Panspermia.org

Cosmic Ancestry, asks and answers(?) some important questions regarding the origin of Life on Earth, as well as Life in Space.

I personally find such a scenario as that presented as more plausible than any other, and see the evidence leading us in such a direction.

And you?

__________________
"Where the telescope ends, the microscope begins. Which of the two has the greater view?" - Hugo

"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened." - Churchill

So you are arguing from a religious point of view? I've looked over this site, and it is about religion, not science.

For instance, from Evolution versus Creationism:

In one important respect Cosmic Ancestry is fundamentally different from both Darwinism and the prevailing western religions. Both hold that life arises and evolves from simpler beginnings. Darwinism explains this process with material causes, religions do so with supernatural causes. In Cosmic Ancestry life neither arises nor evolves to more highly organized forms from simpler beginnings. With only material causes, it just doesn't work. But life can, with only material causes, descend from prior life at least as highly evolved as itself. Thus in Cosmic Ancestry life only descends. We acknowledge that this difference is profound.

As for where this life comes from "in the first place," the question may be misguided. Science cannot answer every question. For example, why is there anything instead of nothing at all? The existence of the physical world, with or without a beginning, is a phenomenon that science cannot reduce. We are suggesting that highly evolved life is a phenomenon of similar magnitude that science cannot reduce.

So, there is highly organized life "just because," there is no evolution, there is only descent from these "Just Because" creatures. It's a variation on ID.

__________________
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

Disclaimer: Avatar is not an official NASA image and does not imply any specific interplanetary or interstellar capability.

The Leif Ericson Cruiser

what I want to know is, what does the word 'pan' mean? I know that 'sperm' means seed but I can't find out what 'pan' means.

__________________

[Greek panspermiā, mixture of all seeds : pan-, pan- + sperma, seed; see sperm1.]


I first came across this while researching spores.......

__________________
Far out in the uncharted backwaters of the unfashionable end of the Western Spiral arm of the Galaxy lies a small unregarded yellow sun. Orbiting this at a distance of roughly ninety-eight million miles is an utterly insignificant little blue-green planet whose ape-descended life forms are so amazingly primitive that they still think digital watches are a pretty neat idea ...

As a prefix, it means "all" or "whole."

__________________
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

Disclaimer: Avatar is not an official NASA image and does not imply any specific interplanetary or interstellar capability.

The Leif Ericson Cruiser

Sounds familiar.

Are you serious????

Here are the first few questions/answers from the FAQ of that page...

So will you be "attempting" to argue that these ideas are reasonable?

I can't wait...

__________________
"The facts gentlemen, and nothing but the facts, for careful eyes are narrowly watching." Isaac Asimov

Certainly not, and neither am I arguing.

That site contains a lot of science from known and working scientists, and is well referenced.
A "once over" will hardly suffice to convince me that you know more than these guys.

Is it not possible, since the elements for Life in the universe are abundant that the universe itself is simply just geared toward developing (read evolving?) Life? You know, just because?

But do you, like most Darwinists, hold that Life started accidentally in a
warm puddle on a rock and evolved from there? In a closed system as such?

I ask because I doubt Science itself will ever be able to show how Life arose accidentally by bumping around in a soup.

I think Cosmic Ancestry does well to ask these questions.
Not because I feel there should be accepted a "just because" answer, but because the evidence apparently is leading us there.

But I certainly see why panspermia is shunned (is it, is it really?) by the mainstream.

__________________
"Where the telescope ends, the microscope begins. Which of the two has the greater view?" - Hugo

"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened." - Churchill

Do you believe the start of life was purposeful??? I believe that's called religion.

What evidence??? Ya know, the more you post on this subject, the more obvious it becomes that you are basing your conclusions on personal biased beliefs and not on the evidence...

...so I will ask again...by what criteria (other than personal belief and a "cherry picking" of websites that say what you want to hear) are you judging the evidence?

__________________
"The facts gentlemen, and nothing but the facts, for careful eyes are narrowly watching." Isaac Asimov

Nah, I won't be "attempting to argue" anything; I'd much rather some decent discourse for a change (but you simply can't ignore me).

But you, can you refute either Hoyle or Wichramasingh?

__________________
"Where the telescope ends, the microscope begins. Which of the two has the greater view?" - Hugo

"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened." - Churchill

I see you've come here playin "police" again but I didn't really expect you to try to refute the scientists' work whose website we're discussing.
You can't.
Your words are aimed at my person rather than the idea we're discussing; again, ad hominem.



Wrong; I said nothing of the sort.

On what subject? Life? On earth and in space?
And what conclusions?

Do you deny the evidence for Life's elements being abundant in the universe?
Do you deny the earth is bombarded regularly with material that may contain these Life elements?

RAF, I answered this question on the other thread.

Now, answer my questions.

__________________
"Where the telescope ends, the microscope begins. Which of the two has the greater view?" - Hugo

"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened." - Churchill

I think the whole cosmic ancestry thing is an easy way out from the problem how life began. If you conclude that life on Earth originated in space and came here via meteors(or even worse, aliens) you don't have to trouble yourself with how life began in space or rather just in general since there's no reason to think life on Earth didn't begin here.
From the article:
Cosmic Ancestry does not attempt to explain the origin of life in the first place. What a surprise...

Once again this is something that in theory is possible but that doesn't make it probable let alone true.

No...an example of an ad hominum would be "you are wrong because you are an idiot", and I have said nothing of the sort...stop throwing around that accusation...STOP IT NOW!!!

__________________
"The facts gentlemen, and nothing but the facts, for careful eyes are narrowly watching." Isaac Asimov

I'd be happy too...can you ask a "reasoned" question...free from your personal bias?

__________________
"The facts gentlemen, and nothing but the facts, for careful eyes are narrowly watching." Isaac Asimov

Sorry, RAF; I call it as I see it.

Both posts #7 and #9 (your only other in this thread) are aimed at me and not the idea of panspermia or the respective scientists' work.

So practice what you're preaching here, eh?



Edited to add: yet another aimed at my person and not the idea here... my alleged bias that Life is plentiful in the unieverse???
What in hell are you talking about, RAF?

I'm here finished here today...

Moderators!!!

__________________
"Where the telescope ends, the microscope begins. Which of the two has the greater view?" - Hugo

"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened." - Churchill

A.DIM wrote:
The word scientist obviously doesn't carry the same weight it used to. How can you call the contents of the site scientific? At best it's nothing but wild speculation.

It is stating that certain things cannot occur through science, that sophisticated life just appeared, but provides no evidence, and argues against evolution, despite the vast amount of evidence in support. That is a religious argument. You seem to support this argument.

So do many ID and Creationist sites. That doesn't make the central argument any less religious. Edited to add: The quality of this "science" is often lacking, however. The references in:

http://www.panspermia.org/mechansm.htm

are illuminating even on first glance. I especially like the "Related Reading by Creationists and Other Sceptics" section. The top three items:

Michael J. Behe, Darwin's Black Box
Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis.
Phillip E. Johnson, Darwin on Trial

Hoo, boy! Behe, right at the top of the list.

"Just because" is not science. Now, it could be because molecules fit some ways better than others, and simple life can develop out of complex chemical processes, then develop further from there. How do you propose that sophisticated life just came to be? Further, what is your evidence for this?

I'm not a Darwinist, a Newtonist, an Einsteinist, a Crickist, or any other -ist. I follow science based on the evidence. The proposed process of abiogenesis (not evolution of species) has non-random constraints, and the system is not closed. And, wow! For someone who isn't arguing from a religious point of view, those sure sound like Creationist/ID comments.

Again, abiogenesis isn't purely accidental. Molecules go together some ways but not others. The environment places many constraints on chemical processes. What I find fascinating is that you apparently consider this (and evolution) as impossible, but you are arguing for something far, far more difficult, which again, sounds like a religious point of view.

What evidence???

Don't mix panspermia into this "Cosmic Ancestry" argument! Panspermia is a hypothesis that life could spread between worlds. Panspermia in itself says nothing about evolution or abiogenesis, all it does is increase the playing field.

__________________
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

Disclaimer: Avatar is not an official NASA image and does not imply any specific interplanetary or interstellar capability.

The Leif Ericson Cruiser

That's funny, I just noticed this:

I did not read this before I asked exactly the same thing with multiple question marks.

And in response, A.Dim wrote:

My response is: What is your evidence for this "Just Because" Cosmic Ancestry argument? Where is your real, physical evidence for these complex life forms? What is your real physical evidence that they just came about? What is your evidence that evolution doesn't work, despite all the evidence for it? What is your evidence that all earth life came from complex life in space?

In response to this: There are many elements common in the universe, including chemicals abundant in life on Earth. So what does this have to do with the "Cosmic Ancestry" argument?

__________________
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

Disclaimer: Avatar is not an official NASA image and does not imply any specific interplanetary or interstellar capability.

The Leif Ericson Cruiser

I apologize for not being able to attend to this sooner -- the server downtime thwarted my earlier attempt.

Gentlemen: I understand there's continuing friction here over differing viewpoints which has carried over from another discussion. There's no need for the disagreement to turn hostile. Please exercise care to keep the dialogue civil and focused.

A quick note: our ruleset doesn't distinguish between the varieties of ad hominem, of which there are several. I do not see intent in R.A.F.'s comments (the issue raised of posts #7 and #9 above) to launch personal attacks against A.DIM. Specifically, they do not appear as abusive ad hominem attempts, which is what the language of our Civility and Decorum guidelines expresses (e.g.: "you're wrong because you're an idiot").

Now, if R.A.F. had dismissed the Cosmic Ancestry argument on the grounds that A.DIM's viewpoint is biased toward personal beliefs, he'd be guilty of committing circumstantial ad hominem. But I don't see that as being the case either.

Instead, R.A.F. has first asked for clarifications - a) to what specific evidence is A.DIM referring when he states it is "apparently is leading us [toward Cosmic Ancestry]"; b) by what criteria is he judging this evidence - both of which are reasonable queries, which Van Rijn has since expanded in scope.

If R.A.F. does wish to dismiss the Cosmic Ancestry argument, I'm sure he'd be willing to cite specific reasons in his reply (or replies).

Let's continue with the topic, shall we?

From the site's FAQ:

Huh? So it's unlikely rather than likely that life on Earth began on Earth?

But hold on, it seems life didn't begin at all...

So life originated in the big bang?

But of course, no big bang either...

Other highlights include the use of moon dust as evidence of life in space and of course there is no argument over the 10 year old Mars meteorite finding.

Wolverine: Thanks for taking the time, though I disagree with your assessment. I think it is clear RAF has repeatedly questioned my person rather than the topical issues.

But on with the thread!

I answered "a" by pointing out the general acceptance that Life's elements are abundant in the universe, on planets, moons, comets meteors, in "space" and the increasing acceptance that these elements are bombarding earth as well.
"B" I think, is almost an absurd question; I'm a layperson, a seeker of knowledge, interested in the same big questions everyone else is: why are we here? where did we come from? and where are we going?

Panspermia seems to be gaining acceptance again among astronomers et al.
Spaceref.com lists Cosmic Ancestry among several others on "panspermia" while NAI cites them as the official website.

So I agree with these folks about panspermia, which isn't really outside the mainstream these days(30yrs ago it was violently shunned, no?).
And so now my agreeeing with mainstream thought needs clarification and is considered "biased"?

No, I suspect it is the questioning of Darwinism and evolution (or even Science) that brings such vehement resistance to such ideas.

__________________
"Where the telescope ends, the microscope begins. Which of the two has the greater view?" - Hugo

"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened." - Churchill

Indeed, however, does Darwinism and evolution explain "how life began?"
Surprised?

I am, and so I, like some scientists have followed the evidence off planet earth and consider where it leads; that is all.

