Alternative to evolution and creationism

[EarthAlive]

Theres are loads and loads of different evolutionary theories or creationist theories, but is there anything which is completey opposed to both creationism and evolution?

There is one theory, it's called the Independent Origins theory, not many people know about it, and this is most likely the only theory which exists which doesnt include and I mean none evolution at all and no creationism either:

The theory of Independent Origins is atheistic, and materialistic yet at the same time completey opposed to evolution.

The Independent Origins Theory - Only seems to have two scientists and research teams behind this theory.

In a nutshell the theory of Independent Origins says that ALL organisms on earth have originated from primordial soups (chemical pools of acids etc) on the earth millions of years ago. So everything from frogs, to monkeys to plants, insects to snakes to humans.. etc yes everything originated from these chemical ponds independently, starting off as embryos etc in chemicals then leaving the ponds, to what we have on earth today.

The two scientists behind this theory are Periannan Senapathy a molecular biologist he has authored the book Independent Birth of Organisms, look up the book to learn about this guys theory. There much more to it, I have just summarised it in a nutshell.

The other scientist is Christian Schwabe a biochemist, he calls his theory the Genomic Potential Hypothesis, so instead of one origin like most evolutionists say.. these guys theories claim billions of independent origins.

Interesting!

 

[Riverwolf]

Interesting!

Not to mention completely silly. From what I know of how life works, that seems even less likely than creationism.

 

[EarthAlive]

Not to mention completely silly. From what I know of how life works, that seems even less likely than creationism.

I disagree, I think the idea of everything on earth coming from the same origin or location is silly. Not saying I buy into these guys theories completey, but independent origins seems plausible to me. It's a theory which not many people know about, but it would be interesting if some more publications were published on the subject.

 

[Riverwolf]

I disagree, I think the idea of everything on earth coming from the same origin or location is silly. Not saying I buy into these guys theories completey, but independent origins seems plausible to me. It's a theory which not many people know about, but it would be interesting if some more publications were published on the subject.

But what possible indications exist that such a thing occurred?

That we all came from the same common ancestor makes perfect sense considering all the traits we share with other forms of life.

 

[Tellurian]

I disagree, I think the idea of everything on earth coming from the same origin or location is silly. Not saying I buy into these guys theories completey, but independent origins seems plausible to me. It's a theory which not many people know about, but it would be interesting if some more publications were published on the subject.

Perhaps there is new life being created today from inorganic matter, but we are unaware of it because it is happening on the microscopic level. If life was created from inorganic matter in the past, then why shouldn't it still be happening in our lifetimes?

 

[EarthAlive]

But what possible indications exist that such a thing occurred?

That we all came from the same common ancestor makes perfect sense considering all the traits we share with other forms of life.

Senapathy has listed all the evidence in his book independent birth of organisms. I don't have the book, but theres two websites which summarise his theory. He rejects common descent.

"Mainstream science" at one point was very fond of the primordial soup theory, infact many still buy into it. I don't buy into it, what makes more sense is panspermia to me.

But regarding the common ancestor, I dont buy into that, but if you want to know why so many structures in nature look similar and why traits look like they are shared, you should look into the work of Stuart Pivar for example, he says there was a universal plasm or "archtype".

 

[EarthAlive]

Perhaps there is new life being created today from inorganic matter, but we are unaware of it because it is happening on the microscopic level. If life was created from inorganic matter in the past, then why shouldn't it still be happening in our lifetimes?

Life only comes from Life, Christian Schwabe has published papers claiming that life is not only eternal but it is universal in the cosmos, he argues for biogenesis. He then says that chemicals arrived at planets, and all species derived from these pools of chemicals. Not quite sure how he says the chemicals got to earth, you could probably suggest panspermia via comets etc.

 

[Tellurian]

Life only comes from Life, Christian Schwabe has published papers claiming that life is not only eternal but it is universal in the cosmos, he argues for biogenesis. He then says that chemicals arrived at planets, and all species derived from these pools of chemicals. Not quite sure how he says the chemicals got to earth, you could probably suggest panspermia via comets etc.

I don't understand how you can say, "life only comes from life". There had to be a time when there was no life. There was no life when the "big bang" occurred.

 

[EarthAlive]

I don't understand how you can say, "life only comes from life". There had to be a time when there was no life. There was no life when the "big bang" occurred.

We need to ask ourselves, is it possible to have non-life? The answer to this question is no. There is no such thing as non-life, non-life can not appear anywhere becuase it does not exist, we can not even imagine non-life. There is always life present, either in the cosmos or in tiny places like under a rock.

If the Big Bang did happen what caused it? Energy. And that energy is life, and that life has always existed. Science has proven that energy can not be created or destroyed, it always exists, so life always has existed.

