PRESS RELEASE: Life on Earth came from other planets. So concludes a major scientific article which will appear in the inaugural issue of the online science journal, Cosmology.com
For thousands of years scientists and theologians have debated the origins of Earthly life. Surprisingly, most scientists and the Catholic Church are of the same mind and
embrace the theory of “abiogenesis” also known as the “organic soup.”
In the Judeo-Christian Bible, the story of Genesis, it is stated: “And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.” As summed up by Church Father St. Augustine: “The earth is said then … to have received the power of producing life,” which is also the belief of many modern-day scientists. Therefore, both the Church and most scientists believe that in the beginning the Earth had special powers
to generate life.
There is, however, no evidence to support the theory of “abiogenesis,” which has been repeatedly disproven and discredited. Every attempt to create life from non-life has
miserably failed and up until now every theory proposed to explain the origin of life has been found wanting. The early Earth lacked all the essential ingredients for creating life, and even so called “prebiotic” substances would have
been immediately destroyed by the harsh conditions which initially prevailed on this planet.
As summed up in a scientific paper to be published in the premier issue of Cosmology.com: “If life were to suddenly
appear on a desert island we wouldn’t claim it was randomly assembled in an organic soup or created by the hand of God; we’d conclude it washed to shore or fell from the sky. The
Earth too, is an island, orbiting in a sea of space, and living creatures and their DNA have been washing to shore and falling from the sky since our planet’s creation; and this is how life on Earth began.”
Dr. Rhawn Joseph, the author of this landmark paper, puts it bluntly: “Given the incredible complexity of a single-celled organism and its DNA, the likelihood that life on Earth was randomly created in an organic soup is the
equivalent of discovering a computer on Mars and proclaiming it was randomly assembled in the methane sea.”
Therefore, as only life can produce life, life on earth must have originated on other planets. But then, how did it get here?
Most scientists believe all Earthly life descended from the first unicellular creatures that appeared on this planet. Based on an extensive and detailed analysis and
synthesis of over 100 research reports published in prestigious scientific journals, Dr. Joseph concludes that innumerable microbes, and their DNA, survived the cataclysm
that wrought destruction to the parent star which gave birth to our own. As only life can produce life, then life on Earth also came from life which may have originated on
planets which orbited the parent star.
It is generally acknowledged that the Sun and Earth were created from a nebular cloud and protoplanetary disc, the remnants of an exploding star. According to Dr. Joseph, the
planets which orbited the parent star may have harbored microbial life. When the parent star became a red giant, its solar winds blew away planetary atmospheres along with
airborne microbes, which were deposited in a growing nebular cloud.
When threatened with death, microbes form spores, and can remain dormant for hundreds of millions of years. The inner layers of a nebular cloud and protoplanetary disk also
protects against radiation and extreme cold, enabling spores to survive.
Numerous published studies have proven that microbes can easily survive an interplanetary journey. Many species of microbe have evolved the ability to survive a violent impact and ejection into space; the frigid temperatures and vacuum of an interstellar environment; the UV rays, cosmic rays, gamma rays, and ionizing radiation they would encounter; and
the crash landing onto the surface of a planet. Obviously, they would not have evolved these capabilities if their entire ancestral and genetic history had been confined to Earth and the conditions of this world. Microbes are
preadapted for traveling through space and they inherited these abilities from the microbes which first took root on Earth and whose ancestry can be traced back to the solar
system of the parent star.
Because the parent star lost 40 percent to 80 percent of its mass after it became a red giant (blown away by its solar winds) its gravitational influences were reduced. Therefore, its planets would have increased orbital distances or might have been ejected from the solar system
prior to supernova and may not have been atomized. Microbes buried deep beneath the soil of these planets, including those shattered by the supernova, may have easily survived. Pieces of these planets may have eventually struck or become part of the newly forming Earth.
Life appeared a few hundred million years after the Earth’s creation during a period of heavy bombardment by comets and moon-sized asteroids produced by the supernova of the parent star. Life on Mars may have appeared near the same time. As only life can produce life, microbes must have survived
within that planetary debris which bombarded the Earth and this is how life on our planet began. In fact, microbial fossils have been discovered in fifteen meteors
(carbonaceous chondrites), most impacted by supernova and predating the origin of our solar system.
