3 ms·

"[The authors] present a fantastic overview of the various hypotheses about the evolution of life on our planet and the contribution of extraterrestrial element

"[The authors] present a fantastic overview of the various hypotheses about the evolution of life on our planet and the contribution of extraterrestrial elements. The review includes many references, several different opinions and ranges all the way to the up-todate literature...The authors take, however, one more step. Their view differs from common scientific concepts and available evidence, claiming that the origin of viruses, microbes and even animals all the way to tardigradus - originate from space." "There are several explanations why the Cambrian explosion occurred...but the notion that viruses from extraterrestrial space are the main drivers - is uniquely presented here in this article. The authors believe this and use strong expressions, describing it as evidence-based, yet without any of the necessary evidence. As an excuse they point out to other previous unconventional ideas during history of science which turned out to be true later - this is the argument the authors use. They even find their idea “plausible” - but it is hard to follow their thinking in this respect. So this article is useful, calling for attention, and it is worth thinking about - yet the main statement about viruses, microbes and even animals which came to us from space, cannot be taken seriously." Commentary to: Cause of Cambrian explosion - Terrestrial or cosmic? Steele, E.J. et al. Karin Molling, Max Planck Institute Molecular Genetics, Berlin, Germany https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0079610718300804?via%3Dihub https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S007961071...

Nomentatus 8y ago
They don't cite "any evidence?" C'mon man, they cite quite a bit of evidence. No-one can read the article and truthfully say this. Size of DNA, sophistication of adaptation, differential body symettry, off the top of my head. Is that weak evidence? Well then by the same token, it's evidence. This seems to be one of the many, many times when contemporary scientists say "there is no evidence of X" when what they mean is that there is no incontrovertible evidence (the other name for which, of course, is "proof.") But proof and evidence are manifestly not the same thing and conflating them to confuse one's opponents does nobody any favors. Evidence that is not defeasible remains evidence. Luckily so - because post-Popper, we know that all scientific evidence is defeasible and proof never actually arrives.

Nomentatus 8y ago

They don't cite "any evidence?" C'mon man, they cite quite a bit of evidence. No-one can read the article and truthfully say this. Size of DNA, sophistication of adaptation, differential body symettry, off the top of my head. Is that weak evidence? Well then by the same token, it's evidence. This seems to be one of the many, many times when contemporary scientists say "there is no evidence of X" when what they mean is that there is no incontrovertible evidence (the other name for which, of course, is "proof.") But proof and evidence are manifestly not the same thing and conflating them to confuse one's opponents does nobody any favors. Evidence that is not defeasible remains evidence. Luckily so - because post-Popper, we know that all scientific evidence is defeasible and proof never actually arrives.