Comments on: Did life crash to Earth from space on slow-moving rocks?

By: Dave Mitchell

Dave Mitchell — Fri, 28 Sep 2012 02:45:11 +0000

They ARE out there but in our case we’re impossibly TOO far apart to EVER physically commune even if one could travel faster than light.

By: Mr. Kirk

Mr. Kirk — Fri, 28 Sep 2012 02:35:17 +0000

From the beginning of the article:
The findings provide the strongest support yet for “lithopanspermia,”

From the end of the article:
“Our study does not prove lithopanspermia…”

@ Mortran: Lithopanspermia cannot be a theory until it is proven. According to the strictest definitions in science, it must therefore still be a hypothesis. The view I gathered from this article is another starting point – if you will – with regard to questions about our origin.

I agree, we don’t NEED panspermia – that hypothesis just makes cause/effect origins of life more plausible. No one mentions “contamination” of life from other planets once ours began. The development of life on other planets IS, in fact, more likely b/c early Earth was hostile and the window of opportunity for the origin of life was narrow. Other places, such as early Mars, not so.
More info on intra-solar (and by extension extra-solar) origins of life can be found here, for a start:

http://news.discovery.com/space/mars-life-120315.html

By: Lord Penguin

Lord Penguin — Wed, 26 Sep 2012 02:45:29 +0000

As the article points out, this isn’t just about another theory for life on Earth. Meteor strikes have happened millions of times to our planet since life evolved, and many of them dislodged some material back into space. It is likely that at least a small portion of Earth-material ended up in nearby star system, whether or not any life survived is another question, and one we can only answer by going exploring the stars ourselves.

By: JFH

JFH — Tue, 25 Sep 2012 21:41:00 +0000

Hmmm…if true this creates more problems in regards to the fermi paradox. This theory would mean life spreading across the universe is even MORE likely than previously thought and yet there is no observable evidence for it – specifically intelligent life.

There is one line of reasoning that postulates that every bit of evidence that supports the idea that life is common throughout the universe bodes very poorly for the fate of mankind. The lack of evidence for other intelligent species in a universe teeming with life means there is very likely a “great filter” that prevents its evolution or hastens its destruction once achieved.

By: egore

egore — Tue, 25 Sep 2012 20:43:30 +0000

Life probably came to Earth from some door to door Alien selling Encyclopedia!s

By: Boldar

Boldar — Tue, 25 Sep 2012 16:59:56 +0000

I think that the approach here is to bring credible probability to alternative ideas of the origin of life on earth. We can’t rule out that the origin of our life is not native to the earth from a scientific point of view. I’m not so sure that a creationist/ID reference is relevent when we’re basing our theories of repeatable observations and simulations. If life on earth came from somewhere else when at the time earth had none, then the universal DNA concept would still hold true, but it may also match that of life on another planet which may or may not be the original origin.

By: Mortran

Mortran — Tue, 25 Sep 2012 15:39:54 +0000

What does this lithopanspermia theory want to prove?
Are they afraid that the theories explaining the origin of life can’t hold up against creationism or intelligent design?
We don’t need panspermia to explain the origin of life on earth.
And we know for sure that all life on earth has only one origin, because the genetic code is universal and uses the same amino-acids. So there is definitely no contamination from other life-baring planets.
The development of life on other planets isn’t more likely than the same development on earth. So why would there be a need to bring life from somewhere else?
This theory contributes nothing to the question of the origin of life. It is rather some kind of intelligent design theory in disguise, because it is based on the same false premise: “Life could never have developed on earth alone by itself.”
If we find life on Mars based on the same genetic code, then it would be worth to research panspermia theories. But as long as this hasn’t happened, it is just a waste of time and resources.

By: Mr. Kirk

Mr. Kirk — Tue, 25 Sep 2012 15:04:03 +0000

Martian microorganisms crash landed on earth and sprouted. So, whatever life might have developed on earth, martians took over instead… Great, I AM an alien!