3 ms·
It always seemed to me that the biggest argument against panspermia is the relative hostility to "life" of space versus a planet like Earth. The heliosphere pr
by DebtDeflation 7y ago
It always seemed to me that the biggest argument against panspermia is the relative hostility to "life" of space versus a planet like Earth. The heliosphere protects the solar system from a significant amount of interstellar cosmic rays and x-rays, Earth's magnetosphere offers additional protection, and our atmosphere, particularly the ozone layer, offers additional protection while also protecting against UV and high energy particles from the Sun. Ionizing radiation and short wavelength EM radiation are destructive to life and really the persistence of any large complex molecules. Combine that with the vacuum of space and temperatures barely above absolute zero and life originating via panspermia seems significantly less likely than originating natively on Earth.
- koboll 7y agoNot to mention atmospheric entry and asteroid impact.
- mywittyname 7y agoI'd say the biggest argument against panspermia is that the organisms responsible for it need to be successful locally and universally, at the same time. Reproduction is expensive and intrastellar reproduction is incredibly low yield. So organisms would need to have evolved to both capture an entire ecosystem AND waste a bunch of energy blowing their seed into the solar system. The idea just doesn't jibe with my understanding of evolution.