4 ms·

Sure panspermia is cute idea, but occams razor cuts it; its simply more complex theory that life first originated somewhere else and then migrated to earth than

by zokier 4y ago

Sure panspermia is cute idea, but occams razor cuts it; its simply more complex theory that life first originated somewhere else and then migrated to earth than just that life originated on earth. Unless there are some very compelling explanations why some other place would be so much more favourable environment for originating life?

localplume 4y ago
[dead]
Loquebantur 4y ago
Yours is a misapplication of Occam's razor. While simpler explanations are preferable, they have to explain the available data. Material is exchanged between planets, bacteria could survive such exchanges. So the possibility exists. People finding that uncomfortable is scientifically irrelevant.
- xeyownt 4y ago
  How is restricting apparition of life on Earth only not explaining the available data? Assuming transport just add another hypothesis. EDIT: Also, if there was transport, they need to explain why we don't find life on the Moon. So the burden of explanation is more on that theory.
  - _a_a_a_ 4y ago
    Transport through an incredibly brutal medium over an extremely long period. "Far from being rigid and fragile" - you can't make that claim without defining what 'fragile' WRT to which specific conditions. It's sloppy.
- zokier 4y ago
  First of all panspermia needs evidence of life outside earth, which we so far are still sorely missing. Even if we found such data then it still doubtful if panspermia is any more likely than independent abiogenesis, considering that the mechanics of abiogenesis are still unknown. Only if we found a location that would provide simpler explanation for abiogenesis than on earth then panspermia as a theory would really be viable.
  - Ancapistani 4y ago
    We haven't yet found evidence of life outside of Earth - but then again, we've not really been able to look all that hard. We'd probably know if there were a technologically advanced civilization around in the area immediate around Sol, at approximately the same time as today. That area isn't all that large due to the inverse square law; even if a species were actively trying to communicate with us via RF, it would be indistinguishable from the background quickly relative to astronomical distances. We'd probably know (or know soon) if large-scale biological processes were happening near us, from the signatures of the chemicals that are the hallmarks of biology as we know it. That we've found neither of those means we can't prove life exists elsewhere, but does _not_ prove that it doesn't. That said, if abiogenesis were a common phenomenon, wouldn't we expect it to have arisen multiple times on Earth? The fact that we've not found any life that doesn't rely on DNA means is strong evidence of one of two things: either all life must have DNA, or life only arose on Earth once. If life requires DNA... then where did DNA come from? We're back to square one. If life only arose on Earth once, that's weak evidence that abiogenesis isn't common. By extension, it's weak evidence against panspermia.
_a_a_a_ 4y ago
The idea is life would spread so it would be in multiple places after the spread started. So "why some other place" is wrong because it should be "places", plural, in which case statistics starts leaning strongly your way. (FTR I personally disfavour pasnspermia theory, I'm just addressing your argument's possible shortcoming).
- zokier 4y ago
  But it needed to start somewhere. So panspermia needs some explanation why some other place than earth is more likely place for initial abiogenesis, and so far I have not encountered any such explanations
  - _a_a_a_ 4y ago
    > why some other place than earth again, "places" not "place". There may be billion other places so some will be more likely and some less so, by happenstance. And if it miraculously started in just one place and can spread, there you go. They don't even have to be better, they can be just as good/bad, but that increases your chances by a billion because there are so many of them. One place just has to get lucky, that's all. Again, I don't feel panspermia offers much, but there's the argument.
    - xeyownt 4y ago
      Yes, and also panspermia doesn't explain the most interesting problem: how did life appeared at all. How it came on earth is not relevant in my opinion. Een if it was transported, it doesn't mean that life couldn't have appeared on its own on earth alone. Panspermia would be interesting if, for instance, we could show that Earth lacks an essential property for life to appear. But there is nothing in that direction. Panspermia raises more questions than it answers (where did life appear, when, is it everywhere...).
      - _a_a_a_ 4y ago
        > panspermia doesn't explain the most interesting problem: how did life appeared at all > How it came on earth is not relevant in my opinion Then just why are you even commenting on a panspermia thread. > Panspermia raises more questions than it answers agreed
oska 4y ago
Occam's Razor also cuts the idea of life having an origin, i.e. at one time there was no life in the universe and then it came into being (on Earth or elsewhere). Which is almost magical thinking and certainly not more simple than the idea that life has always existed, i.e. it is a fundamental aspect of the universe.
- arrow7000 4y ago
  ... no it doesn't
college_physics 4y ago
The problem is that the "life originated somewhere" concept is already a rather narrow (opinionated) view about these early processes and pathways that we don't know much about. There is on the one hand the (still very poorly understood) "pre-life" domain which is presumably a condition that may exist in various diverse zones in many planetary systems. On the other hand there is the (fairly well understood) science of stellar evolution, nucleosynthesis etc. that creates the conditions for "pre-life" and for possible "pollination". Panspermia is not so much a concrete idea of "fully formed" life going from A to B but rather exploring what kind of exchanges of "life-forming" catalysts may have happened over the first billions of years.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

by zokier 4y ago

localplume 4y ago

[dead]

Loquebantur 4y ago

Yours is a misapplication of Occam's razor. While simpler explanations are preferable, they have to explain the available data. Material is exchanged between planets, bacteria could survive such exchanges. So the possibility exists. People finding that uncomfortable is scientifically irrelevant.

xeyownt 4y ago
How is restricting apparition of life on Earth only not explaining the available data? Assuming transport just add another hypothesis. EDIT: Also, if there was transport, they need to explain why we don't find life on the Moon. So the burden of explanation is more on that theory.
- _a_a_a_ 4y ago
  Transport through an incredibly brutal medium over an extremely long period. "Far from being rigid and fragile" - you can't make that claim without defining what 'fragile' WRT to which specific conditions. It's sloppy.
zokier 4y ago
First of all panspermia needs evidence of life outside earth, which we so far are still sorely missing. Even if we found such data then it still doubtful if panspermia is any more likely than independent abiogenesis, considering that the mechanics of abiogenesis are still unknown. Only if we found a location that would provide simpler explanation for abiogenesis than on earth then panspermia as a theory would really be viable.
- Ancapistani 4y ago
  We haven't yet found evidence of life outside of Earth - but then again, we've not really been able to look all that hard. We'd probably know if there were a technologically advanced civilization around in the area immediate around Sol, at approximately the same time as today. That area isn't all that large due to the inverse square law; even if a species were actively trying to communicate with us via RF, it would be indistinguishable from the background quickly relative to astronomical distances. We'd probably know (or know soon) if large-scale biological processes were happening near us, from the signatures of the chemicals that are the hallmarks of biology as we know it. That we've found neither of those means we can't prove life exists elsewhere, but does _not_ prove that it doesn't. That said, if abiogenesis were a common phenomenon, wouldn't we expect it to have arisen multiple times on Earth? The fact that we've not found any life that doesn't rely on DNA means is strong evidence of one of two things: either all life must have DNA, or life only arose on Earth once. If life requires DNA... then where did DNA come from? We're back to square one. If life only arose on Earth once, that's weak evidence that abiogenesis isn't common. By extension, it's weak evidence against panspermia.

_a_a_a_ 4y ago

The idea is life would spread so it would be in multiple places after the spread started. So "why some other place" is wrong because it should be "places", plural, in which case statistics starts leaning strongly your way. (FTR I personally disfavour pasnspermia theory, I'm just addressing your argument's possible shortcoming).

zokier 4y ago
But it needed to start somewhere. So panspermia needs some explanation why some other place than earth is more likely place for initial abiogenesis, and so far I have not encountered any such explanations
- _a_a_a_ 4y ago
  > why some other place than earth again, "places" not "place". There may be billion other places so some will be more likely and some less so, by happenstance. And if it miraculously started in just one place and can spread, there you go. They don't even have to be better, they can be just as good/bad, but that increases your chances by a billion because there are so many of them. One place just has to get lucky, that's all. Again, I don't feel panspermia offers much, but there's the argument.
  - xeyownt 4y ago
    Yes, and also panspermia doesn't explain the most interesting problem: how did life appeared at all. How it came on earth is not relevant in my opinion. Een if it was transported, it doesn't mean that life couldn't have appeared on its own on earth alone. Panspermia would be interesting if, for instance, we could show that Earth lacks an essential property for life to appear. But there is nothing in that direction. Panspermia raises more questions than it answers (where did life appear, when, is it everywhere...).
    - _a_a_a_ 4y ago
      > panspermia doesn't explain the most interesting problem: how did life appeared at all > How it came on earth is not relevant in my opinion Then just why are you even commenting on a panspermia thread. > Panspermia raises more questions than it answers agreed

oska 4y ago

Occam's Razor also cuts the idea of life having an origin, i.e. at one time there was no life in the universe and then it came into being (on Earth or elsewhere). Which is almost magical thinking and certainly not more simple than the idea that life has always existed, i.e. it is a fundamental aspect of the universe.

arrow7000 4y ago
... no it doesn't

college_physics 4y ago

The problem is that the "life originated somewhere" concept is already a rather narrow (opinionated) view about these early processes and pathways that we don't know much about. There is on the one hand the (still very poorly understood) "pre-life" domain which is presumably a condition that may exist in various diverse zones in many planetary systems. On the other hand there is the (fairly well understood) science of stellar evolution, nucleosynthesis etc. that creates the conditions for "pre-life" and for possible "pollination". Panspermia is not so much a concrete idea of "fully formed" life going from A to B but rather exploring what kind of exchanges of "life-forming" catalysts may have happened over the first billions of years.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]