Social Question

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

Which is the more likely culprit to explain Earth Origins, Abiogenesis or Exogenesis?

Asked by RealEyesRealizeRealLies (30951points) December 17th, 2011

I’m not talking about life in the Universe. I’m only talking about life on Earth.

Abiogenesis is basically Life from non Life.

Exogenesis, is a branch of Panspermia… which suggests that life on Earth was seeded through extraterrestrial sources.
_______

I speak of Exogenesis (instead of Panspermia) specifically in reference to the ancient story of Anunnaki and Human History.

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

5 Answers

poisonedantidote's avatar

Abiogenesis, if life on earth originated some other place you need to ask where did that life come from. If the answer to that is more panspermia or exogenesis you need to ask where the original source is. Why not save a load of steps and just speculate that it started here all allong.

The simplest answers is usually the correct one. It would be more simple that life started here than started some other place and then made it’s way here.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

Q specifically limits discussion to life on earth.

HungryGuy's avatar

To put it simple, the abiogenesis theory suggests that life started out when some protein molecules bumped into each other in an “interesting” way and evolved into as anaerobic life, i.e., doesn’t use oxygen. Eventually, some plant discovered photosynthesis as a way to produce energy from sunlight, which “poisoned” the atmosphere for all the anaerobic life. Thus, aerobic life evolved and flourished.

I suppose exogenesis is possible, but it begs the question of how that life started. So even if exogenesis is the answer for earth, life had to start from scratch somewhere in the universe at least once.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

If abiogenesis applies to this planet, then it should be rife on others.

Paradox25's avatar

Interesting link and video. Abiogenesis according to Darwinism tells us that at one time the Earth’s atmosphere contained nitrogen, carbon dioxide, methane, etc but no oxygen. Lightning arcs through the gases generated amino acids and other pre-life requistes. These precursors of life were washed out of the atmosphere by rain and many these were collected into warm ponds. Some laboratory experiments have simulated these conditions so it has been shown how these complex molecules can be generated in the way described above (to a degree).

These chemicals combined in complex ways by accident until first self-replicating molecules and primitive single celled organisms appeared. Accidental mutations eventually led to algea and photosynthesis to absorb the carbon dioxide and excreted oxygen as a waste product. Survival of the fittest, utilizing the ‘waste’ product known as oxygen, took over from there.

It does seem that regardless of the possibility that exogenesis may have occured that we are still left with the same questions about how the first self-replicating molecules and single celled organisms formed in spite of whether or not this process originated on earth. I can’t answer your question to be honest with you on whether life originated on Earth or not.

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.
Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther