to a lot more intelligent people than myself befor i buy it all. I see a lot of people pushing QM and all on this site. Truth is the very scientists that came up with the theories do not yet understand it all, maybe we should reserve judgement. I know that QM is very exact but it fails when certain criteria are not met. This does not make it untrue, I think it is. I think we just need more time to truly understand it before we start throwing out standards and accepted theory. And as far as us understanding it or any one that does not have a PHD in particle physics, I just don't see it. We can repeat what "they say" but we are not ready to start drawing conclusions based on QM or M-theory.

  40. eireannach666

    Depends on what kind of radiation we are talking about , really?

  41. ez2b12

    In fact some scientist believe that lightning was needed before life could exist. Some guy got organic compounds to self arrange into amino acids, a basic building block of life, when he combined them in a flask and introduced the right atmosphere and electricity to simulate lightning. I wonder if radiation could cause a simular self arranging effect?

  42. eireannach666


    Well first you must realize , according to Q/T the rules as we know them as observable do not apply. And the periodic table is as good as the observable. Going back to Q/T or M-theory ,If these two are true than we may have very well been seeded , as Achems brought up. (parallel universes , etc) Heck if we really want to go down the hole further , It could have been time traveling humanoid aliens. lol (which is just a statement not my belief.)

  43. ez2b12

    @ eireannach666

    What i was saying is that all the heavier elements have been proven to have been created inside stars. Well maybe not stars but somewhere with enough heat and pressure to cause nuclear fusion- which is necessary to form heavier elements. Since the only place this seems to naturally occurr is stars, viola.
    Hydrogen and helium are converted into all the other elements and then spread out amongst all the universe to obey the laws of physics. These same elements make up you and me and all of life as we know it. Life may not be carbon based but you can but it will utilize the elements of our periodic table, if it exists in this universe. So it follows that the stars had to exist before life could have, thats all I was saying. Hydrogen and helium just do not add up to enough to constitute life in our universe. Under the laws of physics we know and try to understand life is more complicated than that.

  44. eireannach666


    "Life can live minus earth conditions, does not necessarily have to be carbon based I think. As even the doc portrays, in arsenic etc:"

    Yes , indeed.

    All extremes have some kind of activeness on some level , whether it be micro or whatever. Life I dont know , but if those conditions were changed , they would either adapt or die. Or even perhaps already have the adaptability programed in them.

  45. eireannach666


    I wasnt saying it had to be involved , I was just basing that of of what the doc was stating and if it were a proven. So hypothetically.

    Also you said "once these same elments go through the nuclear furnace(stars)- then we are getting somewhere."

    What exactly did you mean by this? Elaborate , please as it seems to be an incomplete thought. I could just be reading it wrong.

  46. Achems Razor


    Life can live minus earth conditions, does not necessarily have to be carbon based I think. As even the doc portrays, in arsenic etc:
    Extremophiles live in unhuman types of conditions.

  47. eireannach666

    "therefore life should exist everywhere, where suitable."

    I would have to say so. I would at least think that , it may be a huge stretch to think there are "Aliens" of intelligence , I will comment on the fact that I think it is illogical to say that there is NO life whatsoever out there. May it be in another galaxy or parallel universe. Its just the odds that we are the only human like existence. I mean , maybe yes but the conditions would have to be identical to ours , you know? There is probably life but what kind is the question.

    Then again we could state that in a parallel universe , there could be replicas etc of all we know in our universal dimension .

  48. ez2b12

    Right it took earth conditions to effect evolution toward a human on this particular planet. But is it not possible that some type of bacteria could have formed and survived inside a comet? Then once it crashes on what ever planet it starts to evolve accordingly. Earth=humans and other indigenouse life forms- Mars= martians and the purple who doos etc. etc. Why does a piece of mars need to be involved? I don't doubt the theory states what you say, I am just asking your opinion. As far as the singularity being panspermia, I guess in a way it was. Of course stars had to make all the heavier elements like Iron and so forth. These are contained in the human body at least. So even though the very fundamental building blocks for everything was the singularity a certain sequence had to take place before life was possible. Hydrogen and helium just are not enough to get life, once these same elments go through the nuclear furnace(stars)- then we are getting somewhere.

  49. Achems Razor


    Well now you have me going even further, an other part of spacetime?
    Meaning seeded by extraterrestrial visitor's, could be, A lot of stuff on that. Or maybe other dimensions, parallel worlds? Who knows.

  50. Achems Razor

    All right, then to go further, which I always seem to do (LOL)
    Since everything had to be contained in the singularity, and at inflation was just plasma, the building blocks in the plasma, recombined to form everything, including life, this goes as far as to say the singularity itself is panspermia, therefore life should exist everywhere, where suitable.

  51. eireannach666


    I believe the answer would have to be , somewhere else. Another part of space/time. Just like we were seeded as was mars.

    It actually stated that it was a chunk of mars that was driven towards earth after a comet. (The comet idea and then they had the mars+comet idea)Also it would probably take a combination of that and the earths already existing status to get on the path to humans.

  52. ez2b12

    As far as I know the Panspermia does not state that we where seeded from Mars. I think it states that a comet was to blame. They have found organic materials and liquid water in the center of comets. I always thought that the theory was that life formed in the center of comets and then landed on many planets, going on to thrive where it was possible and die where it was not. If not that should have been the theory and I now proclaim it so, by the power invested in me as ruler of my own world. ( Don't we wish it was this easy) I guess it is for some folks.

  53. Achems Razor


    Agree, a good watch but basic, talking about "Panspermia Microbiology" but then the question arises, if earth was seeded from mars, where was mars seeded from? Mars itself, or from somewhere else?

  54. eireannach666

    This one was good but I think the others were better. It was a little too basic. I agree with Scot on this one. It should have been the first to the series. Still was a good watch , though.

  55. Achems Razor

    Logging in, and going to watch.

  56. john

    I found this to be the most boring of the series, especially if you have watched a lot of cosmos-type docs. They talk about how scientists have been trying to synthesize life out of early earth conditions, and then show a few that have had some success... but none that have achieved anything complex. Pretty much the same as any other doc concerning this subject made in the last 5-10 years.

  57. carlos1234

    another good addition to the series very well put together

    @scott..i agree this was like a brief overview of the other episodes but it still held good information

  58. Caroline

    what an awsome series, im getting totally addicted :)

  59. Scott

    lol, almost seems like maybe the series should have started here.