Skeptics dismiss discoveries of microfossils by claiming “contamination.” Yet, contamination is the only logical, scientific explanation for how life appeared on this planet. Life on Earth was not randomly assembled in an organic
stew. Therefore, life on Earth had to come from other planets, and Dr. Joseph and Cosmology.com are the first to publish a comprehensive theory, based on established, peer reviewed scientific evidence, which explains the origins of Earthly life.
Life on Earth, came from other planets. Our ancient ancestors journeyed here from the stars.
CITATION: “Life on Earth Came From Other Planets,” by R. Joseph, Ph.D. Cosmology, Vol 1. 2009.
After I read the article itself, I added this about another significant overstatement in the article:
The author is positing an extraordinary theory without citing any new observational data. Most telling is this erroneous statement:
There are plenty of experiments that show that organic molecules can be created from inorganic ones under conditions that may have existed on the early Earth. They haven’t created life, but they have demonstrated feasible pathways.
Likewise, there are a number of scenarios about the rise of life from nonliving chemistry that are sensible but need to be tested by further observation.
Fred Bortz
I began the scientific discussion earlier with this comment below. I’m repeating it here. I suggest that readers follow the book review link in the last paragraph, and perhaps follow the link in that review to several similar books. There’s a difference between ideas on the fringe that may open up new paths, and ideas that simply get the central science wrong. Frankly, I think this article is in the second category, especially when it is so categorical in its conclusion that life came to Earth from beyond the Solar System. That’s Pamspermia on steroids, and here’s the argument I made to dispute it:
Most scientists agree that the circumstances for the origination of life probably existed (and still exist) on many planets and moons in our galaxy and throughout the universe. It is also true that planets and moons in a solar system exchange substantial amounts of material, and that simple organisms may survive a trip from one rocky world to another within that solar system.
Exchange of meteorites between stars (and their planetary systems) is much less likely. Simple pre-biotic molecules may exist in interstellar space, but most of the material exchanged between stars comes from supernova explosions.
The logical conclusion from this is that life most likely develops independently in many solar systems, but that life in a given solar system may (or may not) have a common origin.
One of the most interesting tests that we will perform on Martian bacteria if and when we find it–and the likelihood is high that it exists–will be to determine whether it is based on DNA and whether that DNA has the same set of amino acids and helicity (right- or left-handedess of its spirals) as Earth life.
If they match, then the big question will be whether that particular DNA is the most likely kind and those Martian and Earth life-forms could have arisen independently, or whether they arose from a common source.
Stating “Therefore, life on Earth had to come from other planets,” is a huge leap and not justified by the evidence.
I have numerous reviews of books about Astrobiology on my Science Shelf archive (including Life As We Do Not Know It), and I have written a book for middle graders on the subject as well.
Fred Bortz
Science Books for Young Readers
and
Science Book Reviews
Thank you for your thoughtful comment, Sa Janes-Pratt.
Computer simulations are wonderful. They are also great for answering questions of “what if.”
Yet, a computer simulation is not life. Creating a simulation is a simulation. As unpleasant as it sounds, the fact is, no one has ever created life from non-life.
“Maybe… Possibly… Hopefully… Some Day…” are not facts.
Its been said” Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” The only evidence we have is: life creates life.
Further, we know that the conditions of the early Earth were not conducive to the creation of biotic material. UV rays and so on, would have instantly destroyed this material, including even fragments of DNA.
It is generally recognized by the scientific community that DNA molecules could not have been created in an “organic soup” –at least not on Earth. This has led to the RNA World. And yet, the existence and reproductive strategies of viruses, tell us that the RNA world is an impossibility. Viruses require a DNA host to replicate.
Certainly, it is possible that the first molecules of life may have been created/assembled on a planet with a chemistry quite unlike the Earth. Certainly the Earth is not at the center of the biological universe. Certainly there were galaxies and planets formed billions of years before the Earth became a “twinkle in god’s eye.” And if life began on one of those ancient worlds, then there is good reason to believe that some of these life forms may have been ejected from the surface of these worlds, perhaps within moon-sized debris, only to be deposited on another world.
If we are going to believe in abiogenesis, the “organic soup” then why couldn’t that soup have first been brought to a boil on a planet much older than our own?
I have made no attempt in my article, Life on Earth Came From Other Planets, to explain THE origin of life. Only how life appeared on this planet. I have reviewed the data presented in over 100 peer reviewed scientific articles. I believe the evidence indicates that life on Earth may have originated in the parent star system which underwent supernova. Some of the debris from this “parent” star system helped to form this planet.
Indeed, consider all the wayward worlds that were crashing about this solar system even 600 million years after our planet was established. It is not likely that were created in the same proplanetary disc as the Earth, for why would they be orbiting in such contrary directions?
If the Earth were to shatter and break apart, certainly innumerable microbes, particularly those buried deep beneath the earth, would survive–some of which could well be deposited on another world.
The fact remains: Every attempt to create life from non-life has failed. As scientists we must stick with the facts. The facts are: Only life creates life, which means, life on Earth must have come from life; and that life must have originated on some other planet.
Again, thank you for your thought provoking comments.
Rhawn Joseph, Ph.D.
Various simply constructed algorithmic models based upon known constants show that, given the immensity of the universe, the observable, fundamental laws of physics we are only so far superficially aware of, and the astounding crucible that is ‘Time’, the emergence of life as we perceive it, somewhere, at some point in time, is inevitable.
I must also disagree with the rather callow statement, “Every attempt to create life from non-life has miserably failed…” It can be done quite easily in computer models specifically designed to virtualize the synthesis of complex organic interactions over time. The key word is ‘time’, since we cannot live long enough to observe the results of our own physical experimentation.
Therefore, we currently use computer simulations to tell us the nature and composition of complex organic molecules that can result over a period of time, then physically recreate those molecules (skipping the process of eons) and quite readily observe interactions that lead to molecules that act as fully interactive cellular automata.
I hesitate to appear dismissive or trite, but none of this is considered ‘rocket science’. We have been doing this for some years now.
Sa Janes-Pratt
http://twitter.com/SAJP
.
Greetings to all my fans here at Scienceblog. Yes, it is so nice to be loved!
And yes, its true: Life on Earth Came From Other Planets.
I’ve been a scientist since the 1970s, and I must admit, the reaction here at Scienceblog brings back fond memories. When I began researching the biological foundations of sex differences I was viciously attacked. Back in the 1970s it was conventional wisdom that there were no sex differences, just stereotypes. I was accused of doing something evil. Now we know how important it is to understand sex differences and all my published findings have been verified.
Ah, but it was a painful experience. Ouch!
I receive dozens of emails every week about my work in astrobiology. Some of these emails are quite nasty. It is surprising how much hate there is out there. Some topics are forbidden. Consider the personal attacks made against me on this website! Wow. Amazing. LOL–truly nasty stuff!
Hey, Dr. Joseph, what did you expect? Roses?
Yes, call me an idealist.
Wouldn’t it be nice to have an intelligent debate about the issues? How wonderful it would be if a group of serious minded folk could have a back and forth about the origin of life. But no. What we have is personal attacks. Vicious attempts to destroy my reputation.
Did someone mention torches and pitchforks. LOL–how true it is!
Ah, woe is me.
Ah, but alas, that’s the way it is. A couple of hundred years ago, they would have just burned me.
I interact with hundreds of scientists. A small group, led by yours truly, has decided to launch a new online journal, called Cosmology. I have sent out thousands of emails to top scientists announcing our intentions, with the hope of publishing the first edition this December.
And, spelled out for all to see: The website is under construction, we (had) hope(d) to publish the first issue in December.
Our goal is (was) to launch a journal where taboo topics could be discussed. Where taboo research could be peer reviewed and published. We wanted to create a revolution.
Yes, but we know what happens to revolutionaries.
There is nothing evil or nefarious about our plans. Everything is clearly spelled out, and has been since July 2 when we launched the website. It even says: Under Construction.
We wanted to do something different: News, opinion, speculation, theories. It would have been great!
All scientific articles will (were to) be peer reviewed. Those submitting scientific articles will submit a list of qualified reviewers. We intend(ed) to pay the reviewers. All this is spelled out on the website and has been since July 2.
And yes, quite a few people did a detailed peer review of my article, Life on Earth Came From Other Planets. And I asked for criticism, not praise. I believe peer review is the best way to make a good paper even better. And I wanted to make sure any mistakes were corrected so as to deprive my critics of ammunition.
