R. S. Martin Posted July 12, 2009 Share Posted July 12, 2009 Origin of Life: Panspermia, Series of 3 The links below (at the bottom of this post) are advertized as "Interesting notions about how life possibly came to our planet from deep in space." I consider it more plausible than religion because it is based on known fact and logic regarding how the universe actually works, rather than on magic, wishful thinking, and superstition. Also, so far as I can determine, the thinkers and scientists studying the physics and logistics of panspermia are willing to change their minds if new information comes in. I consider that to be a critical distinction between religious dogma and scientific insight. Science is willing to change its mind but religion daren't. As pointed out in some of the reading I did on panspermia theory, panspermia theory does not answer the question on how life originated; it only sets the question back another step. One article suggests that panspermia also posits the possibility that life is eternal, i.e. has always existed. I found the wikipedia article informative. In my opinion, that is very plausible because things are so very humongously huge that--so far as the human mind is concerned--it is eternal. Whatever the case, the proportions we are discussing are millions of times larger than anything the ancient writers (of any sacred texts) ever imagined or endeavored to describe in the Bible or elsewhere. If life is eternal, how does this differ from the Christian idea of God? Or the Buddhist idea of transmigration of souls? Or the myriad of other religious ideas of continuation of life beyond the grave? In panspermia theory, so far as I can determine from the scholarly literature, life is not conscious or intelligent. It is true that some popular literature mistakes the theory and imagines panspermia is the same as aliens. In Oct. 2000, on Space.com, Robert Roy Britt wrote such an article with the title "Are We All Aliens? The New Case For Panspermia." That article is a joke; it does not agree with the scholarly research. Panspermia is the theory that seeds of life from other sources in the universe may have seeded our planet. A really good DVD on this is Neil DeGrasse Tyson's Origins: Fourteen Billion Years of Cosmic Evolution. Some of it can be viewed here for free. It describes the "seed"; the seed was more like bacteria and did not resemble humans in either shape or size and it was NOT intelligent. The following series on Origin of Life: Panspermia, Series of 3 (10-minute segments) is basically a summary of Tyson's Origins DVD, but it contains other information. It is much shorter and I find it easier to follow. http://www.youtube.c...feature=related http://www.youtube.c...feature=related Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted July 12, 2009 Share Posted July 12, 2009 I don’t care very much for the idea of Panspermia. Although I can’t rule out the possibility that life on Earth was “seeded” from some other place. I don’t like it because it doesn’t really address the emergence of life. As alluded to by this quote here... ... panspermia theory does not answer the question on how life originated; it only sets the question back another step. I’d rather make the assumption that life emerged indigenously on Earth and then go from there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Davka Posted July 12, 2009 Share Posted July 12, 2009 I don’t care very much for the idea of Panspermia. Although I can’t rule out the possibility that life on Earth was “seeded” from some other place. I don’t like it because it doesn’t really address the emergence of life. As alluded to by this quote here... ... panspermia theory does not answer the question on how life originated; it only sets the question back another step. I’d rather make the assumption that life emerged indigenously on Earth and then go from there. Agreed. Panspermia tends to shunt the origin question off to some vague magical place where life had - what? More time? A life-generator? Panspermia was originally an attempt to deal with inadequate information about the origins of life on Earth. Some of the basic mechanisms were still a complete mystery, and it was thought that life needed far longer to emerge than the mere 4.5 billion years since Earth's formation. In the past decade, however, some dramatic new discoveries have been made. Instead of believing that it would take an incredible amount of time and luck for life to emerge, it is now thought that, given the conditions on primordial Earth, the emergence of life was inevitable. In fact, it's become one of the factorrs in the "appearance of design" school of thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scitsofreaky Posted July 13, 2009 Share Posted July 13, 2009 I, too, am not a fan of panspermia. I haven't ever seen good evidence for it, and it does just seem like a cop-out. Davka- I'm not sure luck really plays a very big part anymore. With enough time, luck becomes irrelevant, and it seems life had plenty of time (what, only billions of years?). Besides, as at least one article posted here has shown, many of the building blocks seem to be physically "destined" to come together. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R. S. Martin Posted July 15, 2009 Author Share Posted July 15, 2009 Re thinking of the "past decade," one can hardly discount astrophysicist Neil DeGrasse Tyson. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karhoof Posted July 15, 2009 Share Posted July 15, 2009 Re thinking of the "past decade," one can hardly discount astrophysicist Neil DeGrasse Tyson. NOVA: What great origins-related discoveries would you hope for in the coming decades? Tyson: The discovery of life somewhere other than on Earth. That is an unimpeachable first goal in our exploration of the cosmos. And what's fascinating is the question of whether that life has DNA. It's a fascinating question, because either DNA is inevitable as the foundation for the coding of life, or life started with DNA in only one place in the solar system and then spread among the livable habitats through panspermia. Panspermia allows life on one planet to be thrust back into space by some meteor impact that sends a little shock wave and flings a rock to escape velocity. If you have stowaway bacteria on that rock, they could easily travel through space, particularly the radiation-hardy bacteria we know exist. They can land on and seed another planet, thereby not requiring that you have to create life from scratch multiple times and in multiple places. Possible? Yes. Probable? I really don't think so. Far too many variables come into play here, raising the odds to quite literally astronomical. I think current studies of terrestrial Abiogenesis are much more plausable than this one. But as you said in your original post, this scenario is highly more likely than being spoken into existance by a pan-dimentional, pan-superior "being". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R. S. Martin Posted July 27, 2009 Author Share Posted July 27, 2009 In , Tyson explains in the third question how he thinks panspermia worked--and continues to work. The date on this video is June 27, 2008. It's the source of life and the most astounding fact of science, in his view. For the argument see his book and/or DVD Origins: Fourteen Billion Years of Cosmic Evolution. Given that the logic behind the theory is sound, we can't just dismiss it because we "don't fancy it," or "are not a fan of it," etc.--that's what religion does. In this thread, references are made to "dramatic new discoveries" made "in the past decade"; can you document or describe these discoveries? Maybe post links to scientific articles on them? If abiogenesis is so much more plausible, what and where are the arguments for it and why are they more plausible than Tyson's argument for panspermia? Take into consideration that in his book/video Tyson does provide tons of evidence--as much as any scientist of any skin colour can provide for things that may have happened in these early stages of the existence of our universe. It's heavily theoretical and the scientists are clear about this. The important part is that the theory works, and the theory works only if the factual parts are accurate so far as humans are able to test them empirically in the lab. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legion Posted July 27, 2009 Share Posted July 27, 2009 It might very well be that life on Earth was seeded here from some other place Ruby. Like I said, I can’t rule out the possibility. Let’s say that it was. Let’s say some microbes hitched a ride on a meteorite or something. The next thing we’ll ask is... where did these microbes come from? Let’s say then that through some incredible detective work we actually locate the place from which they came. Next we’ll ask how life began at this place. If we then again answer through panspermia then we once again find ourselves looking for the next place that this life came from. My suspicion is this. When we ask how life began on Earth, what we are really interested in is the non-living to living transition. How and why did life emerge from the non-living? Panspermia doesn’t address this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R. S. Martin Posted July 30, 2009 Author Share Posted July 30, 2009 LR, thank you for clarifying your position. I agree that if one begins with the assumption that life had a beginning and evolved from material matter, then panspermia is not a satisfactory answer. However, if one merely seeks for a solution for how planet earth may have been seeded, and allows for the fact that life may be eternal, this theory offers a logical explanation along with evidence from various sources throughout the universe including our own planet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oddbird1963 Posted July 30, 2009 Share Posted July 30, 2009 I'll have to look at the panspermia videos when I get the time to do so, but I'm not clear on why people believe 3-4 billion years is not enough time for life to develop on its own? Isn't that doubt the basis of panspermia? I've never heard a clear explanation as to why 3,000,000,000 years is not an incredibly long time, long enough for life to develop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts