Looks Like P M Is Going To Have To Give...
News1 min ago
Panspermia And Directed Panspermia
You can use this thread instead, Naomi.
Panspermia is the theory that life is common throughout the Universe, found particularly in Asteroids and the like, so that planets with the right conditions can develop life when an asteroid carrying the raw materials crashes into it -- or in to a neighbouring planet. So far, so reasonable, although as yet there is no conclusive evidence. Still, it seems to make some sense if you believe that life on Earth was likely not a one-off event in the Universe.
Directed Panspermia is slightly different, that life on this planet is the deliberate consequence of some other intelligent being wanting to set it up. Alternatively it's the name for the process whereby Humans can spread life from this planet around the Universe before we eventually die off. The last is controversial on a sort of "Prime Directive" ground (what about life which may already be out there?); the first because it seemingly lacks evidence and anyway doesn't solve the problem of how [i]that[] intelligent life emerged. Just passes the buck, so to speak.
Francis Crick was an early advocate of this theory, although he has since apparently retracted it:
Crick, F. H.; Orgel, L. E. (1973). "Directed Panspermia". Icarus 19: 341–348;
http://
But when I noted this in another thread Naomi leapt to the defence of the theory, though "that was not the place".
Hence this thread, so that it can be more fully discussed.
Panspermia is the theory that life is common throughout the Universe, found particularly in Asteroids and the like, so that planets with the right conditions can develop life when an asteroid carrying the raw materials crashes into it -- or in to a neighbouring planet. So far, so reasonable, although as yet there is no conclusive evidence. Still, it seems to make some sense if you believe that life on Earth was likely not a one-off event in the Universe.
Directed Panspermia is slightly different, that life on this planet is the deliberate consequence of some other intelligent being wanting to set it up. Alternatively it's the name for the process whereby Humans can spread life from this planet around the Universe before we eventually die off. The last is controversial on a sort of "Prime Directive" ground (what about life which may already be out there?); the first because it seemingly lacks evidence and anyway doesn't solve the problem of how [i]that[] intelligent life emerged. Just passes the buck, so to speak.
Francis Crick was an early advocate of this theory, although he has since apparently retracted it:
Crick, F. H.; Orgel, L. E. (1973). "Directed Panspermia". Icarus 19: 341–348;
http://
But when I noted this in another thread Naomi leapt to the defence of the theory, though "that was not the place".
Hence this thread, so that it can be more fully discussed.
Answers
Naomi, I can see from your posts that you are predisposed to the idea of some earlier intelligence whether native or alien but as I said earlier there is no evidence to support these ideas. Most of the 'evidence' is just speculation. What may to us look like a rocket in a primitive drawing probably was intended to represent something entirely different. Other...
20:32 Wed 15th May 2013
Well, make of it what you will. I was intrigued, actually, but you've not really provided any reasons I find convincing. Isn't that fair enough? Yes, I did start off by saying crackpot and barmy and so on, and then you said oh no it's quite respected actually. I thought oh, and went off to dig up on some background reading on panspermia and thought oh, this isn't so easily dismissed after all. Hence the thread. No, there was no insincerity. If that's come across it's simply because I was sceptical at first -- can you blame me for that when I did start off thinking it was crackpot? -- and there's nothing you've posted that really has changed that, I'm sorry to say.
After that, well, I'm sorry if I don't find your arguments convincing but that's my prerogative and don't be offended by it. As to the Biblical part, well, I just grabbed the first two links off google that related to the search "people before Adam". I have no idea as to their veracity and the main point was to illustrate that the idea of people before Adam in the Bible was debated in religious circles.
Thanks, by the way, for sticking up for me when you did.
After that, well, I'm sorry if I don't find your arguments convincing but that's my prerogative and don't be offended by it. As to the Biblical part, well, I just grabbed the first two links off google that related to the search "people before Adam". I have no idea as to their veracity and the main point was to illustrate that the idea of people before Adam in the Bible was debated in religious circles.
