The Origins of Directed Panspermia

Indeed, insistence on geospermia by assumption puts origin of life researchers in the same absurd position as the above described unfortunate paleontologist, whose assumption of a local origin for humanity forces him or her to reject the theory that humans evolved from higher primates because there were no such species in evidence in Golden, CO at the time of humanity’s appearance. There are innumerable planets where the spontaneous formation of amino acids from chemistry, as demonstrated by the Miller-Urey experiment, could readily have occurred, as opposed to the early Earth, where it could not. Science needs to follow the data, not defy it. Therefore it is the Miller-Urey experimental results that discredit the assumption of geospermia, rather than the reverse.

Are there evidences supporting directed panspermia hypothesis?

And so, for explaining evolution and the origin of life on Earth, a holy war is being waged.

Are there evidences supporting directed panspermia ..


Panspermia is the term for the most scientifically plausible version of this concept, but it isn't necessarily what science fiction usually presents. The panspermia hypothesis holds that the building blocks of life are not found exclusively on planetary bodies but are instead found scattered throughout the cosmos, and it is these spaceborne particles that are at least partly responsible for life on Earth. There's for the theory (although far, far more to support the reliable old "Life comes from Earth" hypothesis), and there is something undeniably fascinating about the subtext – the aliens are already here, and we are they. But science fiction barely ever depicts the actual theory of panspermia, mostly because it's just a physical process that takes billions of years to play out and is pretty boring unless you're willing to get really mystical.

Panspermia theory claims life on Earth ..

What science fiction more properly deals with is exogenesis, which simply states that humanity or its genetic ancestors didn't always live on Earth. That generally means one of two things – either an ancient alien race introduced life to a previously dead Earth (sometimes as part of a larger directed panspermia project) or a bunch of humans from some other civilization colonized Earth, a fact that somehow slipped the minds of their descendants (you know…us). Plenty of science fiction deals with both, including two of the big science fictions works currently in the news. (The occasional spoiler may lie ahead.)

How life got started on Earth is still a big problem for scientists. The story goes something like…

One thought on “ Top 10 Theories on Beginning of Life on Earth ”

That said, there is, as noted above, grounds for skepticism that this is the form of communication that intelligent species would find interesting. If there is a field of life throughout the galaxy, initiated on innumerable worlds by natural panspermia, it could be expected to evolve in multitudes of new and unpredictable directions through natural processes including mutation and natural selection, driven by chance and diverse environmental conditions. It seems to me that the most portentous form of communication that intelligent extraterrestrials could undertake would be to try to propagate themselves by sending out genetic information to influence this chaotic process in their own direction. Genomes can contain dormant plans for complex traits, as evidenced by recent work in which scientists activated what had been considered junk DNA in chickens to produce long-lost dinosaur features, like teeth. (Hoggenboom 2015, Bhuler 2015) Well, chickens are descended from dinosaurs, so perhaps it’s not too astonishing to discover that they still keep some of the old body plans on file. Such plans could come in handy if new conditions require a radical evolutionary leap. But could it be possible that some such genetic plans were sent here intentionally by bacterial conveyance? Could some have been used, and others be still awaiting their chance? There are a variety of physiological features, such as the complex eye, or bird wings, whose origin is hard to explain in terms of incremental natural selection, as they appear to be completely non-functional in partially-developed form. The raising of such paradoxes has long been a stock in trade of theists arguing the case for supernatural “intelligent design.” But while there are, by definition, no supernatural phenomenon, there really are many things – including not only buildings and ships, but also domesticated animals and plants – that are the product of intelligent design. Bacteria can transfer genes among themselves, and to and from macrofauna and macroflora (Yong, 2016, Margulis and Sagan, 2008). Instead of sending us greetings and saluting us with the value of π, could extraterrestrials be sending us microbial messages for the purpose of guiding the evolution of our biosphere?

Box Office Mojo Find Movie Box Office Data:

Of course, in real life nothing is ever that simple, and Arkansas wascertainly not the end of matters. One of the key issues in the trialwas less theological or scientific, but philosophical. That was thereason for my participation. Look again at the fifth of the judge'scriteria for what makes for good or genuine science. The Creationistshad started to refer to the ideas of the eminent, Austrian-born,British-residing philosopher Karl Popper (1959). As is well known,Popper claimed that for something to be genuinely scientific it has tobe falsifiable. By this, Popper meant that genuine science puts itselfup to check against the real world. If the predictions of the sciencehold true, then it lives to fight another day. If the predictionsfail, then the science must be rejected — or at leastrevised. Popper (1974) himself expressed doubts about whetherevolutionary theory is genuinely falsifiable and he rather inclined tothink that it is less a description of reality than a heuristic tofurther study, what he called a ‘metaphysical researchprogramme.’ The Creationists seized on this and argued that theyhad the best authority to reject evolution, or at least to judge it nomore of a science than Creationism.

The movie is set in 2093 and researchers decide to go ..

As fantastical as it sounds, I believe this is a testable hypothesis. Specifically, one could search for genetic material being carried by bacteria that can be inserted into animals or plants and result in the production of striking adaptations that have not yet manifested themselves in living species on Earth. Birds once had teeth, but they never had radar. No species is known which communicates telepathically using bioradio. There are any number of useful adaptations that are physically possible but which never have manifested themselves in terrestrial biology. Furthermore, there are traits that we do see in some species, but not in their ancestors. Mice were once fish, but fish were never mice. The fact that mice still carry fish traits has been clear since the 19th Century, when it was observed that mammal embryos exhibit fish traits such as gills. But do fish carry in their inactive DNA advance plans for mammalian traits? It is possible that such traits could be induced by the transference of bacterial genes. But from what source? If such were found, could they have been sent by extraterrestrials in the distant past, to either fish or their ancestors? Or did fish get them from mammals by natural local bacterial transference much more recently? How could these two possibilities be sorted out?