RE: Panspermia theory?
May 22, 2017 at 11:39 am
(This post was last modified: May 22, 2017 at 11:55 am by Anomalocaris.)
(May 22, 2017 at 11:09 am)mediocrates Wrote: I was watching a show the other day that mentioned panspermia as the current theory explaining the origin of life on Earth.
I don't have an issue with the theory (if it is REALLY a theory; hypothesis if it's not there yet) I do have a question that nobody seems to answer...
It's obvious that life started somewhere (duh.) Why are they speculating that life had to start somewhere else and then move to Earth? Is it not more likely that life just began here as the simplest form imaginable rather than the alternative: Live evolved elsewhere to the extent that it could survive a massive meteor impact and many years of space travel to be transplanted here?
Obviously life had to start and evolve in either scenario; but, panspermia seems to necessitate even more 'long odds' events to happen than if life just evolved here to begin with. There may be some evidence that I haven't been made aware of in which case I welcome any references.
Thoughts?
It is A current theory, not THE current theory. Panspermia also doesn't say life on earth first arose elsewhere. A perfectly acceptable interpretation is life that first arose on earth now also thrives elsewhere.
Since there is no strong evidence that life on earth did not arise on earth - having not yet replicated a potentially extremely complicated process is no evidence the process didn't take place - panspermia in the guise of earth life originated elsewhere is an alibi looking for an accusation.
But for all its laziness and flippancy its intellectual integrity still remains infinitely greater than any "god did it" nonexplanation.
