Summary of difficulties facing Directed Panspermia

Post of the Month: September 2012

by

Subject:    | Strange Logic (was something else entirely)
Date:       | 27 Sep 2012
Message-ID: | k405e7$8pk$1@reader1.panix.com

My only contribution directly to the abiogenesis discussion is to note that some of my collegues, and others in the field as well, think that abiogenesis may well have been easier than many now think. The reason: it is quite likely small molecules were involved with the first proteins not even dimly on the horizon.

This is very very difficult chemistry. Why? Mainly because we have little idea as to what the atmosphere of the early earth was, what the surface structure was, and what the undersea structure was. We don't know if life originated (or festered, if it came from elsewhere) on the surface of the ocean, under the ocean, at deep vents, or whatever.

Given that, it is no wonder that nobody has come up with a scheme for abiogenesis.

Thus it is not impossible to think of panspermy. However, by Occam's Razor that remains a secondary choice. We have only one example (as yet) of life and it is here.

Given that I can't really participate on the development of spinal cords in species of 10 cells or less (that's humor, Peter) I focussed my attention on the non-biological ends. And like J.J. O'Shea I found the possibility of getting "seeds" from there (wherever there is) to here a very difficult proposition.

Lots of what J.J. calls "magic technology" is needed. [for an example see: k3t06f01ne0@news3.newsguy.com] Given that technology; why not posit that they would have even better ways to reach the earth. Or, possibly they would be like us and paranoid that whatever they seeded might come back and eat them, rape their women, and vote wrongly.

So panspermy remains for many of us an interesting hypothesis. But I refuse to take it seriously.