Life on Earth Came From Other Planets

[A.DIM]

Is the title(and claim) of a new paper published in Cosmology.


Abstract:
A comprehensive theory is presented to explain how life on Earth originated from other planets. Life appeared a few hundred million years after the Earths creation during a period of heavy bombardment. Life on Mars may have appeared near the same time. Microbes are adapted for surviving the hazards of space, including ejection from and landing upon a planet. Microbial fossils have been discovered in fifteen carbonaceous chondrites, most impacted by supernova. The Sun and Earth were created from a nebular cloud and protoplanetary disc, the remnants of an exploding star and its planets which may have harbored life. When the parent star became a red giant, its solar winds blew away planetary atmospheres along with airborne microbes, which were deposited in a growing nebular cloud. Because the red giant lost 40% to 80& of its mass and its gravitational influences were reduced, its planets increased orbital distances or were ejected prior to supernova and may not have been atomized. The inner layers of a nebular cloud and protoplanetary disk protects against radiation and extreme cold enabling spores to survive. Microbes may have also survived within planetary debris which bombarded the Earth. As only life can produce life, then life on Earth also came from life which may have originated on planets which orbited the parent star.

And the conclusion:

Our sun and solar system were created from the nebular debris spawned by a red giant which exploded in a supernova, nearly 5 billion years ago. The sun and our solar system may have been created within 100 million years of this explosion.
Spores can survive from 250 to 600 million years; which is more than enough time to take up residence on planets made up of this debris. Bacteria are perfectly adapted for surviving the hazards of space, and could not have acquired these abilities if their ancestral experience had been confined to Earth.
Life on Earth appeared while this planet was still forming. There is no proof life can be created from non-life. As only life can produce life, only panspermia is a viable scientific explanation as to the origin of Earthly life. The first life forms to appear on Earth were produced by other living creatures who were likely encased in debris ejected by the parent star nearly 5 billion years ago.
Life on Earth, came from other planets.

my bold

Whoa!

I've not made it through the entire paper just yet but rest assured this will stir some discussion.

[DrWho]

This sounds like a crackpot. I love how this line was sneaked in matteroffactly:

"Microbial fossils have been discovered in fifteen carbonaceous chondrites, most impacted by supernova."

Really? Where has this been published and debated? And if only life can produce life, then what started life in the first place? Moving on...

[ravens_cry]

"As only life can produce life, only panspermia is a viable scientific explanation as to the origin of Earthly life"
But what created that life?
Even growing up in a Christian home, mostly influenced by young earth creationism, that was the big thing that bugged me in Mission to Mars. All panspermia does is push the origin of life back into the unknown. Eventually one runs into the Big Bang,and there is simply no more time.

[John Jaksich]

After clicking on the first link-- I could not help but notice that this so-called paper (or work) is for sale...sounds like a scam to me!

[centsworth_II]

After clicking on the first link-- I could not help but notice that this so-called paper (or work) is for sale...

I bet the "peer reviewed" at the top of the abstract refers to some blurbs on the book's back cover.

[korjik]

Odd that noone has ever mentioned the fact that these meteors carried extraterrestrial life to Earth.

Judging from all the hoopla when some guys thought they found a fossil from Mars, I would have thought at least one news agency would have mentioned something in passing.

[Gandalf223]

I think my signature says everything I have to offer on this one.

[tnjrp]

This indeed smacks rather like some specious reasoning combined with some fairly blatant assertions.

Incidentally, they put out a tv-show about panspermia the other week in Finland. Forgot what the show was called but it featured Professor Chandra Wickramasinghe and was centered around the red rains of Kerala in 2003. The red water was initially thought to contain micro-organisms that had no DNA (this is still reported in Wikipedia as "unresolved"), but in the show it was stated that they had been found to be regular spores. Interestingly the show did a bit of a double take and listed the lately discredited Streptococcus mitis bacteria find from Surveyor 3 as evidence for bacterial survival in space.

