Bacteria. From Mars. Transported on meteorites

I reckon it's a good word and a good theory.
[Edit: actually I just discovered a website dedicated to panspermia
http://www.panspermia.org/! Lots of fascinating stuff.]

The life doesn't have to come from Mars on meteorites, of course - it could arrive on comets from distant nebulae as per Fred Hoyle's theories (once sneerily poo-pooed, now right back in fashion).

Actually Fred Hoyle is credited as a pioneer in this area, though he is also known for "his seminal contributions to the theory of the structure of stars"

http://www.cf.ac.uk/maths/wickramasinghe/hoyle.html

(advance apologies, this page has a background that really screws your eyes up)

Does the word seems to refer to a theoretical territory, rather than to a theory (once you've removed the terra)? The set of all places so infected and from one source.

That bacteria could survive only a couple of years on a meteor in space suggests that life could not have come from beyond our solar system.

Is the theory based on much evidence or on conjecture, and if conjecture, what reason is there to favor it over one of a terrestrial origin of life?

The prefix Pan- means all, or everything, right? Same as Pantheism, Pantheon. So does this word indicate life from anywhere (but earth)? If it only refers to life perhaps coming from Mars then the coinage is very general. Mind you, at the time Mars probably seemed so exotic. I think the theory is certainly worth further research - better to sink money into that, than a really expensive, long-term international diplomacy conference in space! ISS might make some sense if everything down here wasn't shot to pieces.

I heard some speculation that the big question involves what happens in the primordial mass of cooling particles at the start of a solar system. When water combined with other elements has coagulated to a mere few kelvin in a *liquid form, certain sized clumps with the right ingredients will eventually(!) form that are particularly conducive to creating complex molecules, carbon strings, amino-acids, and well, what we call life. If anyone can explain any theories on the birth of solar systems and the relation to the birth of life, I'd love to hear 'em. Should any acceptable answer be possible, it will have to look at least that far back, I'd think.

As to alien spurs, let me just say one word: mushrooms :-)

God as a mushroom./As to alien spurs, let me just say one word: mushrooms :-)

BY, consuelo's gonna love you for this connection!

The prefix Pan- means all, or everything, right? Same as Pantheism, Pantheon. So does this word indicate life from anywhere (but earth)? If it only refers to life perhaps coming from Mars then the coinage is very general. Mind you, at the time Mars probably seemed so exotic.

I was also wondering why the coinage sounded so generic when it seemed to imply the specificity of Mars. Perhaps the scientist who coined it was theorizing based on that, exotic for the time as you say BY, life-on-Mars focus, but wanted to leave the door open to other planets, comets, asteroids, and other galaxies. I'll have to try to search-up the original theory and see if I can find a text verbatim. Unless Dr. Bill, or somebody else, beats me to it.
But I wonder why they didn't coin a new term in modernity, as Geoff says, to more accurately depict their updated theorizing?

I was also wondering why the coinage sounded so generic when it seemed to imply the specificity of Mars

Check out my Fred Hoyle comment, guys. The "return" to Mars is actually the most recent version of the theory. Originally it was about viruses (? I think, rather than bacteria) travelling on comets, wandering all over the universe from who knows where. But possibly from clouds/nebulae of "dark" organic matter.

Seemed even more whacky than Erich von Daniken at the time.

Edit -
Here's some NASA stuff about how comets may have "seeded" the Earth with organic material:
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2001/ast05apr_1.htm

And here's something about the recently-launched comet probe, and the relevance of its mission. "Essentially we can think of them as chemical fossils of processes that happened over four billion years ago when the Solar System was young and the planets were forming.":
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_2087000/2087291.stm

<<But I wonder why they didn't coin a new term in modernity>>

You are suggesting that modernity is a time or [inclusive] an era?

You are suggesting that modernity is a time or [inclusive] an era?

No, insel...just something more appropriate to the newly evolved theories of their work.

