Ancient Indigenous Tribe Narrates Identity Of All Tribes In The World Originated From Cibolan In Davao

[rocket art]

it seems improbable to contain the phenomenon of evident heavy impact on Mars on the timeframe of Hadean eon as it is obvious that the numerous impact as evident on one surface of Mars occurred after the topographical features characteristic of its other surfaces portrayed its present form, which actually manifested a series of phenomenon that may have occurred as a result of this later impact that may actually portray a once totally different planet, such as the depletion of its once atmosphere and even the signature spectral color of its surface noting the presence of iron oxide that may provide signs that Mars was once a planet imbued with bodies of water in its early stages that brings it to hundreds of millions of years ago that jump started its oxidation process. Such planetary evolution as a Martian watery surface before its impact did not contradict the creation mythology of Mindanao's Indigenous tribes (albeit portrayed figuratively) relative to Mars' inevitable role and contribution in the formation of present Earth at all (i.e., Mars was subjected to debris bombardment during the catastophic event that also resulted with the formation of Asteroid belt, and that part of the waters on Earth originated from Mars that also occurred as a result during this phenomenon)just as with the theory mentioned in my Thread, as narrated by the ancient knowledge of a Mindanao Indigenous Tribe and based on Sitchin's and Velikovsky's (except for his erroneous timeline) modern interpretations..

 

But the conventional theory that attempted to explain the presence of iron oxidation on Mar's surface without the presence of water may take too many billions of years, even longer than the existence of the Solar system itself, before it could cover the entire planet that may deem least likely to substantially explain.

 

http://www.universetoday.com/22580/why-is-mars-red/

 

Here is another video documentary that mentioned the presence of sedimentary layers on Mar's rock formation that only occur with the presence of large water bodies, and of "blueberries", i.e. iron-rich spherules of the type exactly found within cavities at the bottom of our planet's oceans.

 

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FlXuUxFTcLs

 

 

 

 

on the other hand, recent research had actually cast doubt on the theory of Late Heavy Bombardment:

New Research Casts Doubt on Late Heavy Bombardment

 

 

on the left of this image , what is the name of the region where there appears to be a crator, with straight lines going in all directions?

 

intriguing, wonders what that was too.

Edited April 8, 2012 by rocket art

[rocket art]

I need to revise my statement. There may indeed be the probability of large enough impact as "asteroid" (or in the case of this thread, huge chunks from interplanetary collision) otherwise lesser forces could not have caused such massive catastrophic alteration of Mars' depleted atmosphere, vanished oceans of water and huge disturbance of its gravitational field.

Edited April 9, 2012 by rocket art

[Eudoxus]

Just like to mention, continents don't tend to subduct. Oceanic plates subduct under continental plates because basalt is denser than the typically granitic rocks of the continents. When two continental plates collide you tend to see uplift and orogeny, that is mountain building. Ie, the collision between the Indian plate and the Chinese sub-plate, forming the Himalayas including Mt Everest, and the Tibetan plateau.

 

If an entire continent had been subducted somehow in the not too distant past, there would be mountains of evidence. Literal mountains; you would see a massive orogenic belt with hundreds of volcanoes, many of them likely esoteric, like carbonatite volcanoes that are hypothesized to be caused by the melting of limestone. Note that the only active carbonatite volcano is in Kenya, and it's on a rift valley, not a subduction zone. You would see multitudes of terrestrial exotic terranes, that is rock that clearly formed on a different continent heavily metamorphosed as it subducts and then broken off and fused to the plate above it. We see many marine exotic terranes on old subduction zones, chert and limestone and such, but few terrestrial exotic terranes and none anywhere near as recent as would be required to support your hypothesis of a subducted continent.

 

 

 

I see no evidence for your position, and a great deal of evidence against it.

