Notices
Results 1 to 24 of 24

Thread: Panspermia theory

  1. #1 Panspermia theory 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2021
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    23
    Do you believe in panspermia theory? How truthful can it be?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    New York State
    Posts
    1,214
    As far as I know, it is just a guess. No evidence either way


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    KJW
    KJW is offline
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    1,713
    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin_Hall View Post
    Do you believe in panspermia theory? How truthful can it be?
    Panspermia is a matter of fact rather than theory. However, even if it is true, it does not solve the problem of the origin of life because it simply moves that problem to a different location. I do not believe in panspermia and would be disappointed if it was somehow determined to have happened.
    There are no paradoxes in relativity, just people's misunderstandings of it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    New York State
    Posts
    1,214
    Quote Originally Posted by KJW View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin_Hall View Post
    Do you believe in panspermia theory? How truthful can it be?
    Panspermia is a matter of fact rather than theory. However, even if it is true, it does not solve the problem of the origin of life because it simply moves that problem to a different location. I do not believe in panspermia and would be disappointed if it was somehow determined to have happened.
    Why do you call it a fact?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    ox
    ox is offline
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,879
    The theory seems to have been advanced by the detection of a rogue comet.

    https://english.elpais.com/usa/2021-...tine-ever.html
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    KJW
    KJW is offline
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    1,713
    Quote Originally Posted by mathman View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KJW View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin_Hall View Post
    Do you believe in panspermia theory? How truthful can it be?
    Panspermia is a matter of fact rather than theory. However, even if it is true, it does not solve the problem of the origin of life because it simply moves that problem to a different location. I do not believe in panspermia and would be disappointed if it was somehow determined to have happened.
    Why do you call it a fact?
    I used the term "matter of fact" in a sense similar to its use in law. The term "matter of fact" is in a different category to the term "fact", and I believe this is the source of confusion. I was referring to "fact" as a type of knowledge and not as a synonym of "true". Panspermia either happened or it didn't happen. Either way would be a fact, but there can be no theory associated with it. At least with palaeontology, there are manifestations in the present that can be studied, and a theory can be developed around that. But panspermia lacks the ability to be scientifically studied. One can study the presence of the chemicals of life or even life itself in space, but that is a different subject to panspermia itself.
    There are no paradoxes in relativity, just people's misunderstandings of it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    New York State
    Posts
    1,214
    Panspermia is a matter of fact rather than theory. However, even if it is true, it does not solve the problem of the origin of life because it simply moves that problem to a different location. I do not believe in panspermia and would be disappointed if it was somehow determined to have happened.
    Why do you call it a fact?
    I used the term "matter of fact" in a sense similar to its use in law. The term "matter of fact" is in a different category to the term "fact", and I believe this is the source of confusion. I was referring to "fact" as a type of knowledge and not as a synonym of "true". Panspermia either happened or it didn't happen. Either way would be a fact, but there can be no theory associated with it. At least with palaeontology, there are manifestations in the present that can be studied, and a theory can be developed around that. But panspermia lacks the ability to be scientifically studied. One can study the presence of the chemicals of life or even life itself in space, but that is a different subject to panspermia itself.
    I am unacquainted with legal jargon!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    KJW
    KJW is offline
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    1,713
    Quote Originally Posted by mathman View Post
    Panspermia is a matter of fact rather than theory. However, even if it is true, it does not solve the problem of the origin of life because it simply moves that problem to a different location. I do not believe in panspermia and would be disappointed if it was somehow determined to have happened.
    Why do you call it a fact?
    I used the term "matter of fact" in a sense similar to its use in law. The term "matter of fact" is in a different category to the term "fact", and I believe this is the source of confusion. I was referring to "fact" as a type of knowledge and not as a synonym of "true". Panspermia either happened or it didn't happen. Either way would be a fact, but there can be no theory associated with it. At least with palaeontology, there are manifestations in the present that can be studied, and a theory can be developed around that. But panspermia lacks the ability to be scientifically studied. One can study the presence of the chemicals of life or even life itself in space, but that is a different subject to panspermia itself.
    I am unacquainted with legal jargon!
    I don't think my use of the term "matter of fact" actually requires you to know legal jargon. And the notion of "categories" is a linguistic notion, not a legal notion. As I said above, I was referring to "fact" as a type of knowledge and not as a synonym of "true".
    There are no paradoxes in relativity, just people's misunderstandings of it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    783
    The phrasing is open to misinterpretation - as can be seen. But then, panspermia has not reached the threshold for "theory" except in the common misuse of "theory" to mean "hypothesis"...


