3 ms·

Is that the opposite? It's an alternative explanation, but I'm not sure if this is evidence against panspermia either.

• sandworm101 4y ago
  Its isn't evidence against, but it is evidence that panspermia is less necessary than previously thought. Should we detect life out there somewhere, the fact that these compounds are more universal decreased the likelihood that that detected life is related to us through panspermia. The fact that life in two places uses RNA no longer means that it must be directly related to the RNA/DNA-based life on earth.
  • ianai 4y ago
    Way too early in the science needed to characterize as evidence for or against panspermia or much else. We need much much more work like this.
    • JumpCrisscross 4y ago
      > too early in the science needed to characterize as evidence for or against panspermia or much else Every organic compound that spontaneously develops under natural conditions is an argument against the necessity of panspermia.
• bilbo0s 4y ago
  Just to complete the circle: The opposite would be Earth was hit by other objects in the distant past, and the collision blew large chunks of Earth into space. Complete with B3 and RNA. (Especially credible as the body in question is a near Earth asteroid.) All the posited explanations are reasonable hypotheses in my opinion.