 

 

I'm going to ask you to do something a little different. Don't waste time refuting my points. Just let them go for now. Sit down, and write up ALL the evidence you have to support your views. Don't think about what I've criticized, just write down what you've got and post that in a neat, concise way. All your evidence, the papers and other sources you reference, explanations of any deductions or inferences you might make, etc. Present your entire case. Go.

[rocket art]

Just like to mention, continents don't tend to subduct. Oceanic plates subduct under continental plates because basalt is denser than the typically granitic rocks of the continents. When two continental plates collide you tend to see uplift and orogeny, that is mountain building. Ie, the collision between the Indian plate and the Chinese sub-plate, forming the Himalayas including Mt Everest, and the Tibetan plateau.

 

If an entire continent had been subducted somehow in the not too distant past, there would be mountains of evidence. Literal mountains; you would see a massive orogenic belt with hundreds of volcanoes, many of them likely esoteric, like carbonatite volcanoes that are hypothesized to be caused by the melting of limestone. Note that the only active carbonatite volcano is in Kenya, and it's on a rift valley, not a subduction zone. You would see multitudes of terrestrial exotic terranes, that is rock that clearly formed on a different continent heavily metamorphosed as it subducts and then broken off and fused to the plate above it. We see many marine exotic terranes on old subduction zones, chert and limestone and such, but few terrestrial exotic terranes and none anywhere near as recent as would be required to support your hypothesis of a subducted continent.

 

 

 

I see no evidence for your position, and a great deal of evidence against it.

 

 

I'm going to ask you to do something a little different. Don't waste time refuting my points. Just let them go for now. Sit down, and write up ALL the evidence you have to support your views. Don't think about what I've criticized, just write down what you've got and post that in a neat, concise way. All your evidence, the papers and other sources you reference, explanations of any deductions or inferences you might make, etc. Present your entire case. Go.

 

good pointers :thumbs_up

 

Actually, my position, as far as this Thread had dwelled into, did not contradict yours. The position in this thread as recorded by the ancient knowledge of Mindanao's Indigenous People's in particular the Samal Tribe of Davao, and that of the ancient Sumerians, and translated in modern terms by Zechariah Sitchin, in which I then incorporated these as it coursed its way with the discussions that my personal research would refer to as Ric Vil Hori's Lemurian Timeline,

 

was that the very ancient supercontinent of Lemuria, which was once in contemporary with the supercontinent Pangaea, which initially did not subduct, but rather was destroyed by horrendous collision of inter-planetary proportions hundreds of millions of years ago, possibly during the Permian Triassic Extinction Event, which may also partly explain the formation of the Asteroid Belt, and the resulting Continental Drift of the huge Pangaea land mass that now form the present continents.

 

 

 

Possible evidence of this position must be the presence of certain C-Type Asteroids (comprising 75% and even higher along the outskirts of the belt) manifesting a profusion of carbonaceous components and hydrated, water containing minerals. It can be recalled that prior to the Permian Triassic Extinction Event the planet had already undergone the Carboniferous Period (aka "coal bearing) where many coal beds were formed around the globe during this time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carboniferous

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C-type_asteroid

 

With such position as the topic here is concerned however, it may be a call to actually debunk otherwise conventional theories as the Expanding Earth Theory, and even the conventional beliefs on the formation of the Asteroid Belt. the conventional, mainstream theory on the formation of the Asterod Belt was postulated simply because Science by then could not explain the previous suggestion by Heinrich Olbers that the Asteroid belt were fragments of of a much larger planet as to where the large amount of energy needed to do so could have originated.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asteroid_belt

 

Unless one incorporates the ancient knowledge of Humanity's ancestors, particularly with Mindanao's Indigenous tribes (as well as ancient Sumerians), encoded in its olden myths and legends, and now translated in modern terms by Sitchin on the Asteroid Belt and Velikovsky on Mars (irregardless of his erroneous timeline). When the translations are incorporated, such ancient claims as inter-planetary wide collision would actually be logical to explain as to the source of such required energy to have achieved it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

The topic of Subduction on this thread may be in reference to later occurrence after the said collision event, which may be evident with the next phase of the ultimate sinking of the remnants of ancient Lemuria as seen on the very distinct geological time frame encircled on the image below, which by then the Lemurian fragment may have ceased to be a supercontinent, and thus formed another phase of Subduction with the formation of the Philippine trench, which paved the way for the later formation of the Philippine archipelago mostly in the later Tertiary Period, in which evidence of such sinking may be found in underwater discoveries of an ancient underwater mandmade city in Yonaguni, Japan.

