Panspermia, Which Is Sperm In A Pan

[Blog of Reason]

Discussion thread for the blog entry "Panspermia, Which Is Sperm In A Pan" by Th1sWasATriumph.

Permalink: http://blog.leagueofreason.org.uk/reason/panspermia-which-is-sperm-in-a-pan/

 

[Aught3]

I would have thought the introduced material would have to, at the least, be self-replicating. Not that panspermia really explains anything, it just adds an additional layer of space-travel complexity.

 

[JacobEvans]

I would have thought the introduced material would have to, at the least, be self-replicating. Not that panspermia really explains anything, it just adds an additional layer of space-travel complexity.

It would.

 

[xman]

The term 'panspermia' would seem to indicate that anything other than complete earthbound abiogenesis is seeding. Since that's the deciding difference right there, that's where the line should be. Certainly intentional seeding is a different kind of panspermia than accidental seeding and there will be various levels of involvement in both cases.

 

[QuillerB]

Interesting. Now I almost wish I'd stayed in to watch blog-tv. instead of playing backgammon with Salman Rushdie. The winnings will come in usefull, though.

 

[Squawk]

I would have thought the introduced material would have to, at the least, be self-replicating. Not that panspermia really explains anything, it just adds an additional layer of space-travel complexity.

What he said.

I suppose I might relax that slightly and suggest that the introduction of some fundamental substance, be it a part of the original replicator or a catalyst for its formation could be considered panspermia if it's arrival here on earth was not part of normal planetary formation. That is, if the planet and everything on it was formed but unable to form life, the addition of one additional substance being the catalyst for the replicator.

Mebbe. I dunno, its semantics, and I hate arguing semantics.

 

[Japeo]

Interesting to note that in all the current articles on this subject the fact that when the probe returned to earth (in itself an amazing feat!) it crash landed on the ground a broke open. This is, I'm sure, one of the reasons why it took so long in identifying anything in the aerogel as 'alien'. But it gives me pause. This evidence is anything but concrete. Not that I don't believe that we will eventually confirm beyond a doubt the existence of biological building blocks on other objects in the solar system and beyond - we will. But without a second source it may be premature.

For all that I love about NASA (and that's alot), they still do have the government agency tendency to skew and filter the news in their favour, whilst leaving out rather crucial information that might not paint them or their actions in the best light. Anytime anything goes wrong at NASA, the NASA website is the worst place to go for information, because you won't find any. Still, love you NASA.