posted on Apr, 9 2014 @ 03:05 PM
reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli
The problem with suggesting life originated off planet is that it only pushes the issue back a step. If life originated off planet because it would
seem it didn't just spring out of a non-living chemical soup here on earth, then what makes anyone think it sprung out of a non-living chemical soup
on another planet? Panspermia is an interesting and even plausible theory, but it does nothing to address the real origins of life.
Yes. Panspermia explains, to me, how the Earth was seeded with microbial life so early in its formation and took most of its time to evolve complex
life, and how remarkably resilient to space and hard radiation (including forming spore colonies) some bacteria/archae turned out to be when taken out
to space---an environment which (without panspermia) no living thing on Earth had ever been subjected to. With panspermia, my thought is that some
ancient genetic programs were activated, as the microbes which made it to Earth through space must have been very well adapted to being frozen in
space but still alive.
But the true origin? The point is that perhaps on some other planet, the true Z'hadum of life, the original chemical conditions were quite different
from early Earth, and if we knew what they were, then the chemistry and steps how that happened would have become more clear.
If panspermia is real, then life on other planets may look, at some basic biochemical level, not that different, you might still have basic DNA and
RNA and archaic protein machinery.
edit on 9-4-2014 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)