As stated in the website, a board of editors would be appointed and announced. Everything is completely above board and completely open and honest. Yes, nothing is hidden. Why should it be? LOL–that’s ridiculous.
Unfortunately, I just did not anticipate how much vile hatred I (we) would encounter. My goodness, I have to laugh.
But hey, I think the attacks are a good thing. First, we must recognize these are powerful ideas which threaten a lot of people. The hate and personal attacks are based on fear of new ideas. No one would attack me if they thought the ideas were nonsense.
Wow, the anger and hysteria! Its amazing!
Really, can’t you just visualize these people chasing me down the street with their pitchforks! LOL.
And yes, the haters might be able to destroy my reputation.
And yes, the haters may crush our new journal, even before it is launched.
But the idea is out there. It’s too late. It can’t be stopped.
So, I make an offer: Lets discuss ideas!
If Scienceblog will agree to remove all the nasty garbage and unfortunate personal attacks that have been posted, including the comments of Ms. Wu (and I apologize to anyone offended by her ardor), I would be pleased to engage in debate, respond to questions, and to discuss the concepts and issues raised by my article.
We could spend weeks, months on this and related issues, and do something here very exciting.
So what will it be? More insinuation and personal attacks on Dr. Joseph? Or, lets discuss the science?
Rhawn Joseph, Ph.D.
Dr. Joseph, I am not interested in a private discussion. We’ve each made our scientific points, and I joked about the Schopenhauer posting. I’ve stated my doubts about the credibility of your online journal, but I have not attacked you personally. I believe you recognize that.
So that’s all I have to say at this point.
If you wish to apologize for your colleague Joy Wu’s public threats and insults, do so publically.
If not, don’t worry about a lawsuit from me. I have a thick skin.
Fred Bortz
Mr. Coffee & Mr. Bortz: Please contact me via private email.
I understand your issues. A lot of false insinuations have been made.
I believe it is based on misunderstanding.
I’d be pleased to answer any of your questions.
Please use the link through the cosmology.com website, then we can exchange phone numbers and talk by phone.
Thank you
R. Joseph, Ph.D.
Mr. Bortz & Mr. Coffee Please contact me via private email.
I understand your issues. A lot of false insinuations have been made.
I believe it is based on misunderstanding.
I’d be pleased to answer any of your questions.
Please use the link through the cosmology.com website, then we can exchange phone numbers and talk by phone.
Thank you
R. Joseph, Ph.D.
I wondered why Christopher Coffee found so much more at Cosmology.com than I discovered. When I went there yesterday, it only led to the paper.
Today it has more material, including the promise of a board of editors, none of which makes it more credible to me after what I saw yesterday and what Christopher discovered today.
Anyway, I’ve said my piece, and defended myself against insults, so I’m probably finished here.
Now let the scientific process, including the challenges of critics, proceed!
Fred Bortz
http://www.susanblackmore.co.uk/Chapters/neurotheologyold3.htm
Threats of legal action, lack of university connection, and false peer review…your Dr. Joseph is appearing less and less legitimate…
Christopher
Joy Haiyan Wu,
As a reader of ScienceBlog, and someone who is capable of using google and whois, I have to ask the following.
1) As a narrator of Dr. Joseph’s films, why do you feel that Dr. Joseph’s work should not also be placed under the same scrutiny as other scientific works? Do you feel your personal attacks would strengthen a legal action (and, by the way, in these United States, the threat of legal action can be construed as an actionable item all of its own).
2) Cosmology.com, is registered to Brain-Mind.com, which prominently claims Dr. Joseph as a contributor and resident …and also shows “[email protected]” as a contact. It also reveals “Brain Science Laboratories” as the registrant for brain-mind.com, and a quick google search also affiliates that with Dr. Joseph. At no point in this chain does there appear to be a legitimate, recognized peer-review organization.
3) Cosmology.com insists on payment for publication of articles prior to review, and no description or process is provided to demonstrate what rigor said review would be conducted under. In addition, Dr. Joseph dedicates the bulk of the site to self promotion, both of his articles and his book. This homogenous presentation does not correspond with what is to be expected of a properly peer reviewed scientific journal.
4) Dr. Joseph’s claimed specialties include NeuroTheology…which, as near as can be determined, isn’t a recognized field of scientific study. From a mere curiosity standpoint, how could this be treated seriously?