We have accepted that comets and meteorites have impacted the earth in the past, what if cosmic seeds of life entered earth this way. Your looking here at millions of independent origins. Yes this is a theory, but a plausible theory.

 

[McBell]

We need to ask ourselves, is it possible to have non-life? The answer to this question is no. There is no such thing as non-life, non-life can not appear anywhere becuase it does not exist, we can not even imagine non-life. There is always life present, either in the cosmos or in tiny places like under a rock.

If the Big Bang did happen what caused it? Energy. And that energy is life, and that life has always existed. Science has proven that energy can not be created or destroyed, it always exists, so life always has existed.

We have accepted that comets and meteorites have impacted the earth in the past, what if cosmic seeds of life entered earth this way. Your looking here at millions of independent origins. Yes this is a theory, but a plausible theory.

Define "non-life"

 

[Riverwolf]

Define "non-life"

Heck, define "life."

 

[McBell]

Heck, define "life."

One at a time....

 

[Riverwolf]

One at a time....

But shouldn't you define a thing before you determine what it's negative is?

 

[Photonic]

Perhaps there is new life being created today from inorganic matter, but we are unaware of it because it is happening on the microscopic level. If life was created from inorganic matter in the past, then why shouldn't it still be happening in our lifetimes?

But it is happening! Undersea thermal vents have been shown to be populated with tons of species we have never encountered before.

 

[Riverwolf]

Senapathy has listed all the evidence in his book independent birth of organisms. I don't have the book, but theres two websites which summarise his theory. He rejects common descent.

"Mainstream science" at one point was very fond of the primordial soup theory, infact many still buy into it. I don't buy into it, what makes more sense is panspermia to me.

But regarding the common ancestor, I dont buy into that, but if you want to know why so many structures in nature look similar and why traits look like they are shared, you should look into the work of Stuart Pivar for example, he says there was a universal plasm or "archtype".

Perhaps you could summarize? I already have tons of books on my reading list.

 

[Tellurian]

We need to ask ourselves, is it possible to have non-life? The answer to this question is no. There is no such thing as non-life, non-life can not appear anywhere becuase it does not exist, we can not even imagine non-life. There is always life present, either in the cosmos or in tiny places like under a rock.

Are you familiar with the search for LUCA?

Last universal common ancestor more complex than previously thought

 

[McBell]

But shouldn't you define a thing before you determine what it's negative is?

Seems to me that you are making assumptions, at least in part, about his definition of "non-life".

 

[painted wolf]

Life only comes from Life, Christian Schwabe has published papers claiming that life is not only eternal but it is universal in the cosmos, he argues for biogenesis. He then says that chemicals arrived at planets, and all species derived from these pools of chemicals. Not quite sure how he says the chemicals got to earth, you could probably suggest panspermia via comets etc.

Then this completely destroys the independent origins idea... as you need everything to spontaneously form from the non-life of the "primordial soup".

Unless the "soup" is alive and then we are all sharing a common ancestor again.

But of Schwabe is talking about biogenesis then he isn't talking about life coming only from life... and your first sentence contradicts itself.

wa:do

 

[Looncall]

We need to ask ourselves, is it possible to have non-life? The answer to this question is no. There is no such thing as non-life, non-life can not appear anywhere becuase it does not exist, we can not even imagine non-life. There is always life present, either in the cosmos or in tiny places like under a rock.

If the Big Bang did happen what caused it? Energy. And that energy is life, and that life has always existed. Science has proven that energy can not be created or destroyed, it always exists, so life always has existed.

We have accepted that comets and meteorites have impacted the earth in the past, what if cosmic seeds of life entered earth this way. Your looking here at millions of independent origins. Yes this is a theory, but a plausible theory.

"Energy is life" is meaningless twaddle.

The nested hierarchy that always shows up when organisms are classified still needs to be accounted for.

Your list of authors does not impress me. Their are lots of crackpots around.

 

[EarthAlive]

Then this completely destroys the independent origins idea... as you need everything to spontaneously form from the non-life of the "primordial soup".

Unless the "soup" is alive and then we are all sharing a common ancestor again.

But of Schwabe is talking about biogenesis then he isn't talking about life coming only from life... and your first sentence contradicts itself.

wa:do

The primordial soups or chemical ponds are not non-life, since when have chemicals and proteins been "non living", they are very much alive.

Senapathy seems to support abiogenesis but for Schwabe he supports biogenesis.

Yes Christian Schwabe has written a paper on biogenesis, do you know what biogenesis means? It means life only comes from life. Look up the work of Louis Pasteur. So according to Schwabe the chemicals in the ponds have always existed in the universe.