Thanks, by the way, for sticking up for me when you did.
Jim, //Why not up for discussion?//
Because “This was meant to be a Science question, not an arts one.”
//then you said oh no it's quite respected actually.//
No, I didn’t. I said nothing of the sort.
//I just grabbed the first two links off google that related to the search "people before Adam". I have no idea as to their veracity//
Clearly.
Parhaps you'd be wise to stop now.
Because “This was meant to be a Science question, not an arts one.”
//then you said oh no it's quite respected actually.//
No, I didn’t. I said nothing of the sort.
//I just grabbed the first two links off google that related to the search "people before Adam". I have no idea as to their veracity//
Clearly.
Parhaps you'd be wise to stop now.
Well you said "it's perfectly feasible" anyway.
I don't take Bible research too seriously because I gave up believing in any of it as a book to be trusted about a year ago, when I concluded to my own satisfaction that it had to be literal to be right and was, therefore, wrong. Consequently by definition all Bible studies are effectively meaningless except to understand society since it was written.
I was expecting when you said that there was "plenty of evidence" that maybe it was more concrete than arts and cultural history. Why is it so unreasonable to hope for more than that in a theory to be taken seriously?
In summary: Directed Panspermia of the sort you are proposing appears to be untestable and so, while not necessarily wrong, is certainly not within the realms of Science, for the time being. Is there anything about this assessment that doesn't read correctly for you?
I don't take Bible research too seriously because I gave up believing in any of it as a book to be trusted about a year ago, when I concluded to my own satisfaction that it had to be literal to be right and was, therefore, wrong. Consequently by definition all Bible studies are effectively meaningless except to understand society since it was written.
I was expecting when you said that there was "plenty of evidence" that maybe it was more concrete than arts and cultural history. Why is it so unreasonable to hope for more than that in a theory to be taken seriously?
In summary: Directed Panspermia of the sort you are proposing appears to be untestable and so, while not necessarily wrong, is certainly not within the realms of Science, for the time being. Is there anything about this assessment that doesn't read correctly for you?
Directed panspermia. It seems a reasonable thoery as long as it is applied to what we might do in the future, assuming we survive long enough.
As a theory of what might have kick started life off here on Earth, I'm more sceptical. Mainly due to the time available for such a technologically advanced civliization to have emerged: and if they did why they aren't still around having achieved space travel and spread out. Given we have yet to see evidence of other alien species, other civilazations, it seems either they occur extremely spaced apart or do not survive for long, which doesn't give one a warm feeling that one passed through here sowing life yet.
As a theory of what might have kick started life off here on Earth, I'm more sceptical. Mainly due to the time available for such a technologically advanced civliization to have emerged: and if they did why they aren't still around having achieved space travel and spread out. Given we have yet to see evidence of other alien species, other civilazations, it seems either they occur extremely spaced apart or do not survive for long, which doesn't give one a warm feeling that one passed through here sowing life yet.
That's ok Naomi, I appreciate the thread has turned into a personal disagreement between the major posters ;-)
To be honest I've tried to read through the thread, read most, not checked links, and I already feel left behind. It seems to me one of those feasible subjects but insufficient evidence to decide one way or the other. And no real reason to take it up as a favoured theory as far as I'm concerned.
Plenty of interesting books on it though. But I've read them with a sceptical eye.
To be honest I've tried to read through the thread, read most, not checked links, and I already feel left behind. It seems to me one of those feasible subjects but insufficient evidence to decide one way or the other. And no real reason to take it up as a favoured theory as far as I'm concerned.
Plenty of interesting books on it though. But I've read them with a sceptical eye.
A little levity, just browsing through pictures of aliens and came across one of hitler shaking hands with an alien. I thought the hitler part of the image looked familiar, a quick 'image google' of 'hitler handshake' and there he was, exactly the same, shaking hands with mussolini. Both images are on the same page.
Latest Posts
Crosswords3 mins ago
Music6 mins ago
You Could Have Protected Her....
News7 mins ago
Technology15 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.