 

 

Edited April 9, 2012 by rocket art

[rocket art]

Mt. Apo by the way is a stratovolcano, the kind common at subduction zones. The mountain is also considered as the center of endemism in Mindanao island and has one of the highest land-based biological diversity in terms of flora and fauna per unit area.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Apo

 

 

 

 

It is in Mt. Apo where one finds the World's rarest and among the largest eagle, the Philippine Eagle, as well as the "queen of orchids" and considered among the World's most beautiful, the Waling-waling endemic only in Davao and nearby it. Durian also abound here, otherwise rarely would it grow in other places of the country. Waters filtered by Mt. Apo's volcanic rocks are considered the World's best water next to Netherlands based on WHO study.

 

 

 

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Edited April 10, 2012 by rocket art

[Eudoxus]

I was thinking more bulletpoints.

 

 

Like,

 

 

THESIS

 

* Evidence

* Evidence

...- Argument

...- Argument

* Evidence

...- Argument

......* Additional evidence

* Evidence

 

CLOSING STATEMENT

Edited April 9, 2012 by Eudoxus

[rocket art]

In the larger picture of things in this Thread, some of the evidences I had been gathering is that the Indigenous Peoples of Mindanao Island, Philippines may as well have preserved among the oldest, if not the oldest repository of knowledge in the ancient history of Earth Humanity. This will further strengthen the position I held in this Thread that the identity of all the world's tribes indeed originated as claimed by the Indigenous People's from my place.

 

Amazing, in the process of my standing up with my position and translating it had inevitably led to tracing back a very, very ancient civilization dating back to as far as the Paleozoic Era (that I will officialy refer as Ric Vil Hori's Lemurian Timeline), and may even partly explain the possible origin of the Asteroid Belt and the enigma of waterless Mars!! :blink:

 

Could it be that despite the challenges that had to be encountered, but I had actually done some kind of revolutionary feat here B)

 

 

 

 

 

(that ain't a closing statement yet :P )

Edited April 9, 2012 by rocket art

[Eudoxus]

Wait, you're arguing for Paleozoic humans?

 

 

Siiiiiiiiiigh. Nevermind. Go stew in your own fantasies.

[Eudoxus]

Let me just leave you with this. In the history of human rationality and inquiry, no significant scientific discovery or advance has ever been made by a scientific illiterate. If you don't know why humans existing in the paleozoic is, to be blunt, ****ing stupid... Then you are likely too scientifically illiterate to significantly contribute to the advance of human knowledge.

 

 

 

The problem we have today is the large number of people with an intuitive mindset. People who are capable of taking all number of apparently unrelated facts, and weaving them into a single system. I have this type of mind. But the problem is that the vast majority of people with this mindset have never learned self-criticism. They don't know how to examine their own ideas for flaws and are unwilling to admit any flaws that are pointed out to them. They thought it, they believe it, it must be right. It's the point of view that gives us 9/11 Truthers and 2012ers and Creationists and now your random stitched-together pastiche of mysticism, misunderstood science, and science fiction.

 

 

I'm going to be very blunt (again).

 

 

You are wrong. You may be too wrapped up in fantasy to admit it, but you are. It's ok though. We all come up with stupid stuff sometimes. But you have to be able to stand back, look at yourself, and admit it. Just because you think something doesn't make it true. It's humbling, it's embarrassing, but it's necessary. If you can't self-criticize, you can't function as a useful member of society. You'll just be another nutjob, like all the other nutjobs, wasting their lives advocating their own brand of self-delusion. Your idea is no different from theirs. And I want you to step back and at least stipulate the idea... that you might be wrong.

[Moontanman]

Let me just leave you with this. In the history of human rationality and inquiry, no significant scientific discovery or advance has ever been made by a scientific illiterate. If you don't know why humans existing in the paleozoic is, to be blunt, ****ing stupid... Then you are likely too scientifically illiterate to significantly contribute to the advance of human knowledge.

 

I quite agree with you, this entire thread is not worthy of even strange claims, it connects things that have no connection and conflates other things that are totally unimportant and trivializes other things that are important. His evidence indicates he has no sense of deep time what so ever and seems to think that events can be stitched together anytime he feels it's necessary to support this argument. This entire thread is nothing less than a slap in the face to what science and the scientific method really are.

 

Having an open mind no more means that everything has to be considered anymore than being a skeptic means that nothing can be believed.

[rocket art]

Re-Edited:

 

 

Wait, you're arguing for Paleozoic humans?

 

 

Siiiiiiiiiigh. Nevermind. Go stew in your own fantasies.

 

(asking your own questions and stewing your own answers, huh :rolleyes: )

 

Let me just leave you with this. In the history of human rationality and inquiry, no significant scientific discovery or advance has ever been made by a scientific illiterate. If you don't know why humans existing in the Paleozoic is, to be blunt, ****ing stupid... Then you are likely too scientifically illiterate to significantly contribute to the advance of human knowledge.

 

Humanity evolving from ancient ape ancestors occurred only during the last 60-50 million years or so, which was then that carbon-based mammalians were evolving.

 

My thread is in reference to even much older than that, particularly even incorporating prior to the Permian Triassic Extinction Event that occurred about 250 million years ago. By then mammals had not yet evolved and so obviously your ranting is understandable, in which for your information I'm actually aware of it.

 

However if your position only stood on that, then it is limited, which is why it amuses me that your rant even referred me to be "scientifically illiterate" when it turned out s far as this Thread is concerned, it may possibly be the other way around <_< . If you will backread the discussion as far as this Thread had dwelt into, was way beyond when mammalians were yet to evolve, but rather reptilian creatures yet roamed the surface of our Planet arising from evolution's primordial soup on silica surface. This Thread indeed had dwelt into such ancient repository of knowledge that it tackled a possible reference, as another forumer once referred to, of an ancient ancestry of "dino civilization."

 

 

However, speaking of the link to the continuity of undeniable evolution that had progressed with Human ancestry, then in proceeding with the hands of Time, such evolutionary link may be contributed to the creature that once roamed on the surface of our Planet, not surprisingly also during the era still relative with the discussions in this Thread dating back to the Triassic period, having both reptilian and mammalian features that could be the link to our continuing evolution, the Therapsid:

 

http://dinosaurs.about.com/od/otherprehistoriclife/a/earlymammals.htm

 

 

You should have observed by now that the Thread had not contradicted proven facts in Science, and may have even tackled some dross to conventional paradigms (even calls to debunking some :blink: ). Admit it or not, that's how advancement does.

 

 

 

The problem we have today is the large number of people with an intuitive mindset. People who are capable of taking all number of apparently unrelated facts, and weaving them into a single system. I have this type of mind. But the problem is that the vast majority of people with this mindset have never learned self-criticism. They don't know how to examine their own ideas for flaws and are unwilling to admit any flaws that are pointed out to them. They thought it, they believe it, it must be right. It's the point of view that gives us 9/11 Truthers and 2012ers and Creationists and now your random stitched-together pastiche of mysticism, misunderstood science, and science fiction.

 

Actually that's not the problem, the problem is mainstream paradigms, even from "scientific community" misunderstanding even the definition of it, relegating intuition with conventional description somewhat akin to "educated guess."

