Thread: Life in Space???

Didn't know where to stick this (I'm sure some of you will make suggestions

So i thought I'd send it to Paralith

Interesting article about life found in Meteorite dust

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0317153047.htm

Originally Posted by Absum!

Didn't know where to stick this (I'm sure some of you will make suggestions

So i thought I'd send it to Paralith

Interesting article about life found in Meteorite dust

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0317153047.htm

Yes, its been known for a while. Meteors found in the Antarctic (if my memory serves me correctly) had in them the very basic building blocks for life called ''Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons.'' I think this is what spurred Panspermia Theory.

I thought the panspermia theory was about the prediction that most public toilets, toilets a the workplace and those at home are covered wall to wall with sperm residues

Originally Posted by Manynames

Originally Posted by Absum!

Didn't know where to stick this (I'm sure some of you will make suggestions

So i thought I'd send it to Paralith

Interesting article about life found in Meteorite dust

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0317153047.htm

Yes, its been known for a while. Meteors found in the Antarctic (if my memory serves me correctly) had in them the very basic building blocks for life called ''Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons.'' I think this is what spurred Panspermia Theory.

That and those pseudofossils that they thought looked like residues of bacterial magnetosomes. I had one of the NASA scientist who worked on those meteors as a professor, and he firmly believed in panspermia. He was a tad bit eccentric though.

And why should panspermia theory be thought of as eccentric?

http://leiwenwu.tripod.com/panspermia.htm

I didn't say it was, I said he was.

Panspermia is a bit of a problematic theory since it doesn't really explain much.

Originally Posted by spuriousmonkey

Panspermia is a bit of a problematic theory since it doesn't really explain much.

Panspermia Theory suggests that life seeds came from outer space and planets exchanged life. Panspermia literally means seeds everywhere.

Panspermia suggests that life could have existed on another planet and moved to Earth. Statistics have showed 7.5% of rocks from Mars reach Earth. The rocks would travel between less than 100 years to 16,000 years and more to get to earth.

Some of the proponents include Sales Gyon de Montlivant, who proposed life came from moon, H.E. Richter, who suggested life came from meteorites/comets, and Svante Arrhenius, who came up with Panspermia.

Mmmmm.......seems to explain quite a bit to me. Seems to be a reasonable explanation as well as quite a possibility.

What does it explain?

Originally Posted by Absum!

Originally Posted by spuriousmonkey

Panspermia is a bit of a problematic theory since it doesn't really explain much.

Panspermia Theory suggests that life seeds came from outer space and planets exchanged life. Panspermia literally means seeds everywhere.

Panspermia suggests that life could have existed on another planet and moved to Earth. Statistics have showed 7.5% of rocks from Mars reach Earth. The rocks would travel between less than 100 years to 16,000 years and more to get to earth.

Some of the proponents include Sales Gyon de Montlivant, who proposed life came from moon, H.E. Richter, who suggested life came from meteorites/comets, and Svante Arrhenius, who came up with Panspermia.

Mmmmm.......seems to explain quite a bit to me. Seems to be a reasonable explanation as well as quite a possibility.

It doesn't explain the ultimate origin of life.

in short, there's 2 versions of panspermia about :

(1) the strong version advocates that bacterial life originated in space, away from planetary bodies - at present there's just not enough evidence to evaluate this one, although it must be admitted that no evidence in support of the theory exists
(2) the weak version advocates that life originates on a planetary body and gets distributed to seed other planets - as explained by others, this merely moves the issue of the origin of life elsewhere, and doesn't really add explanatory value if you think the 4.5 billion years of the earth's existence is insufficient for life to develop anyway

The puzzle is how life began. Moving the puzzle off planet solves nothing. The puzzle remains. There is no data to separate the two ideas - origin of life here on Earth, or origin somewhere else, and transfer of that life to Earth.

For that reason, I prefer to assume it began here on Earth. There are certainly enough chemical processes that would happen right here on Earth to explain life's origin. And what is even better, we can research those processes right here!

The only benefit of showing plausibility of panspermia is that it could extend the timeframe for life to evolve.

Originally Posted by i_feel_tiredsleepy

The only benefit of showing plausibility of panspermia is that it could extend the timeframe for life to evolve.

Actually, there i more to it. It also answers how life i not ''just'' situated to a single planet.

Unfortunately they only have found life on one planet.

who are "they" ?

"They" is "nobody".

Originally Posted by skeptic

The puzzle is how life began. Moving the puzzle off planet solves nothing. The puzzle remains. There is no data to separate the two ideas - origin of life here on Earth, or origin somewhere else, and transfer of that life to Earth.

For that reason, I prefer to assume it began here on Earth. There are certainly enough chemical processes that would happen right here on Earth to explain life's origin. And what is even better, we can research those processes right here!

So you are just choosing to ignore certain pieces of the puzzle? That makes sense.

dickies
Scientists research what they can. Maybe some time in the future we will be able to research the precursors of life in space, or even space borne bacterial spores. Right now we cannot. So we do what we can. That is not the same as ignoring parts of the puzzle.

Originally Posted by skeptic

dickies
Scientists research what they can. Maybe some time in the future we will be able to research the precursors of life in space, or even space borne bacterial spores. Right now we cannot. So we do what we can. That is not the same as ignoring parts of the puzzle.

With all proper respect, crap. We have already identified over one hundred species of organic molecules in space. We have identified scores of amino acids in meteorites. We have sent up probes to capture dust in order to study it chemistry and potential biocehmistry. We have impacted a probe on a comet with the same end in mind.

Pretending that the formation of life on a planet would be the same as the formation of life in an appropriate interstellar medium is extremely short sighted.

John
That is not what I said.
Currently we do not know the origin of life. It may have been off planet, or it may have been on Earth. My view is simply that it is currently easier to carry out experiments under Earth conditions to look at the genesis of life here on Earth. Sure, there are organic molecules in all sorts of places off planet. This is NOT the same as saying life began off planet. I do not know the answer and neither do you.

However, we can carry out numerous and complex experiments testing the processes that might have formed life here on planet Earth, and scientists are doing just that. Perhaps in another few decades, some researcher may sample something off planet that contains alien life - even if it is on the level of a bacterium. If so, that will suggest off planet seeding of life onto Earth. In the mean time, we have lots to test right here.