    Quote Originally Posted by ox View Post
    The theory seems to have been advanced by the detection of a rogue comet.

    https://english.elpais.com/usa/2021-...tine-ever.html
    From the link -
    these could carry elements critical to life from one star to another, and even “seed” them on other planets. (my italics).
    And later it refers to providing "building blocks" for life on Earth with glycine as an example (confirmed to exist in meteorite materials). That is still a long way short of evidence for panspermia; those material don't require life to exist.

    But such space objects would be one of the potential places to look for evidence that could indicate if panspermia had occurred - if living matter sharing RNA/DNA with terrestrial life can be found in such places where cross contamination could not have occurred from Earth life being spread into space (by big impact events). Even finding evidence of life on Mars raises questions about if genetic material is shared or if it were there before or appeared after Earth developed life.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Time Lord zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    5,793
    Seen plenty of articles that indicate the presence of water in deep space. If so would it be possible for life to have originated in these vast water clouds at some point, maybe even froze and fell into suspended animation until the right moment to descend on a habitable planet? Has the water sampled by various space craft on Mars etc produced any indications of life present (molecules, amino acids etc.)? Are they even looking for life in watery space?
    All that belongs to human understanding, in this deep ignorance and obscurity, is to be skeptical, or at least cautious; and not to admit of any hypothesis, whatsoever; much less, of any which is supported by no appearance of probability...Hume
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Senior Double Helix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2020
    Posts
    396
    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos View Post
    Seen plenty of articles that indicate the presence of water in deep space. If so would it be possible for life to have originated in these vast water clouds at some point, maybe even froze and fell into suspended animation until the right moment to descend on a habitable planet? Has the water sampled by various space craft on Mars etc produced any indications of life present (molecules, amino acids etc.)? Are they even looking for life in watery space?
    It is likely life would only arise in liquid water, and substantial bodies of it. This allows for the direct contact of a vast number of molecules, which would be required for the reactions eventually resulting in polymers and other complex compounds. This will not occur in vapors common in clouds of water.

    Even if those vapors could form water droplets, it still seems that large, liquid volumes are essential. The origin of life would require an enormous number of various compounds and their interplay, which would not be provided in independent droplets. But conditions could occur where enough droplets merged to form a large body of water, and as long as it was liquid, and the right chemistry, life might arise in deep space (in the absence of a planet).

    Have not heard of any biochemical signatures found on Mars to indicate past or present life. Water, and indications it was liquid in large quantities in the distant past, are the best reasons suggesting life may have formed there.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Time Lord zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    5,793
    All kinds of rocky objects could pass through these water/vapor areas picking up who knows what and deliver to other bodies in their way. Or perhaps these areas move through the universe like a band of life, making the occasional deposit. Found this:

    https://futurism.com/scientists-find-new-evidence-life-begun-space
    All that belongs to human understanding, in this deep ignorance and obscurity, is to be skeptical, or at least cautious; and not to admit of any hypothesis, whatsoever; much less, of any which is supported by no appearance of probability...Hume
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Senior Double Helix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2020
    Posts
    396
    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos View Post
    All kinds of rocky objects could pass through these water/vapor areas picking up who knows what and deliver to other bodies in their way. Or perhaps these areas move through the universe like a band of life, making the occasional deposit. Found this:

    https://futurism.com/scientists-find-new-evidence-life-begun-space
    There are a lot of such bodies out there, even when you consider our solar system. But there is also that Goldilocks zone which is the highest constraint, and minimal ionizing radiation. It seems that a star nearby is a requirement to maintain the zone long enough for life to evolve. That would take quite a while, so the zone must be very stable for a long time. Yellow dwarf stars are probably ideal (but that could be biased).