 

A website I once encountered had an even better description of Intuition, and that is knowledge at cellular level, and that definition I would rather adhere too. It seems the mindset you referred to yourself was actually the former, which was where the problem is. Otherwise if you were indeed being truly Intuitive you should have discerned by now. And by the way, it is a Gift, claiming to have one when actually not having may be mere illusion, which could be a problem.

 

Einstein knew about such Intuition, and lamented about it.

 

To quote, and to be blunt:

 

 

It's unfortunate that it seems there were among you in such a kind of society that had forgotten the gift, and that's the real problem.

 

 

I'm going to be very blunt (again).

 

 

You are wrong. You may be too wrapped up in fantasy to admit it, but you are. It's ok though. We all come up with stupid stuff sometimes. But you have to be able to stand back, look at yourself, and admit it. Just because you think something doesn't make it true. It's humbling, it's embarrassing, but it's necessary. If you can't self-criticize, you can't function as a useful member of society. You'll just be another nutjob, like all the other nutjobs, wasting their lives advocating their own brand of self-delusion. Your idea is no different from theirs. And I want you to step back and at least stipulate the idea... that you might be wrong.

 

Oh, it's ok with me too, actually before having posted this thread I may have done some self-criticism even, and humility is a positive trait that can always come in handy for benefit. Having done with one's limitations these may provide the necessary refinement of one's perspective and eventually even help build a sense of confidence in offering one's contribution in dealing the capacity of the Human Being with both his rationality and Intuition, for by then when thus refined it will be able to face the challenge and stand the test of time.

 

However, I do believe that you may also manifest such trait, and I believe you may also be humble enough that as a fellow human being it is necessary that after offering to take the dust from your fellow's eyes, there may also be the need to also deal with the dross in yours, embarrassing it may be. And since you have already mentioned the ways in dealing with it, it may not be necessary for me to repeat your litany that you may also be needing.

 

Otherwise having such lopsided perspective would just go into a vicious cycle that won't go places and alarmingly would even result to what Einstein lamented all along about one contributing instead to creating such a kind of "nutjob" society (which seems to be unfortunately occurring in this "modern" era), and to bluntly re-quote:

"We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift." :wacko:

 

 

 

 

:thumbs_up

 

 

 

 

 

 

@ Moontanman, you should gaze at an eagle and admire a flower once in a while, you need it :huh:

 

 

 

.

Edited April 10, 2012 by rocket art

[Eudoxus]

What is your evidence for silicon based life of any form? Silicon based life being defined as life-like organisms using silicon as a primary constituent of their biochemistry. Ie, provide evidence of fossils, descriptions of their biochemistry, any evidence at all.

 

 

 

I must admit, your worldview is fascinatingly strange.

 

I do vote that this be moved to "Silly Claims" instead of "Strange Claims" at this point.

[Moontanman]

(asking your own questions and stewing your own answers, huh :rolleyes: )

 

 

 

Humanity evolving from ancient ape ancestors occurred only during the last 60-50 million years or so, which was then that carbon-based mammalians were evolving.

 

Do you have any evidence for the existence of humans before 200,000 years ago? If not please refrain from making such claims.

 

My thread is in reference to even much older than that, particularly even incorporating prior to the Permian Triassic Extinction Event that occurred about 250 million years ago. By then carbon-based mammals had not yet evolved and so obviously your ranting is understandable, in which for your information I'm actually aware of it.

 

Actually mammals had evolved by then, primitive mammals to be sure but mammals none the less

 

However if your position only stood on that, then it is limited, which is why it amuses me that your rant even referred me to be "scientifically illiterate" when it turned out s far as this Thread is concerned, it may possibly be the other way around <_< . If you will backread the discussion as far as this Thread had dwelt into, was way beyond when carbon-based mammalians were yet to evolve, but rather silicon-based reptilian creatures yet roamed the surface of our Planet. This Thread indeed had dwelt into such ancient repository of knowledge that it tackled a possible reference, as another forumer once referred to, of an ancient ancestry of "dino civilization."

 

Do you have any evidence of silicon life ever roaming the surface of the earth? if not please refrain from making such claims.

 

 

However, speaking of the link to the continuity of undeniable evolution that had progressed with Human ancestry, then in proceeding with the hands of Time, such evolutionary link may be contributed to the creature that once roamed on the surface of our Planet, not surprisingly also during the era still relative with the discussions in this Thread dating back to the Triassic period, having both reptilian and mammalian features that could be the link to our continuing evolution, the Therapsid:

 

http://dinosaurs.about.com/od/otherprehistoriclife/a/earlymammals.htm

 

what would be your point here?

 

 

You should have observed by now that the Thread had not contradicted proven facts in Science, and may have even tackled some dross to conventional paradigms (even calls to debunking some :blink: ). Admit it or not, that's how advancement does.

 

 

So far this thread has been nothing but fantasy having little or nothing to do with science.

 

 

Actually that's not the problem, the problem is mainstream paradigms, even from "scientific community" misunderstanding even the definition of it, relegating intuition with conventional description somewhat akin to "educated guess."

 

I'll take educated guess over fairy tale any day.

 

A website I once encountered had an even better description of Intuition, and that is knowledge at cellular level, and that definition I would rather adhere too. It seems the mindset you referred to yourself was actually the former, which was where the problem is. Otherwise if you were indeed being truly Intuitive you should have discerned by now. And by the way, it is a Gift, claiming to have one when actually not having may be mere illusion, which could be a problem.

 

Word salad, made of poisonous herbs and hallucinogenic mushrooms...

 

Einstein knew about such Intuition, and lamented about it.

 

To quote, and to be blunt:

 

 

It's unfortunate that it seems there were among you in such a kind of society that had forgotten the gift, and that's the real problem.

 

quote mining proves nothing nor does an appeal to authority

 

Oh, it's ok with me too, actually before having posted this thread I may have done some self-criticism even, and humility is a positive trait that can always come in handy for benefit. Having done with one's limitations these may provide the necessary refinement of one's perspective and eventually even help build a sense of confidence in offering one's contribution in dealing the capacity of the Human Being with both his rationality and Intuition, for by then when thus refined it will be able to face the challenge and stand the test of time.

 

More maniacal ravings?

 

However, I do believe that you may also manifest such trait, and I believe you may also be humble enough that as a fellow human being it is necessary that after offering to take the dust from your fellow's eyes, there may also be the need to also deal with the dross in yours, embarrassing it may be. And since you have already mentioned the ways in dealing with it, it may not be necessary for me to repeat your litany that you may also be needing.

 

It is how ever necessary for you to back up your assertions with more than horse feathers...

 

Otherwise having such lopsided perspective would just go into a vicious cycle that won't go places and alarmingly would even result to what Einstein lamented all along about one contributing instead to creating such a kind of "nutjob" society (which seems to be unfortunately occurring in this "modern" era), and to bluntly re-quote:

"We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift." :wacko:

 

More appeals to authority? Not good dude...

 

@ Moontanman, you should gaze at an eagle and admire a flower once in a while, you need it :huh:

 

OOOO how deep it goes....

[belovelife]

i thought all life used silica to grow, cell walls and stuff

[Eudoxus]

Silica =/= silicon. Silica and silicates are used by some organisms for structural members, but they are not a fundamental part of the organism's biochemistry.

[rocket art]

What is your evidence for silicon based life of any form? Silicon based life being defined as life-like organisms using silicon as a primary constituent of their biochemistry. Ie, provide evidence of fossils, descriptions of their biochemistry, any evidence at all.

