"In fact, with trivial variations, there is only one genetic code for all known forms of life, pointing to a single origin." Not correct. Viruses have a different genetic code and apparently different origins from other life forms and are thought by some scientists to have extraterrestrial origins.

Why do so many jump to that much revising, rewriting texts, etc. stuff with any surprising discovery, hypothesis in this case? Can't see the referenced article, but read a couple of others on the subject. Don't see what all the noise is about. I do not see any special true significance to the earlier beginning of the same kind of life unless one wants to say that it is way too early and would indicate something other than beginning naturally on Earth.

When someone takes a point without making one its a lack of spine.
My two bits.
I'm sure others here would agree.

Heat would incinerate just about anything inorganic, so organic would have a slim to no chance of making through the atmosphere unprotected. Now, If a catalytic bacteria was inside a meteor which had an ocean impact that could be the starting point, very conceivable. But then that begs the question where in space did that bacteria come from? Since Novas are the source of all material in existence it really makes the idea of bacteria coming from an outside source more likely.

No?

Congrats to the team who found it, but I'm not sure why this is a game changer. When I was studying this years ago we were told the earliest stromatolites were 3.5bn yrs ago. This new find only stretches the timeline slightly, but it was always viewed as elastic anyway.

Did I say anything about your saying anything about that others should believe as you do?
Why bring up veiled references to your belief in creation if you do not want comment on them?
Evolution is not creationism. It is only an observation and description of how some natural processes proceed. It is not a causative thing.

What makes you believe that probabilities actually exist in nature? They are mental constructs which gives one a way toward the understanding of objective reality when without total information with large numbers of existents. Nature does not operate by odds. It operates by what is possible with the identities, as exstents, of that which exists. The fact that you clutter up your reasoning with irrelevant extreme odds which most likely have no relevance for natural processes. That is nonsense about the number of reactions that have to occur to get self reproduction. Just takes a few molecular interactions at most somewhere. All the rest of the other-where reactions are irrelevant. Starting with perhaps googolplex sized odds which when reduced from the Universe to a small new planet from an at least third generation type G star will not work. Things do not work by chance, only the loss of your money in places like Vegas works that way. So I deny your attempt to get a creator into the mix.
It is safe to say that no one knows the origin of life on Earth, and it is probably wrong to accuse individuals of lack of balls or guts or courage or etc. for not commenting on your ideas. Lack of knowledge does not require making up a stand in for the knowledge.

Nope. Just the "common sense" says crowd.

And the space algae added some weight to the possibility...

Again, we kind of get to chicken and egg question. I think of the STNG finale where Q takes Picard to Earth and goes "Oh look, the goo didn't quite make it" and all ends, but for the intervention of three Enterprises...

It is mainly a Sci Fi concept, I am sure there are a lot more questions and issues beyond what you say, and I agree there is a lot to be questioned in such a circumstance.

More logic applied to the same old non-receptive people as before. Won't change any minds. God can do anything. Even fit dinosaurs in an ark, but he can't seem to appear, strike down infidels or pretty much do anything. Maybe he is disinterested in this experiment, and has moved on to some new universe to make and tempt people with and apple to put on fig leaves.

We're talking about darwin's inter-species type evolution and the 1000's of years from single cell on up. The article tells us of something that existed while the earth was still getting it's stuff straight. (assuming they have the "Time" line correct).
Every life form "evolves" only within it's own species, if it hadn't...wouldn't be here now...that's what the inference was.

Yes, science is awesome...so long as it never gets comfortably established...learn and adapt baby.

The timetable just got MUCH longer is all I implied. That said, evidence suggests the timetable is grossly inaccurate, time to reevaluate.

I agree it is fascinating.

Did I once say anything about a supernatural origin of man outside of what I mentioned about what I personally believe? Did I ever say IN ANY POST HERE that anyone should believe as I do?

This post wasn't created to discuss spiritualism, faith, or the supernatural. You know what they say about when you assume?

Every tiny aspect leading to muck-based evolution has very extreme odds of actually occurring randomly in nature. Do you deny that? Further, you need thousands, perhaps tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands, of equally improbable perfectly precise individual reactions to occur in sequence in nature to build on themselves (also highly improbable) to move to the next stage in the process to cultivate whatever life form is considered the foundation of life on Earth. Do deny this too?