    Free rocks floating in space collecting water vapors will be frozen worlds without some heat source. That would seem to place a limit on life from free rocks, water and chemicals evolving life. If you can find a heat source without direct ionizing radiation, it is possible.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2022
    Posts
    3
    Panspermia? Maybe and perhaps…

    Well there is the 3.5 billion yr old stromatolite evidence of life coming along nicely pretty soon after the Earth formed.

    Of course stromatolites are a long way along the road of life. Pre dating them is the very first pre bacteria stirring that could be called life. Who knows where or when or what that was?

    Maybe it arrived on ‘Thea’, the object that is believed to have crashed into early Earth and caused the moon to form?

    Maybe that brought all our water too.

    Perhaps Thea was an Enceladus / Ganymede like object with life’s origin in its ocean?

    An object that had been drifting for half of infinity?

    Maybe there’s some evidence of Thea on the almost pristine moon.

    It is often stated that panspermia doesn’t help regarding the mystery of the origin of life, it simply moves it to another location.
    Moving it away from the confines of Earth dates gives it infinitely more time.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Freshman tsfgenady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2021
    Posts
    25
    Quote Originally Posted by Chord View Post
    Moving it away from the confines of Earth dates gives it infinitely more time.
    Not infinitely. Only an extra 10 bln. years max.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    New York State
    Posts
    1,214
    Quote Originally Posted by tsfgenady View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Chord View Post
    Moving it away from the confines of Earth dates gives it infinitely more time.
    Not infinitely. Only an extra 10 bln. years max.
    Less time than that. The early universe didn't have most of the elements. It would be only with a second generation of stars where C, N, O and other needed elements would be present.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2022
    Posts
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by mathman View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by tsfgenady View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Chord View Post
    Moving it away from the confines of Earth dates gives it infinitely more time.
    Not infinitely. Only an extra 10 bln. years max.
    Less time than that. The early universe didn't have most of the elements. It would be only with a second generation of stars where C, N, O and other needed elements would be present.
    Yes you’re right. I was thinking of the universe possibly being infinite which is not relevant.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Time Lord zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    5,793
    I would think that frozen interstellar life not only made its way to the Earth and the Goldilocks zone but quite possibly to many planets that cannot harbour surface life for obvious reasons. If so should there be evidence out there of panspermia, even in our own solar system and as someone suggested our own moon? Could such collisions with life bearing rock penetrate deep within a planet's crust where its possible warmer conditions exist, at least enough to get something started? We seem to be focused on life reaching here on a rock and not paying attention to the same event happening elsewhere. What do we have, one planet in the universe with life or one that spread it around? Proving panspermia would also prove life on other planets, no?
    All that belongs to human understanding, in this deep ignorance and obscurity, is to be skeptical, or at least cautious; and not to admit of any hypothesis, whatsoever; much less, of any which is supported by no appearance of probability...Hume
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Freshman tsfgenady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2021
    Posts
    25
    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos View Post
    I would think that frozen interstellar life not only made its way to the Earth and the Goldilocks zone but quite possibly to many planets that cannot harbour surface life for obvious reasons. If so should there be evidence out there of panspermia, even in our own solar system and as someone suggested our own moon? Could such collisions with life bearing rock penetrate deep within a planet's crust where its possible warmer conditions exist, at least enough to get something started? We seem to be focused on life reaching here on a rock and not paying attention to the same event happening elsewhere. What do we have, one planet in the universe with life or one that spread it around? Proving panspermia would also prove life on other planets, no?
    My bet goes to one planet per galaxy with life, one planet per super-cluster with intelligent life, and one planet per Universe with a technological civilization. And, we know that planet.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Freshman tsfgenady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2021
    Posts
    25
    Clarification: I mean, "one planet per galaxy with life, one planet per super-cluster with intelligent life, and one planet per Universe with a technological civilization" at a time. They randomly appear and disappear here and there.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Time Lord zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    5,793
    Quote Originally Posted by tsfgenady View Post
    Clarification: I mean, "one planet per galaxy with life, one planet per super-cluster with intelligent life, and one planet per Universe with a technological civilization" at a time. They randomly appear and disappear here and there.
    Sounds good. I feel habitable universe still an infant. For how long who knows? We may be the first or the only surviving tech society at this point. Trillions upon trillions of stars, the possibilities are endless. I think life is plentiful in universe and intelligent life is around, but if any intelligence can make tools then it might end up a tech civilization. Now that may be rare.
    All that belongs to human understanding, in this deep ignorance and obscurity, is to be skeptical, or at least cautious; and not to admit of any hypothesis, whatsoever; much less, of any which is supported by no appearance of probability...Hume
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    New York State
    Posts
    1,214
    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by tsfgenady View Post
    Clarification: I mean, "one planet per galaxy with life, one planet per super-cluster with intelligent life, and one planet per Universe with a technological civilization" at a time. They randomly appear and disappear here and there.
    Sounds good. I feel habitable universe still an infant. For how long who knows? We may be the first or the only surviving tech society at this point. Trillions upon trillions of stars, the possibilities are endless. I think life is plentiful in universe and intelligent life is around, but if any intelligence can make tools then it might end up a tech civilization. Now that may be rare.
    "Rare" is a relative. If one star in a million has a planet with life, it would still be a large number of inhabited planets.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Senior Double Helix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2020
    Posts
    396
    Quote Originally Posted by mathman View Post
    "Rare" is a relative. If one star in a million has a planet with life, it would still be a large number of inhabited planets.
    The report from ESA certainly supports this position*. They estimate 10^22 - 10^24 stars in the universe. If one in a million - do the math. Even one in a billion and you have a very large number.

