There was an interesting documentary on the BBC recently about nothing less than the origin of life on Earth. It focused on the theory that life exists in many places in the universe and may have actually been brought to earth on a comet or other object from space.

This theory is called “Panspermia” and isn’t as far-fetched as it first may sound because a scientist who studied a strange red rain that fell in India in 2001 has found some biological cells that do not contain any DNA (edit or RNA). All life on earth contains DNA or RNA so if what this scientist says is correct then the biological cells can’t be from earth.

I find this story very interesting because the most unexplained part of the theory of evolution is how the very first single cell organisms came to exist in the first place. I find it very easy to understand how a single bacteria can develop into a more complex form of life but I can’t understand how life can come from non-living matter. The theory of Panspermia makes more sense than any of the other theories I have read about; this is probably because it doesn’t deal with how life began but how life began on earth.

The scientist who claims that the mysterious red rain that fell in India contained the alien cells is Dr Godfrey Louis who is a professor at Cochin university in Kerela. He says he has carried out various tests that back up his claim but I’m not sure if this has been independently checked. The ability of bacteria found on earth to survive the conditions in space has already been verified by Nasa who is researching specific forms of bacteria that are ideal for space travel.

Panspermia is one hundred million times more viable than creationism but if you were to bring up both theories in conversation with people they would probably find panspermia more wacky than creationism. Why does it have to be this way?

See Panspermia and Dr. Godfrey Louis.

Hopefully this is the first of many posts loosely based on the theory of evolution and how it directly disproves the crazy world of creationism.

This is an old story from April this year but was the result of almost 5 years work by scientists and palaeontologists. It was the discovery of a 375 million year old fossil, named Tiktaalik Roseae, of a fish with front fins that have leg-like bones in them. So the creature was able to use its fins as legs and could lift itself off the ground and support its own weight.

It would have lived in shallow waters and used its foot-like fins to lift its head above the water and look around or maybe even waddle onto land. It is definitely a fish because it has scales and fins but its feet-like bones shows how life on earth made the transition from water to land. If it has the ability to walk on land then it probably had developed air breathing lungs too.

This was a significant find because the emergence of life from water to land is probably the most important step life has taken in the evolutionary process. This is a blow for people who believe in intelligent design because they often claim the gaps in the fossil record somehow prove the existence of a god.

If there is anybody out there then please leave your comments!

I was quite surprised by how often I agreed with Dawkins through both parts of the documentary and he came across as rather sane and polite throughout, which must have been quite taxing for him considering some of the fanatics he met up with.

In saying that there were parts that I did not agree entirely with.

I disagreed with how he suggested that science had proved the claims of religion false. It’s obvious that science has disproved the Young Earth idea fronted by Christianity.

In saying that I don’t think it is fair to lump Christianity in with say Taoism which does not even consider history or politics.

The scene where Dawkins was invited to a rehearsal of a pro-life/anti-choice play was rather frightening.

I’m still trying to decide whether it was more intimidating than last week’s interview with the fundamentalist Muslim cleric who ordered Richard home to “sort out Britain’s women”.

The production (if you could even call it that) included a hard-hitting re-construction of an abortion scene which was to be shown to children as young as 10. Oh the hypocrisy! These are the same people who are constantly lobbying against games like Grand Theft Auto yet use their faith as an excuse to contradict their own morality. It’s bewildering.

It is imperative, as Dawkins rightly pointed out that children are sheltered away from religion until they reach the age of reason.

I pretty much deplored how Christianity was shoved down our throats during morning assemblies and would have tolerated it more if it was consigned to an extra-curricular activity slot.

It’s a pity it was only a two parter as it certainly was enlightening.