 

here are some articles that discussed about the possibility of silicon-based building blocks in life forms:

 

Physicists Discover Inorganic Dust With Lifelike Qualities

 

Could extraterrestrial life be made of corkscrew-shaped particles of interstellar dust? Intriguing new evidence of life-like structures that form from inorganic substances in space have been revealed in the New Journal of Physics. The findings hint at the possibility that life beyond earth may not necessarily use carbon-based molecules as its building blocks. They also point to a possible new explanation for the origin of life on earth.

 

Life on earth is organic. It is composed of organic molecules, which are simply the compounds of carbon, excluding carbonates and carbon dioxide. The idea that particles of inorganic dust may take on a life of their own is nothing short of alien, going beyond the silicon-based life forms favoured by some science fiction stories.

 

Now, an international team has discovered that under the right conditions, particles of inorganic dust can become organised into helical structures. These structures can then interact with each other in ways that are usually associated with organic compounds and life itself.

 

V.N. Tsytovich of the General Physics Institute, Russian Academy of Science, in Moscow, working with colleagues there and at the Max-Planck Institute for Extraterrestrial Physics in Garching, Germany and the University of Sydney, Australia, has studied the behaviour of complex mixtures of inorganic materials in a plasma. Plasma is essentially the fourth state of matter beyond solid, liquid and gas, in which electrons are torn from atoms leaving behind a miasma of charged particles.

 

Until now, physicists assumed that there could be little organisation in such a cloud of particles. However, Tsytovich and his colleagues demonstrated, using a computer model of molecular dynamics, that particles in a plasma can undergo self-organization as electronic charges become separated and the plasma becomes polarized. This effect results in microscopic strands of solid particles that twist into corkscrew shapes, or helical structures. These helical strands are themselves electronically charged and are attracted to each other.

 

Quite bizarrely, not only do these helical strands interact in a counterintuitive way in which like can attract like, but they also undergo changes that are normally associated with biological molecules, such as DNA and proteins, say the researchers. They can, for instance, divide, or bifurcate, to form two copies of the original structure. These new structures can also interact to induce changes in their neighbours and they can even evolve into yet more structures as less stable ones break down, leaving behind only the fittest structures in the plasma.

 

So, could helical clusters formed from interstellar dust be somehow alive? "These complex, self-organized plasma structures exhibit all the necessary properties to qualify them as candidates for inorganic living matter," says Tsytovich, "they are autonomous, they reproduce and they evolve."

 

He adds that the plasma conditions needed to form these helical structures are common in outer space. However, plasmas can also form under more down to earth conditions such as the point of a lightning strike. The researchers hint that perhaps an inorganic form of life emerged on the primordial earth, which then acted as the template for the more familiar organic molecules we know today.

 

 

 

silicon-based life

 

All known life on Earth is built upon carbon and carbon-based compounds. Yet the possibility has been discussed that life elsewhere may have a different chemical foundation – one based on the element silicon.

 

 

Early speculation

In 1891, the German astrophysicist Julius Scheiner became perhaps the first person to speculate on the suitability of silicon as a basis for life. This idea was taken up by the British chemist James Emerson Reynolds who, in 1893, in his opening address to the British Association for the Advancement of Science,1 pointed out that the heat stability of silicon compounds might allow life to exist at very high temperatures (see thermophiles). In an 1894 article,2 drawing on Reynolds's ideas and also those of Robert Ball,3 H. G. Wells wrote:

 

One is startled towards fantastic imaginings by such a suggestion: visions of silicon-aluminium organisms – why not silicon-aluminium men at once? – wandering through an atmosphere of gaseous sulphur, let us say, by the shores of a sea of liquid iron some thousand degrees or so above the temperature of a blast furnace.

 

Thirty years later, J. B. S. Haldane suggested that life might be found deep inside a planet based on partly molten silicates, the oxidation of iron perhaps providing it with energy.

 

 

Silicon biochemistry?