__________________
"Where the telescope ends, the microscope begins. Which of the two has the greater view?" - Hugo

"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened." - Churchill

No, I'm not surprised. Nor am I saying it's impossible that life came to Earth from space. What I'm saying is that claiming life came to Earth from space is an easy way out from the real problem of how did life begin? However, since life on Earth is the only one we know of it's safe to assume that life got started here on Earth.

If we were to find life elsewhere, that would be a different matter. We would have to ponder whether life began independently in both places, whether it came from one place to the other or possibly to both from somewhere else, in which case we would be none the wiser. As you see, we may never know the truth of things.

You seem to have skipped the "Intro" page, first paragraph:
"Cosmic Ancestry is a new theory pertaining to evolution and the origin of life on Earth. It holds that life on Earth was seeded from space, and that life's evolution to higher forms depends on genetic programs that come from space. (It accepts the Darwinian account of evolution that does not require new genetic programs.) It is a wholly scientific, testable theory for which evidence is accumulating."

You seem to have misunderstood something by jumping to the pages pertaining to Evolution vs. Creation or the discussions pertaining to ID.

If you read carefully and more fully explore you'll discover there's an abundance of evidence the authors of the site provide to support their theory.

It is not religious at all.

Ah yes, and so by association the theory fails?
Hoo boy! I love Science!

After all, that particular page discusses the alternative, highlighting differences, but you jumped right to "related reading," no?
And found what you were looking for.


Well, I am merely drawing attention to their website, so let me defer:

What's New actually provides 10yrs of support.

Of course, anyone who will question Darwin and evolution will likewise be branded.

But do you agree that viruses or bacteria might well have been transported to earth on such things as comets etc, impacting and developing the already present organisms?

Where did I say anything like "impossible?"
I understand molecules are better suited to some than others, and that's essentially the point; the elements, molecules even, for Life are everywhere and so mechanistically, NOT "mystically," the universe is naturally geared to produced Life of higher and higher forms.
Religious?
I think not.

Seems elegant and simple.

Let's explore their pages more, ok?

Sorry but Cosmic Ancestry is panspermia evolved, or developed.
How do propose to separate them?

__________________
"Where the telescope ends, the microscope begins. Which of the two has the greater view?" - Hugo

"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened." - Churchill

After re-reading my most recent posts, I "kinda" agree with A.DIM. The problem is that I am very well aquainted with A.DIM's "credulousness", so it is certainly "possible" that my posts "might" be shaded by that knowledge...(was that enough "qualifiers" ) I shall endeavour not to do that in the future...

However...

Seem like that is exactly what A.DIM is doing...

The Cosmic Ancestry site is obviously not mainstream or else their argument would be better than "because it is so"...

As long as it is A.DIM's contention that the Cosmic Ancestry site is mainstream, then I see no need for further participation in this thread as A.DIM is most effectively "debunking" himself.

__________________
"The facts gentlemen, and nothing but the facts, for careful eyes are narrowly watching." Isaac Asimov

Reads like tourettes to me, and ambiguous enough to be construed as an acknolwedgement of fault.

Rubbish, Cosmic Ancestry IS panspermia, the modern version.
I thought you at least read the FAQs?

Ignoring their evidence doesn't mean it is nonexistant, RAF.

But what about finding their site as a primary link for panspermia on Spaceref.com? Or through NASA Astrobiology Institute's "Ask an..." where we find it linked as the "official" panspermia site?
Are you also calling into question spaceref.com's and NAI's "credulousness?"

panspermia info for you since you appear largely uninformed on the subject.

__________________
"Where the telescope ends, the microscope begins. Which of the two has the greater view?" - Hugo

"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened." - Churchill

Be as insulting as you like, A.DIM...I will not respond to your "taunts" but simply repeat what I have already posted...

__________________
"The facts gentlemen, and nothing but the facts, for careful eyes are narrowly watching." Isaac Asimov

I'm not "taunting" you RAF; your overuse of such things as quotes, bold, italics, et al makes it difficult to get your real point, if there is one.
Inflection and nuance need not be represented by these things in discourse, or in your case and my opinion, misrepresented.


Moving on...