Anyway. One wonders if there is much interest in panspermia outside the "Hoyle circle"? After all, one would think it could only be a significantly important scientific alternative to Earthly abiogenesis if one assume universe is (at least almost) infinitely old and life has either always existed or has had time to beat the odds of the good old "tornado sweeping through a junk-yard assembling a Boeing 747 from the materials therein" (I suppose such an event has a minisculely higher possibility than 0, so if the backward timeline dimension is infinite is must've happened). One also wonders if this thinking is not generally more popular in India where the philosophical background may be more accepting of immense timespans as described in Hindu cosmology?

[timb]

This indeed smacks rather like some specious reasoning combined with some fairly blatant assertions.

I'd say it was **.

[tnjrp]

So rude!

[DrWho]

Incidentally, they put out a tv-show about panspermia the other week in Finland. Forgot what the show was called but it featured Professor Chandra Wickramasinghe and was centered around the red rains of Kerala in 2003.

Was it called We Are The Aliens?

[tnjrp]

Yep, I think it probably was actually. At least the same guys appear to be featured.

[GOURDHEAD]

For those concerned that there may not have been sufficient time during the 5 billion year life of the solar system for the required self organization that produced life to have occurred, panspermia extends both the time and number of opportunities for self organization to have occurred. My guess is that the first few hundred million years of the 5 billion year old solar system was sufficient, and there is no need to add panspermia; however, I don't see its exclusion as an absolute.

[A.DIM]

This sounds like a crackpot.

You think?

I love how this line was sneaked in matteroffactly:
"Microbial fossils have been discovered in fifteen carbonaceous chondrites, most impacted by supernova."
Really? Where has this been published and debated?

"Sneaked in"?
You mean the claim is barely discernible right there in the middle of the abstract, or that the whole of Sec. 11, wherein references are given in support, is hidden in the body of the text?

Did you read the paper, or only the abstract and conclusion?

And if only life can produce life, then what started life in the first place?

That's a great question indeed; it appears our universe is naturally geared to produce life.

[A.DIM]

"As only life can produce life, only panspermia is a viable scientific explanation as to the origin of Earthly life"
But what created that life?

The simplest answer seems to be our universe creates Life everywhere and nowhere, all the time, inevitably and "no more surprising than water flowing down hill."

But the question could well be unanswerable, equivalent to asking "why is there anything at all?".

Even growing up in a Christian home, mostly influenced by young earth creationism, that was the big thing that bugged me in Mission to Mars. All panspermia does is push the origin of life back into the unknown. Eventually one runs into the Big Bang,and there is simply no more time.

Insufficient time seems to be a major reason for considering panspermia as an origin of life on Earth; the span of time between Earth becoming habitable and Earth's earliest known, very complex, life is too short for "happy accidents" to have produced it, according to some. On the other hand, if it did happen easily and quickly, a condundrum presents itself.

Curiously(or frighteningly), both BBT and Creationism accept genesis ex nihilo.

[A.DIM]

After clicking on the first link-- I could not help but notice that this so-called paper (or work) is for sale...sounds like a scam to me!

And yet, there in front of you, for free, was is the entire paper (you actually had to scroll through it to get to the for sale signs).


I wonder, do you also consider Science, Nature, ApJ, (most scientific journals for that matter), etc. as scams for selling their papers or works?

[Spoons]

"Sneaked in"?

I really much prefer 'snuck' to 'sneaked'.

I really don't see what this "insufficient time" concept is based on though. I would have thought we're too far removed from that process to really be so certain how fast life takes off once it is sparked, or for that matter, first planted onto a planet.

I'm sure I don't know enough to call that a definitive statement

[A.DIM]

I bet the "peer reviewed" at the top of the abstract refers to some blurbs on the book's back cover.

Maybe, but you can read Cosmology.com's info on peer review, if you like; "Article Submission Information" for scientists and scholars.

