Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

Panspermia replaces abiogenesis, while not modifying evolution at all. And it doesn't even do that - it just moves the issue somewhere else.

Posted
what is abiogenesis?

The hypothesis that organic molecules were formed from inorganic ones. This is seperate from evolution that describes biological change. Evolution didn't start until well after the first self-replicating molecules were formed.

Posted

From the link:

The same kind of truce has helped, to a lesser degree, the Darwinian paradigm for evolution and the origin of life on Earth. The theory says life originates out of nonliving chemicals and evolves to higher levels of organization simply by following mechanistic laws.
It's hard to take them seriously when they lump TOE with the origin of life on Earth. There could easily be some truth to organic molecules being seeded from cosmic materials, but what difference would that make to evolution?
Posted

Or abiogenesis for that matter.

 

As swansont hinted, if life on earth started from panspermia then life would still have had to have arisen wherever the pansperm(?) came from; meaning abiogenesis would still have had to have happened, albeit elsewhere.

 

In the abscence of evidence spesifically suggesting panspermia occoured, okkrhams razor suggests terrestrial abiogenisis is the most likely model.

Posted

does it really matter if abiogenesis occured on earth or not? I don't see much of a difference between having a couple of dna molecules form on earth or having them form on anouther planet and landing here.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.