5) While it may personally upset you, placing information on the internet for public consumption will result in responses that you may not enjoy. Responding with direct attacks and spurious threats of legal action does not, repeat NOT, help your claims of being a rational, scientific source of information. Calling someone a liar doesn’t make them one, especially when you’re attacking from a place of weakness (namely, the proof of appears to be an attempt at scientific fraud masquerading as a scientific journal). This behavior is quite juvenile, and not what would be expected from a logical, scientific viewpoint.
Whatever Dr. Joseph’s background, actions such as these do nothing to help his case. Whatever you chose to believe, neither the press release nor the article meet the basic demands of scientific rigor, cosmology.com does not present or meet the expected requirements of a scientific journal nor of proper peer review.
Calling these statements lies…despite your hopes…does not make them so.
And the fact that I can trace all of this, find the relevant sources, and still have time to post this response during a lunch break is further indication of how poorly this attempted falsehood is being conducted.
Christopher Coffee
Austin, Texas
23 July 09
Having a Ph.D. doesn’t make you an expert in all fields of science. Nor does publishing books make you a “published” scientist.
Stick to what you know “Dr.” Neuroscience.
– Modern Science and the Ancient Writings on the Genesis of the Solar System…
– The Genesis of the Monkey People and the Genesis of the Anunnaki People…
– The “Heart – Kidneys” Theory and the Psychology of the Future: http://cristiannegureanu.blogspot.com/2009/07/life-on-earth-came-from-other-planets.html
Okay, if life wasn’t created on earth and came here from outer space, then where did THAT life get it’s start? seriously, did you think this one through at all?
Schopenhauer grabs a torch of enlightenment. He shines it on the purveyors of nonsense and offers them pitchforks to dig holes in which to disappear.
Calling nonsense truth does not make it so. And quoting Schopenhauer does not make you a philosopher.
But this is fun anyway ;)
“All truth passes through three stages: First, it is ridiculed; Second, it is violently opposed; and Third, it is accepted as self-evident.” –Arthur Schopenhauer
Likewise, there are a number of scenarios about the rise of life from nonliving chemistry that are sensible but need to be tested by further observation. To say that those theories are “found wanting” is a statement no different from those who attack evolution because it doesn’t explain everything.
http://elektronikguvenliksistemi.blogcu.com,http://elektronikguvenlik.blogcu.com,http://kameraalarmsistemi.blogcu.com,
http://elektronikguvenliksistemi.yehhu.net,http://alarmkamerasistemi.turkblog.com,http://cctvkamera.blogcu.com,
http://alarmkamerasistemi.turkblog.com,http://kameraalarm.wordpress.com,
Joy Haiyan Wu,
I will ignore your gratuitous personal insult and just state again, as I did when I followed the link to Cosmology.com and reported back in an addendum to a comment below:
Dr. Joseph may have credentials and a distinguished research career, but he appears to have “gone off the deep end” on this.
A claim of peer review does not hold up without an indication of the organization responsible for and the editorial board of this otherwise unknown online journal. Why should we consider this so-called peer-reviewed journal credible, especially when it has only one article and links to buy what appears to be a self-published book?
Fred Bortz
Dr Joseph, the author of the scientific report reviewed in this press release, obtained his Ph.D. from UHS/The Chicago Medical School, and completed his Internship at the VAMC and Yale University Medical Center.
He began his career in the 1970s by publishing major scientific discoveries in the field of biology; scientific articles which appeared in prestigious, peer reviewed scientific journals. These included the proof and discovery of neuroplasticity and recovery in the primate brain; the hormonal basis of sex differences, the role of the early environment on learning and memory; and this was the beginning of his career in the 1970s. He has also published peer reviewed scientific articles on evolution, his work has twice been featured on the cover of prestigious scientific journals; he has been invited to speak at major universities including University of California at Berkeley, and his papers have been republished and distributed by prestigious medical schools including Harvard.
Dr. Joseph does not promote intelligent design. He is not religious. He is anti-religion.
It is unfortunate that “science blog” and its pseudo-science/childrens writer, Fred Bortz, have chosen to post defamatory lies about Dr Joseph.
The peer reviewed, scientific article, on which this press release is based, can be read, for free, at the Cosmology.com website.
Posted by:
Joy Haiyan Wu