__________________
"Where the telescope ends, the microscope begins. Which of the two has the greater view?" - Hugo

"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened." - Churchill

Though none of this is truly my evidence, nor can I claim to understand it all, I'll proffer this to show the possibility that The Universe (is) Fined Tuned for Life.

"Just because" no less.
Again, the whole idea seems so elegant and simple and... obvious!

Hmmm.... connecting the dots...

The Origin of Life on Earth.

"But can we conclude that this elemental property of life on Earth must likewise describe other forms of life in the cosmos? Here we can apply the Copernican principle in full vigor. The four elements that form the bulk of life on Earth all appear on the short list of the universe's six most abundant elements. Since the other two elements on the list, helium and neon, almost never combine with anything else, life on Earth consists of the most abundant and chemically active ingredients in the cosmos.

Of all the predictions that we can make about life on other worlds, the surest seems to be that their life will be made of elements nearly the same as those used by life on Earth. If life on our planet consisted primarily of four extremely rare elements in the cosmos, such as niobium, bismuth, gallium, and plutonium, we would have an excellent reason to suspect we represent something special in the universe. Instead, the chemical composition of life on our planet inclines us toward an optimistic view of life's possibilities beyond Earth."

__________________
"Where the telescope ends, the microscope begins. Which of the two has the greater view?" - Hugo

"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened." - Churchill

I did? Let's go further down the INTRODUCTION: MORE THAN PANSPERMIA page:

Cosmic Ancestry implies, we find, that life can only descend from ancestors at least as highly evolved as itself. And it means, we believe, that there can be no origin of life from nonliving matter in the past. Without supernatural intervention, therefore, we conclude that life must have always existed. Although these conclusions cut across the boundaries between science, philosophy, and religion, we believe they are grounded in good evidence.

So, as I said before, in this so-called "theory" (which is far from a scientific theory) there is "Just Because" life and no evolution. They do not propose anything like conventional evolution, merely transfer or loss of existing genes from complex organisms.

Well, I have read carefully and you seem to be having far more luck than me. Care to share some of this evidence, starting with evidence for "Just Because" life?

Find the evidence, and we'll talk. Until then, I hold that this is a belief system about life and existence without supporting evidence, and in contradiction to a great deal of scientific evidence. That sure sounds like a religious belief system.

You said there were scientific references. Many of the references there were religious ones. Others were by notororious Creationists/IDists, such as Behe, making anti-evolution rants that have been shown to be full of errors. This is certainly enough to call motive and scientific credentials into question. Further, I didn't see supporting material.

Actually, I read the whole thing, but didn't see anything meaningful. Anyway, the point at issue were supposed scientific references. Feel free to point out those you feel support CA.


Are you arguing for CA or not? If you aren't, then there isn't anything to discuss - it's just somebody's silly idea and we can let it go at that. If you are, then support it.

As for that page, it appears to be nothing more than a list of links to the same website, containing their own bits with links to other websites. If you think there is something linked that truly supports CA, by all means mention it, but I'm not seeing it.

I think that panspermia - the hypothesis that life could be transported from planet to planet - can't be ruled out as a possibility, but there is, at present, no supporting evidence for this hypothesis. Further, it wouldn't affect the process of evolution itself, and it wouldn't affect the issue of abiogenesis beyond where it might have taken place.


"Naturally geared"? Or, in other words, "Just Because"? Not religious? Not mystical?

There are chemical processes that can result in life. There isn't any reason to assume that it is geared for any particular purpose, let alone "higher forms" (whatever that means).

Beliefs often do.

I already told you. Panspermia, while unsupported, is at least a viable scientific hypothesis. If we were to, say, go to Mars and find bacteria with DNA similar to that of earth life, that would be strong support for panspermia.

CA, with the argument that complex life arose either supernaturally, or existed forever "Just Because" is not scientific and further goes against a great deal of scientific evidence (including evidence for evolution and the finite age of the universe).

If you want to discuss panspermia, that's one thing, but magic origins? Pheh!

__________________
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

Disclaimer: Avatar is not an official NASA image and does not imply any specific interplanetary or interstellar capability.

The Leif Ericson Cruiser