At WO'N's suggestion, I searched for "panspermia" and here is URL too long to
write a précis on:: http://www.panspermia.org/whatdiff.htm

From Dr. Bill's link:

Perhaps our morality is grounded in Cosmic Ancestry. Our Cosmic Ancestors would have had access to the gene or array of genes for altruism. They would have programmed altruism to activate as soon as possible, because they would have been concerned for the success of the whole enterprise. That way, the more highly organized forms of life wouldn't be at the mercy of chance, hoping for heroism and love to emerge out of nowhere. It's possible.
----------------------------------
Our Cosmic Ancestors would want us to know about them. We can be pretty sure of that by putting ourselves into their shoes. Perhaps they installed in our genes a genetic memory of themselves. Such a genetic memory would account for the persistence of religions around the world. And it would explain in a new way why the mythologies of different religions are so similar, as the philospher Joseph Campbell tells us.

Taking the theory a step further, from microbes to beings,
the vistas of our new genetic technologies certainly open some intriguing possibilites, don't they?...since an advanced race would surely have had this knowledge.

Here's a more comprehensive Science News article from yesterday about the current panspermia debate:

http://www.cosmiverse.com/science01110204.html

And an excerpt which informs about the original theory:

The idea was first proposed in 1903 by the Swedish chemist Svante Arrhenius, who suggested that solar radiation could propel single spores across solar systems. In the 1970s, astronomers Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe studied the infrared spectra of interstellar grains of dust, concluding that they were dried, frozen bacteria.

They put forward the controversial suggestion that life on Earth started when such bacteria arrived from space. But critics said cosmic rays and ultraviolet radiation from the Sun would kill unprotected spores.

Another excerpt from Dr. Bill's link for non-clickers (though I recommend reading the full text, it's a stimlating and worthwhile read):

If the question that scientists pose for themselves is simply too difficult, they are limited to pure conjecture. For example, in the Middle Ages, how Earth was formed was a question scientists could only guess about. Science can only make progress by taking small steps. Today, if we were able to answer the limited question "How did life on Earth begin?" it would be a rather large small step, wouldn't it? If we figure out that one, we probably deserve a vacation before we tackle the next problem.

Yet many scientists continue to assert that the question is how life began in the first place. They say that knowing life on Earth comes from space would be of only minor interest because it sheds no light on the question. This position is detrimental to science; in fact, it is dumbfounding.

If one had to compose the question for all of science, it should be something like "What's going on?" Isn't that what we really want to know? With that attitude, it is fruitful to ask more and more precise questions. If we continue to insist that the question about life is "How did life begin in the first place?" we establish ground rules that may keep us from ever finding out what's going on.

Even if we never find out how life begins in the first place, it makes a lot of difference where life on Earth comes from. If life comes from space, evolution could work completely differently from the way we were taught in school. New genes could come from space throughout life's history, even today. These arrivals could be the source of evolution's raw material—new genetic programs for evolution to sift through, as discussed in the sections under "How Does Life Evolve?" This makes a pretty big difference in our understanding of what's going on.

Under the old theory we are completely isolated from the greater universe, including other life in it, if there is any. If life comes from space, life is probably abundant in the universe and we on Earth are related to it. This change has profound philosophical and psychological consequences. This makes a really big difference, as we will discuss.

Fisk: Talk to yourself, Shona.

Shona: OK, Fisk. Yeah, I thought I was being helpful at an early stage in this thread, too.

Fisk: Never mind. Have a pint of Harvey's.

Shona: Nice one. Cheers, mate.

I saw an item somewhere recently that there my be a billion stars with planets.
So far I have not seen any assertion that Earth is in any way less capable of
initialing life than any of the others. I see no reason to assume it could not
commenced here just as readily as it could have anywhere else.

Holy Missed Links! Shona, I forgot to click over to this wealth of material after I read through the thread. Bookmarked for extensive perusal, thanks. Here's a piece from shona's link, an abstract of their thesis:

Abstract

There is a widespread sentiment that panspermia is uninteresting because it does not answer fundamental questions about the origin of life. The strongest version of panspermia asks entirely new questions. While barriers to the acceptance of panspermia are falling and evidence supporting it is accumulating, the mere possibility of panspermia unhinges the Darwinian account of evolutionary progress. The new theory removes an issue dividing science and religion, but it requires an amendment to the big bang theory.

Now, let's have another look at Hoyle!

Is the egg off my face, yet?

[edit: the Hoyle site] Gee, thanks, shona, my optometrist will love you!

> but it requires an amendment to the big bang theory.