[A.DIM]

"Sneaked in"?

I really much prefer 'snuck' to 'sneaked'.

Well, as I understand it, "snuck" is but an american "uneducated" use of past tense "sneaked."

I really don't see what this "insufficient time" concept is based on though. I would have thought we're too far removed from that process to really be so certain how fast life takes off once it is sparked, or for that matter, first planted onto a planet.

I'm sure I don't know enough to call that a definitive statement

Well, I'd suggest Clive Trotman's The Feathered Onion - Creation of Life in the Universe, which describes in great detail the many "happy accident" processes needed to arrive at the complexity of Earth's earliest known life. From his biologist's perspective, 100-200 million years was not enough.

[A.DIM]

I'd say it was **.

Ya know, recently I was reprimanded here for using the British equivalent for **.

Funny how it goes unnoticed or, I daresay, is allowable when used from and in defense of a mainstream perspective.

[Spoons]

Well, snuck was the common form in Australia during my childhood so it's certainly not just an American thing.

Back to topic
In the vastness of the universe it's reasonable to assume that similar starting conditions as our planet occur a great many times.

And this being thecase, however low the odds that it should occur somewhere it's natural we'd exist in one of the possibly rare locations where chance dealt some lucky cards. I know some people dislike this sort of arguement but doesn't break any logic does it?

[Spoons]

Also, I believe one of the new (or newish?) rules relates to using initialised forms of swearing. I don't know whether that sort of thing flies or not, best check the rules thread.

[A.DIM]

Anthropic, to be sure.

I prefer the simpler copernican principle in that what we observe here on Earth is the result of nothing special; similar ingredients in similar environments gives similar results.

[Spoons]

Well, yes, I prefer that concept myself.

I was just suggesting that even if it is not so easy to get a toehold there's still another fairly reasonable possibility in my opinion.

[A.DIM]

Also, I believe one of the new (or newish?) rules relates to using initialised forms of swearing. I don't know whether that sort of thing flies or not, best check the rules thread.

It's a slippery slope in my view, greased arbitrarily.

Saying "**" or "that's **" is commonplace, and can be found in all American media, but supposing someone comes here, to our "family friendly" fora, and reads a post where "********" is used, well, that's not family friendly and deserving of reprimand.

[R.A.F.]

I prefer the simpler copernican principle in that what we observe here on Earth is the result of nothing special.

Your opinion is "exact" on...life started here as nothing special...there is no "need" for panspermia at all.

Which is why it is so strange that you continuously "promote" it.

[AstroRockHunter]

From the conclusion of the paper:

There is no proof life can be created from non-life. As only life can produce life, only panspermia is a viable scientific explanation as to the origin of Earthly life.

Bold mine.

Isn't this a logical fallacy?

[A.DIM]

From the conclusion of the paper:


Bold mine.

Isn't this a logical fallacy?

How so?

Is there any evidence for Life from nonLife, abiogenesis?

[A.DIM]

Your opinion is "exact" on...life started here as nothing special...there is no "need" for panspermia at all.

Which is why it is so strange that you continuously "promote" it.

"Promote it?"

No.
The subject has received new impetus and credibility with the growing field of astrobiology.
I'm simply interested and find it as plausible.

What I find strange is your almost vehement defense of abiogenesis on Earth when we have no evidence of Life from nonLife; that it's a "more reasonable" assumption somehow.

[DrWho]

Quote:
Originally Posted by DrWho View Post
This sounds like a crackpot.

You think?

Yes, I do. Since when does a neurologist (from scanning your link) have any authority in cosmology?

"Sneaked in"?
You mean the claim is barely discernible right there in the middle of the abstract? Did you read the paper, or only the abstract and conclusion?

Yes, I only read the abstract and the conclusion that you posted. That was sufficient to conclude that the paper itself (which must be based around those claims) would be of no interest to me because the propositions sound loony.