I watch this type of information because ITS THE BASIS FOR A NOVEL I'm working on and offers a degree of validation (and opportunity to share the manuscripts existence).

Its a fools errand to think anyone knows the origin of life. Anyone who does is a delusional liar. And, perhaps balls was a poor choice of words... courage, nerve or guts would work better in this instance. Its a weak person who takes a point on a neutral topic without explaining himself.

Is there some law of nature that life from Earth cannot find its way through a couple of hundred miles of atmosphere to the level that the shuttles flew or even have contaminated the shuttles while sitting there at Cape Canaveral near the Atlantic Ocean?

The old 'it couldn't have happened here but maybe could have elsewhere and spread here' thing. Does nothing for the origin of life. Life may be easy to come into existence under certain conditions so that certain molecular and more complex stuff can exist long enough to interact in an evolutionary manner. As long as carbon and a few other necessary elements exist, there is enough material for life once self replication happens.

I second nickursis's recommendation of Graham Hancock's work. He has made a strong case for a long lost technologically advanced civilization that disappeared 13000 years ago. The oldest dated cooperatively built site found on the planet so far is Gobekli Tepe in Turkey. Gobekli Tepe means " Navel of the hill". The city of Cuzco in Peru means "the earths navel". Mexica as Mexico was once called means "navel of the moon" Easter Island named by the Dutch discoverer because of the day found was previously called navel of the world or "Te-pito-o-te- henua" In Egypt the omphalos means "navel of the kingdom of Sokar" the Greeks omphalos stone or "navel"stone was said to be a meteorite.
What does it mean.I don,t know but I believe the distances and similarities indicate some interconnections by these ancient people.

Nick:
I disagree. If they exist, they would find a super intelligent creature evolving faster than its primitive side can keep up with its inventiveness. A creature that in a mere blink of the eye, galaxy time-wise has gone from a intellectual primitive to being on the verge of exploring the great mysteries. Many vicious faults, true, but also Einstein and Beethoven.

There is nothing in the article that goes against evolution. Science is about ever adding knowledge, from a microbiology and genetic science base one can see evolution in action. Many people on this board view many things as correct that science has firmly established as wrong eg autism and mmr vaccine, Yes it should be a choice but the Science does not support it. Science must be repeatable and others have to be able to replicate the data. Just because we do not understand the order of the universe does not mean it does not exist. Even the math of chaos fractals has a predictability, or look at the math/physics behind entropy. I look a the article as fascinating new information that now has to be incorporated into out knowledge base and it is great ....I put my "faith" in science and logic a=a.

Hard to do that unless you first say something about the evidence that you have that the ancient fossils, it they are, indicate a supernatural origin to life.
I will discuss it with you if you like.
First of all there is no lottery. Natural processes do not require any form of consciousness, thought, or effort by outside nothingness. They happen due to the identities of that which exists. If the conditions are right, stuff happens without needing any human permission or the creative hand of a non-existent deity. Evolutionary processes need only the identities of existents to happen. What is useful, adequate, or ignorable will be kept until changed.

As for the report, it is a hypothesis that is being defended and challenged. No reason for fear by some that it might upset their lives. The Old One has enough supporters that their is no reason to despair.
As for 'balls', balls are not part of the scientific discussion other than where they are needed in the evolutionary process, though process is not right since it would imply some kind of built in direction for existence, hint, that primacy of consciousness rather than the primacy of existence.

Panspermia theory is the seeding of life through comets and meteorites .

The basis of several Sci Fi novels, who have a basis of an intelligent life form seeding the galaxy, or more. I often think if they ever came back they would be sad to see how ignorant and petty a race can be..oh yea, and greedy...

I was pondering that the very young earth would have been quite inhospitable to life, and gives one pause to the fact that life needs little encouragement and once started is very tenacious. Yet, we still cannot create life under the most perfect of circumstances that we can create.

I love irony. It's precious that those who call themselves "progressive" firmly believe in stasis, that they know the correct world climate and condition and that any deviation will be catastrophic.

this is intriguing, AJ! . Thanks! -- j
.