I thought pretty much everyone had scrapped that anyway, at least in its original form. Circa 14 billion years they told us, ...yeah and to the power of what?

Is the egg off my face, yet?

Sure is W'ON, but there's sperm all over the universe...

[the Hoyle site] Gee, thanks, shona, my optometrist will love you!
Yeah. Why do they do that? These people must come from another planet.

Hoyle is fairly recently deceased, incidentally.

So far I have not seen any assertion that Earth is in any way less capable of initialing life than any of the others

I think that's correct Bill - but remember this theory is still kicking against the old view of the Earth as possibly the only life-bearing planet in the Universe.

Life used to be (and still is) seen by some as an incredible coincidence rather than something pervasive and naturally occurring.

What would you call such a viewpoint? Terrocentric?

Is the egg off my face, yet?

Shona said: Sure is W'ON, but there's sperm all over the universe...

Uh-oh, I guess I should've seen that one coming! (wincing-while-forgetting-the-Gutter-Police-are-back-on-patrol-e)

Last year WO'N asked me what morel mushrooms tasted like. This was my answer:
How do morels taste, I'm asked. They taste like Pan romped through the forest with the nymphssperm implied and wrapped them all up in autumn leaves. I wish I had some now. They are a wild thing, not to be compared to portobello or white ones from the grocer.

So, by, you should have asked me. I already knew God is a mushroom, or a mushroom is God, or sumpin' like that! Panspermia indeed, WO'N. You were just baiting me, weren't you! OOOPS, didn't mean to set off a scare in poor pezcyclando's heart!

just baiting me, weren't you! OOOPS, didn't mean to set off a scare in poor pezcyclando's heart!

Don't mind me, Conny - I'm just pedalling after these tasty looking nymphs

Hmmm, what's with the shiny belts and bits of thread coming out of their heads, eh?

Arrrrkk -----

Don't mind me, Connie - I'm just pedalling after these tasty looking nymphs

pezcyclando, pancyclando.........nymphs, eh?

nymphs, eh?

Water nymphs, naturally.

They dance so prettily on the surface of the pond....
[enraptured-and-ubious-e]

How do morels taste, I'm asked. They taste like Pan romped through the forest with the nymphs and wrapped them all up in autumn leaves. I wish I had some now. They are a wild thing, not to be compared to portobello or white ones from the grocer.

Ah, consuelo!...you remembered! [rolleyes-e]

Who you callin' mushroom?

Thank Mushroom, God is back!

Let us go in peace to love and serve the board.

<<Thank Mushroom, God is back!>>

Relax, it's a hallucination.

<<Thank Mushroom, God is back!>>

Relax, it's a hallucination.

Awww, and he looked such a fun guy...

Shhhhh, If you all aren't careful He will come down here ....then we will all be in the (mushroom) soup!

Where's that whisper mode when you need it?

The theory doesn't surprise me a bit!
As to a genetic inter-linking : would explain a lot.
Any of you watch SciFi TV like Trek and Babylon 5 et. al?
Never seen one yet where there isn't an adventure which ends up with a bunch of inimical and varied life forms seeing a 3D image of some vanished race which tells them they are all related as the long-vanished one had sent their genetic material throughout the many universes. Each of course refuses to believe they are any way related. Typical! EXCEPT in Babylon 5 where the Minbari believe their souls and the souls of the Earthers are interlinked. Very advanced race, the Minbari, of course.
Panspermia in action!
OK ! Don't groan.
So it's sci-fi ... just another type of modern myth-making. I do not think Campbell would argue with that.
And why would the idea occur to all the writers of varied programs ... sure they read science journals ....BUT....


Oh, never mind, I am going away for now

First,
Our Cosmic Ancestors would want us to know about them. We can be pretty sure of that by putting ourselves into their shoes. Perhaps they installed in our genes a genetic memory of themselves. Such a genetic memory would account for the persistence of religions around the world. And it would explain in a new way why the mythologies of different religions are so similar, as the philospher Joseph Campbell tells us.

Now Mushroom Soup??

Could this be Campbell's Mushroom Soup?? Is it lunchtime for anyone else? [easing over to the office fridge-e]

as the philospher Joseph Campbell tells us.

Oops! I thought people were referring to John Campbell, early editor of Astounding Science Fiction !