Venus Has An Ozone Layer!? No way!

Here is an interesting article pertaining to the theory of Panspermia.

NASA scientists have discovered glycine, a fundamental building block of life, in samples of comet Wild 2 returned by NASA's Stardust spacecraft.

"Glycine is an amino acid used by living organisms to make proteins, and this is the first time an amino acid has been found in a comet," said Jamie Elsila of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md. "Our discovery supports the theory that some of life's ingredients formed in space and were delivered to Earth long ago by meteorite and comet impacts."

I don't know about these ingredients being formed in space by definitely transported through space.

"The discovery of glycine in a comet supports the idea that the fundamental building blocks of life are prevalent in space, and strengthens the argument that life in the universe may be common rather than rare," said Carl Pilcher, director of the NASA Astrobiology Institute, which co-funded the research.

Now we're talking!
Source-

reply to post by Devino


Yes it was a sample of glycine returned by Stardust. This no more supports Panspermia, than it does support Abiogenesis. Glycine is one of 4 ribonucleic acids in DNA, with many other molecules present to create life, it's not a key any more than sugar is.

Originally posted by Devino
Here is an interesting article pertaining to the theory of Panspermia.

I don't think it's a theory, so you might want to stop calling it that.

It's a hypothesis; your own source uses the term hypothesis, see section 1:

Originally posted by Devino
This wouldn't convey all of my thoughts on this question though as I subscribe to the Panspermia Theory.

What's the difference between a theory and a hypothesis? A theory has evidence to support it.

The fact that we found a Mars Rock like ALH84001 on Earth is pretty good evidence for the hypothesis, but not enough evidence to call it a theory.

One possibility might be that we could find life in martian soil, maybe underground where there's liquid water. If that happens, I think we will probably be able to tell if that life is genetically related to life on Earth, or if it's the likely product of separate abiogenesis. If this happens and a genetic relationship is established, at that point, Panspermia will change from a hypothesis to a theory. I wouldn't be too surprised if it happened.

And even if Mars life isn't genetically related, that won't disprove the hypothesis, it will just say it didn't happen in this particular case, but it could happen elsewhere in the universe, maybe in another solar system.

The whole basis of Panspermia gets to me, seems to me to be a deflection of the scientific process, so if the life was transplanted to earth from some celestial body(s) that doesn't do anything to describe that life origin. Total deflection of the origin debate IMO.

BTW, the egg obviously came first. I mean, isn't that what you are saying? Anyway?

reply to post by Illustronic


I don't know if that was directed at me, but I don't see how you got that from reading my post.

Mars cooled before Earth did, so life could have started there earlier. But I posited several possibilities, including that Mars and Earth could have each had their own abiogenesis, so I'm certainly not proposing panspermia as a solution to abiogenesis.

It just seems apparent to me that if we find Mars rocks on Earth, there is some possibility they might have had hitchhikers, if there were any organisms to hitch a ride. There are a few problems with that, as they'd have to survive the initial impact on Mars, survive in space, and then survive atmospheric entry upon arriving at Earth. If the rock was big enough and the organisms were far enough inside, it's plausible to me.

I don't have any particular bias to expect that life on Earth did or did not originate on Mars. But if we ever find life on Mars, I think we'll be able to tell. If it's the result of a separate abiogenesis, that would give credence to the idea that life is common. If it's not, and it's a likely case of panspermia, that might give credence to the idea that perhaps life is rare. I'm completely open to either option, all I want is the truth. Either case would be an astounding discovery that would further our knowledge.

I don't know if we know enough about the history of Venus to tell if it was ever hospitable for life or not. Some people think the entire Earth was covered in ice at one point, and if Venus had a cooler period in its history perhaps it had water, though I doubt ice. But probably not. Even if it was 500 degrees F cooler, it would still be 400 degrees F, about as hot as my oven usually is when it's on, and that seems pretty hot to me!

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
reply to post by Illustronic

 

I don't know if that was directed at me, but I don't see how you got that from reading my post.

No absolutely not my friend.

My point was that the hypothesis of Panspermia outlines that life on earth landed from an alien life, yet somehow that alien life needed an origin and that's the part of the hypothesis that Panspermia doesn't address. Take the idea to the core it says nothing about the origin of life, that I suggest is Abiogenic here, or where ever it originated. My post may have followed yours, but it was directed at the poster who brought up the subject before you.

What I find silly and evasive about the Panspermia idea goes like this; "Bob, It's impossible that life formed from minerals and heat in some primordial soup pot, therefore it must have landed here from outer space, because life doesn't spontaneously appear". Did I get something wrong? Sounds rather evasive and silly doesn't it? It certainly doesn't address the origin of life whatsoever, it sidesteps the core issue.

I was addressing the origin of life, not WHERE it originated. But if you ask me I believe Earth is the most likely place in this solar system to originate life, not Venus, not Mars, not Europa, and make some outer space trip to earth to evolve, Occam's Razor would suggest life is home grown, it certainly deletes speculative variables of greater fantastic probabilities. Why would life have to land here from outer space and what created THAT life, is why I call it a deflection of logic.

Originally posted by Illustronic
Did I get something wrong? Sounds rather evasive and silly doesn't it?

While your interpretation of Panspermia may match that of some Panspermia enthusiasts, it doesn't match either my interpretation, nor the interpretation of the author of the Wiki article on Panspermia:

en.wikipedia.org...

Panspermia does not necessarily suggest that life originated only once and subsequently spread through the entire Universe, but instead that once started, it may be able to spread to other environments suitable for replication.

In other words, if there was life on Mars, there's a chance it could have hitched a ride on the Mars rocks that landed on earth. It doesn't say anything about life not being able to occur spontaneously on Earth.

I don't know if Venus was ever habitable for life though.

I didn't suggest that my interpretation of Panspermia suggests life started only once and then spread, I never read a great deal about it to discover it is the same as abiogenesis, just not native. So that at least clears up the origin issue I thought it didn't address, which IMO reinforces the silliness of the foundation. Not sure what better place of origin is in this solar system than earth for abiogenesis to occur. It just sounds like a grasp to suggest we are not from here for whatever underlying point that makes, for whatever reason, maybe the overwhelming desire to believe in alien intelligent life visitation, possibly to build the pyramids or something.

THIS IS AWESOME I CANT UNDO CAPS LOCK OMGOSH IM YELLING IRL!!!!

but yes!!! really? thank you op

LIFE EVERYWHERE!!!

Great news!