A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Amateur Astronomy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Sick of scientists pushing "panspermia" with no real evidence



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old October 18th 17, 12:09 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
RichA[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 731
Default Sick of scientists pushing "panspermia" with no real evidence

Why is they are so bent on proving life didn't originate on Earth without outside influences?
Ads
  #2  
Old October 18th 17, 12:31 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Chris L Peterson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,502
Default Sick of scientists pushing "panspermia" with no real evidence

On Tue, 17 Oct 2017 16:09:48 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:

Why is they are so bent on proving life didn't originate on Earth without outside influences?


Why the hell do you care if a handful of scientists investigate this
possibility? It's not like it's engaging thousands of people and
consuming billions of dollars.

It's not a bad thing for people to be looking at unlikely but possible
hypotheses, in any field.
  #3  
Old October 18th 17, 02:12 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
RichA[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 731
Default Sick of scientists pushing "panspermia" with no real evidence

On Tuesday, 17 October 2017 19:31:54 UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Tue, 17 Oct 2017 16:09:48 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:

Why is they are so bent on proving life didn't originate on Earth without outside influences?


Why the hell do you care if a handful of scientists investigate this
possibility? It's not like it's engaging thousands of people and
consuming billions of dollars.

It's not a bad thing for people to be looking at unlikely but possible
hypotheses, in any field.


In all the thousands of meteorites ever collected, have they ever found any bacteria or anything close to it? The basis for panspermia is life transport by meteorite.
  #4  
Old October 18th 17, 02:32 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Chris L Peterson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,502
Default Sick of scientists pushing "panspermia" with no real evidence

On Wed, 18 Oct 2017 06:12:49 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:

On Tuesday, 17 October 2017 19:31:54 UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Tue, 17 Oct 2017 16:09:48 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:

Why is they are so bent on proving life didn't originate on Earth without outside influences?


Why the hell do you care if a handful of scientists investigate this
possibility? It's not like it's engaging thousands of people and
consuming billions of dollars.

It's not a bad thing for people to be looking at unlikely but possible
hypotheses, in any field.


In all the thousands of meteorites ever collected, have they ever found any bacteria or anything close to it? The basis for panspermia is life transport by meteorite.


Panspermia does not require that asteroids/meteoroids were the
carriers of life. Or that it involved more than one carrier
(meteorites all come from just a few sources, which are bodies formed
with our solar system). Nor does it require that actual life was
transported between stars, just organic material.

Again, what do you care if a few people want to explore this line of
investigation?
  #5  
Old October 18th 17, 03:44 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Martin Brown[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 67
Default Sick of scientists pushing "panspermia" with no real evidence

On 18/10/2017 00:09, RichA wrote:
Why is they are so bent on proving life didn't originate on Earth
without outside influences?


I don't think that many are. Scientists are curious though and want to
know if life started independently on any of Mars, Europa or Callisto.

Which press release are you objecting to? The last that I am aware of
was by Harvard in 2015 and considered the possibility of detecting life
by spotting non-equlibrium atmospheres around goldilocks planets.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...0827111652.htm


--
Regards,
Martin Brown
  #6  
Old October 18th 17, 06:34 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Chris.B[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 798
Default Sick of scientists pushing "panspermia" with no real evidence

On Wednesday, 18 October 2017 16:44:47 UTC+2, Martin Brown wrote:
On 18/10/2017 00:09, RichA wrote:
Why is they are so bent on proving life didn't originate on Earth
without outside influences?


I don't think that many are. Scientists are curious though and want to
know if life started independently on any of Mars, Europa or Callisto.

Which press release are you objecting to? The last that I am aware of
was by Harvard in 2015 and considered the possibility of detecting life
by spotting non-equlibrium atmospheres around goldilocks planets.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...0827111652.htm


--
Regards,
Martin Brown


I thought the present consensus was that Rich originated in a warm, muddy, volcanic puddle on a Pangaean shoreline somewhere. Probably during an embarrassing bombardment of Martian Riches. ;-)
  #7  
Old October 22nd 17, 12:25 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
RichA[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 731
Default Sick of scientists pushing "panspermia" with no real evidence

On Wednesday, 18 October 2017 09:32:08 UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Wed, 18 Oct 2017 06:12:49 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:

On Tuesday, 17 October 2017 19:31:54 UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Tue, 17 Oct 2017 16:09:48 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:

Why is they are so bent on proving life didn't originate on Earth without outside influences?

Why the hell do you care if a handful of scientists investigate this
possibility? It's not like it's engaging thousands of people and
consuming billions of dollars.

It's not a bad thing for people to be looking at unlikely but possible
hypotheses, in any field.


In all the thousands of meteorites ever collected, have they ever found any bacteria or anything close to it? The basis for panspermia is life transport by meteorite.


Panspermia does not require that asteroids/meteoroids were the
carriers of life. Or that it involved more than one carrier
(meteorites all come from just a few sources, which are bodies formed
with our solar system). Nor does it require that actual life was
transported between stars, just organic material.

Again, what do you care if a few people want to explore this line of
investigation?


So what organic material have they found on them?
  #8  
Old October 22nd 17, 12:26 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
RichA[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 731
Default Sick of scientists pushing "panspermia" with no real evidence

On Wednesday, 18 October 2017 10:44:47 UTC-4, Martin Brown wrote:
On 18/10/2017 00:09, RichA wrote:
Why is they are so bent on proving life didn't originate on Earth
without outside influences?


I don't think that many are. Scientists are curious though and want to
know if life started independently on any of Mars, Europa or Callisto.

Which press release are you objecting to? The last that I am aware of
was by Harvard in 2015 and considered the possibility of detecting life
by spotting non-equlibrium atmospheres around goldilocks planets.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...0827111652.htm


--
Regards,
Martin Brown


I saw one new one the other day, might have been on phys.org, but I can't remember.
  #9  
Old October 22nd 17, 02:30 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Chris L Peterson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,502
Default Sick of scientists pushing "panspermia" with no real evidence

On Sat, 21 Oct 2017 16:25:58 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:

On Wednesday, 18 October 2017 09:32:08 UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:

Panspermia does not require that asteroids/meteoroids were the
carriers of life. Or that it involved more than one carrier
(meteorites all come from just a few sources, which are bodies formed
with our solar system). Nor does it require that actual life was
transported between stars, just organic material.

Again, what do you care if a few people want to explore this line of
investigation?


So what organic material have they found on them?


On meteorites? Well, nobody has identified an interstellar meteorite,
but meteorites and comets formed within our own solar system contain a
variety of organics- amines, amides, amino acids, carboxylic acids,
sugars, aromatic hydrocarbons, and others.

It remains a viable theory that the organics which allowed life on
Earth were seeded by material formed elsewhere in the Solar System.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Wish: Do not support the Sociopaths in "science" by, WITHOUT COMMENT, re-posting their vicious lies "about life" - Scientists home in on mysterious dark matter Leonardo Been Astronomy Misc 0 April 5th 13 10:43 AM
I'm SICK of the theory of "panspermia" Rich Amateur Astronomy 23 January 2nd 07 04:30 AM
...According to Nasa.."Consensus is Global Warming is Real" and "Detrimental" Jonathan Policy 9 December 22nd 06 08:19 AM
...According to Nasa.."Consensus is Global Warming is Real" and "Detrimental" Jonathan History 9 December 22nd 06 08:19 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:30 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2017 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.