At first sight, silicon does look like a promising organic alternative to carbon. It is common in the universe and is also a p-block element of group IV, lying directly below carbon in the periodic table of elements, so that much of its basic chemistry is similar. For instance, just as carbon combines with four hydrogen atoms to form methane, CH4, silicon yields silane, SiH4. Silicates are analogs of carbonates, silicon chloroform of chloroform, and so on. Both elements form long chains, or polymers, in which they alternate with oxygen. In the simplest case, carbon-oxygen chains yield polyacetal, a plastic used in synthetic fibers, while from a backbone of alternating atoms of silicon and oxygen come polymeric silicones.

 

Conceivably, some strange life-forms might be built from silicone-like substances were it not for an apparently fatal flaw in silicon's biological credentials. This is its powerful affinity for oxygen. When carbon is oxidized during the respiratory process of a terrestrial organism (see respiration), it becomes the gas carbon dioxide – a waste material that is easy for a creature to remove from its body. The oxidation of silicon, however, yields a solid because, immediately upon formation, silicon dioxide organizes itself into a lattice in which each silicon atom is surrounded by four oxygens. Disposing of such a substance would pose a major respiratory challenge.

 

Life-forms must also be able to collect, store, and utilize energy from their environment. In carbon-based biota, the basic energy storage compounds are carbohydrates in which the carbon atoms are linked by single bonds into a chain. A carbohydrate is oxidized to release energy (and the waste products water and carbon dioxide) in a series of controlled steps using enzymes. These enzymes are large, complex molecules (see proteins) which catalyze specific reactions because of their shape and "handedness." A feature of carbon chemistry is that many of its compounds can take right and left forms, and it is this handedness, or chirality, that gives enzymes their ability to recognize and regulate a huge variety of processes in the body. Silicon's failure to give rise to many compounds that display handedness makes it hard to see how it could serve as the basis for the many interconnected chains of reactions needed to support life.

 

The absence of silicon-based biology, or even silicon-based prebiotic chemicals, is also suggested by astronomical evidence. Wherever astronomers have looked – in meteorites, in comets, in the atmospheres of the giant planets, in the interstellar medium, and in the outer layers of cool stars – they have found molecules of oxidized silicon (silicon dioxide and silicates) but no substances such as silanes or silicones which might be the precursors of a silicon biochemistry.

 

Even so, it has been pointed out, silicon may have had a part to play in the origin of life on Earth. A curious fact is that terrestrial life-forms utilize exclusively right-handed carbohydrates and left-handed amino acids. One theory to account for this is that the first prebiotic carbon compounds formed in a pool of "primordial soup" on a silica surface having a certain handedness. This handedness of the silicon compound determined the preferred handedness of the carbon compounds now found in terrestrial life. An entirely different possibility is that of artificial life or intelligence with a significant silicon content.

 

 

 

I must admit, your worldview is fascinatingly strange.

 

I do vote that this be moved to "Silly Claims" instead of "Strange Claims" at this point.

 

 

The Thread, despite the challenge it entailed and the complexity of its needed basis still managed to parry at any test for its veracity. Even as this thread will continue to proceed towards more exciting realms be assured that even you will admit of its consistency, or neither contradicted any verifiable facts in Science, and even called for possible debunking of some convnentional theories in the light of revelations discussed in the process.

 

However, perhaps I may try to re-edit the statement to maintain the veracity of the Thread, and instead of referring to silicon-based, may as well refer to the evolution of reptilian to differentiate between mammalian species in the timeline that this Thread had discussed, actually spanning to hundreds of millions of years, which this

thread had traced is not a mean feat in itself. I may also refer to the term "silicon" more specifically on the evolution of the early species from primordial soup on silica surface. The thread has now maintained the veracity of the terms. Strange and fascinating it may seem to be, it relies on consistency and veracity and cannot be dismissed as "silly".

Edited April 10, 2012 by rocket art

[Eudoxus]

I wasn't asking about the possibility of silicon based life. I was asking about evidence for the existence of silicon based life. Not the same thing. Please provide it.