New support for (galactic) Panspermia

Discussion in 'Science and Nature' started by Zylark, Aug 6, 2008.

  1. Scissored from a Wired article.

    I've been rather against the idea of galactic / universal panspermia ideas. More of a supporter of the idea that biogenesis is a function of the universe that happens more or less everywhere the conditions permit it.

    But these new findings are interesting, and might possibly make us rewrite the textbooks once more :)
  2. Greetings,

    Sure, but the Panspermia hypothesis just moves abiogenesis from one location to another. If it didn't happen on a planet, it happened on a meteor.

    It really doesn't tell us anything awfully new.

    I'm still waiting for self-replicating proteins!

    Yours Truly,
  3. That's very interesting, I think it's very nerving to me when people say "NO! NO! THAT CAN'T HAPPEN!" because it's the universe man, 45 billion light years!

    I believe man, thousands of years ago, was once a small bacteria floating around in the sea, then the bacteria mutated, and only the strong ones formed to fish, and so on.

    The science of life always puts me in such a fascinating mood! :D

  4. You are not alone. But let us break this down:

    1: Life on earth is a result of biogenesis.
    2: Life on earth is a result of biogenesis. Biogenesis have happened other places too.
    3: Life on earth is a result of biogenesis from somewhere else than earth.

    I'll go for option 2 in a heartbeat. As such, finding meteors with trace of life that might preceed life on earth, is not in conflict with biogenesis on earth. If anything, it only proves that life throughout the universe is very common. And as such, I am happy to be wrong, either way is good news. I just need the conclusive evidence first, to what is right, or if a combination is right. As the article says, this is thus far just a hypothesis :)
  5. that is a very good point
  6. I support panspermia. . .
    But I can't say panspermia without washing my mouth out afterward.
    Panspermia, now that's a mouthful!
    So much for my dirty mind. ;)
  7. Hmm, interesting, we'll have to see how this story develops... Thanks for bringing it to the City.
  8. I'll go with option two also, but skipping a few million years ahead, I also believe humans were created by genetically modifying whatever the most evolved/promising bipedal primate was at the time. As for life itself, I believe panspermia is the most likely scenario.

Share This Page