    That offers an unimaginable number of viable star systems which could support life. The odds are that we are not unique in the history of the universe.

    The probability seems decent for other technologically based life forms.


    "How many stars are there in the Universe?"

    * https://www.esa.int/Science_Explorat...n_the_Universe
    Last edited by Double Helix; January 6th, 2022 at 11:05 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Time Lord zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    5,793
    Quote Originally Posted by mathman View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by tsfgenady View Post
    Clarification: I mean, "one planet per galaxy with life, one planet per super-cluster with intelligent life, and one planet per Universe with a technological civilization" at a time. They randomly appear and disappear here and there.
    Sounds good. I feel habitable universe still an infant. For how long who knows? We may be the first or the only surviving tech society at this point. Trillions upon trillions of stars, the possibilities are endless. I think life is plentiful in universe and intelligent life is around, but if any intelligence can make tools then it might end up a tech civilization. Now that may be rare.
    "Rare" is a relative. If one star in a million has a planet with life, it would still be a large number of inhabited planets.
    Agree. Rare means different things to different people. Was referring to a tech society. JMO but I think most life if found will be underwater or underground where both environments may not be as conducive to tool making like solid ground is. Can’t discount intelligence though.

    Who knows? Maybe we’re the anomaly, new kids on the block, and are regarded as extremely primitive by inhabitants of countless planets or someplace beyond, full of intelligent life who are aware of us yet can’t be bothered. That’s primarily for those who think we’re in a simulation or that the universe was built for us, somewhere along those lines.
    Last edited by zinjanthropos; January 7th, 2022 at 12:54 PM.
    All that belongs to human understanding, in this deep ignorance and obscurity, is to be skeptical, or at least cautious; and not to admit of any hypothesis, whatsoever; much less, of any which is supported by no appearance of probability...Hume
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. Panspermia?
    By ox in forum Biology
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: September 23rd, 2013, 10:34 AM
  2. General relativity theory, Quantum theory, Sting theory, Whatever theory, True theory
    By painwithoutlove in forum Personal Theories & Alternative Ideas
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: June 2nd, 2013, 09:40 PM
  3. Viva Panspermia!
    By Lothar in forum Science-Fiction and Non-Fiction
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: January 27th, 2011, 06:43 AM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •