Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Bobby B. · 12-21-2002, 10:43 AM

Shadownought: Here is a link to some links on the subject:
<a href="http://www.spaceref.com/directory/astrobiology_and_life_science/panspermia/" target="_blank">http://www.spaceref.com/directory/astrobiology_and_life_science/panspermia/</a>

Personally, I distrust the theory of panspermia. The environment in space is just too unfriendly for some type of bacterial "spore" to survive the distance/time such a trip across space would have to take.

(This, I believe, was the second major backing of the wrong horse by Hoyle. The other was the steady state theory.)

idiom · 12-24-2002, 06:13 PM

Panspermia is a rather sad way of attempting to make spontaneous generation sound more plausible.

I don't know why you would want to though. Whats wrong with simbly believing we are freaks in the universe.

Although I guess if the theory can be given credibility the guys at SETI get more funding...

On the support side, meteorites dont get very hot, they have actually been located with frost on them shortly after impact. Their cores are VERY cold.

[ December 24, 2002: Message edited by: idiom ]</p>

genemaster · 12-25-2002, 09:53 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by thebeave:
<strong>

I thought of that too... the microorganism living inside the meteor. But how did it get inside there in the first place? Meteors are largely solid stone or iron as I recall. And aren't the vast majority (if not all) meteorites just remnants from the creation of our own solar system? If that's the case, why do people even entertain the idea that life may have started on a tiny, largely inert rock in orbit around the sun, rather than a huge planet with an abundance of water, an atmosphere, organic chemicals and a favorable climate? The whole concept has seemed ludicrous to me since I first heard it years ago.

If people think the meteor came from outside our solar system (i.e. a renegade from a nearby star system for example?), aren't the odds vanishingly small that it would hit our planet?</strong>

Well, actually, lots of meteors are fairly solid rock, but lots are what might be called "dirty frozen snowballs" - bits of stoney stuff sort of glued together with ice - water ice, methane ice, carbon dioxide ice, etc. Like a miniature comet.

Also, "solid" rock isn't so "solid", it seems. Geobiologists (I just coined the speciality, I think) have found bacteria inside "solid" rock, living in the pores between the grains. Think of sandstone, for example...

Coragyps · 12-25-2002, 12:53 PM

Sandstone like that which petroleum is produced out of is often 15% or more "empty" - pores filled with water and/or oil. At least one of the rocks from which "native" bacteria have been isolated was a basalt from several thousand feet below the surface - I wouldn't expect more than a percent or two porosity in it. And the bacteria (archaea, really?) in it were thought to have been isolated for several million years.

If life did get "seeded from space", which seems possible but unlikely to me, it only pushes back that first origin to another spot. A meteorite can (and some have) been blasted off Mars, deep-frozen in space, and deposited on earth without ever heating up inside. But why posit that life arrived from outside, when the mechanisms are being proposed for "first life" are just as plausible here, without worrying about that transportation?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

12-21-2002, 10:43 AM	#11
Bobby B. Junior Member Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Tucson, AZ Posts: 70	Shadownought: Here is a link to some links on the subject: <a href="http://www.spaceref.com/directory/astrobiology_and_life_science/panspermia/" target="_blank">http://www.spaceref.com/directory/astrobiology_and_life_science/panspermia/</a> Personally, I distrust the theory of panspermia. The environment in space is just too unfriendly for some type of bacterial "spore" to survive the distance/time such a trip across space would have to take. (This, I believe, was the second major backing of the wrong horse by Hoyle. The other was the steady state theory.)

12-24-2002, 06:13 PM	#12
idiom Junior Member Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: New Zealand Posts: 49	Panspermia is a rather sad way of attempting to make spontaneous generation sound more plausible. I don't know why you would want to though. Whats wrong with simbly believing we are freaks in the universe. Although I guess if the theory can be given credibility the guys at SETI get more funding... On the support side, meteorites dont get very hot, they have actually been located with frost on them shortly after impact. Their cores are VERY cold. [ December 24, 2002: Message edited by: idiom ]</p>

12-25-2002, 12:53 PM	#14
Coragyps Veteran Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Snyder,Texas,USA Posts: 4,411	Sandstone like that which petroleum is produced out of is often 15% or more "empty" - pores filled with water and/or oil. At least one of the rocks from which "native" bacteria have been isolated was a basalt from several thousand feet below the surface - I wouldn't expect more than a percent or two porosity in it. And the bacteria (archaea, really?) in it were thought to have been isolated for several million years. If life did get "seeded from space", which seems possible but unlikely to me, it only pushes back that first origin to another spot. A meteorite can (and some have) been blasted off Mars, deep-frozen in space, and deposited on earth without ever heating up inside. But why posit that life arrived from outside, when the mechanisms are being proposed for "first life" are just as plausible here, without worrying about that transportation?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.