4 ms·
> 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
by _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 agoYes, 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