3 ms·

Yours is a misapplication of Occam's razor. While simpler explanations are preferable, they have to explain the available data. Material is exchanged between p

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.

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.