You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: FACT CANNON #6: It's Looking Like We Really Did Come From Space - Recent Evidence For Panspermia
The evidence just isn't there to support this theory yet. I disagree today as I did yesterday.
The evidence just isn't there to support this theory yet. I disagree today as I did yesterday.
I thought you might say that! :-)
To be fair the evidence is as strong for this as it is for any alternative hypothesis, and while that's the case it's just a balance of probabilities, although I believe the evidence is mounting for panspermia. I think I said that in the article...
So you're welcome to disagree that it's yet a fully proven theory - so long as you concede that there is no fully proven alternative theory either!
Cheers for reading and commenting, appreciate it!
Actually, there is 'no evidence' for any hypothesis so far, at least to my knowledge. The word 'evidence' has a very well defined ground in science, and this does not apply here.
Ok, I'll bite... Why's that?
I would think that Slobodkin's experimental proof of bacteria surviving terrestrial atmospheric re-entry (see link above) would count as pretty reasonable supporting evidence for the hypothesis of cometary panspermia? Am I missing something?
Slobodkin's experiment does not demonstrate panspermia. That's it. It only proves what you said: bacteria can survive entering the atmosphere. Even if you may need this for panspermia, it does not imply panspermia.
PS: there is no need to bite, we can just talk. This will be fine ^^
I agree, it doesn't demonstrate panspermia - I didn't say it proved it, just supported it. It certainly makes it more probable - see my answer to justtryme90 below. Are we arguing about words here?
It's the weight of convergent supporting 'evidence' or ('data' if you prefer) that's starting to tip the likelihood of panspermia as a realistic explanation for the phenomenon of life on Earth. Isn't this sort of consilience the main thing that holds up the theory of evolution itself?
Anyway, don't worry about biting - just a figure of speech! Have had a quick look at your blog and can see you have an aversion to vampires (Dracula anyway)! :-)
It's good supporting evidence that bacteria can survive entry into the atmosphere, but doesn't at all support that life here began that way.
Its an example of If A = B and B = C then A = C. But that isn't necessarily true you know ;)
Come on now... Granted it doesn't prove it, but it does support it.
Let's assume for the sake of argument that bacteria were proven to be unable to survive re-entry (I know thats not going to happen - this is a logical point) then that would absolutely refute panspermia. Well this experiment has proved that that's not the case, so the argument for panspermia is strengthened as a significant obstacle has been removed. And in any case, the central point here is that the bacteria would not have that capability if it hadn't been selected for - on that basis this bug has had a fairly traumatic history in one way or another.
Re your equation... It's true in my universe! :)
In science, an evidence is a proof. We do not have a proof/evidence here. Words have their importance.
I agree that this is a steemit post and not a thesis, but do you really need to have your title wrong to attract votes? Remember you are posting in the #science category...
Of course, there is no definitive proof for any other prevailing evolutionary theory dealing with the start of life. Your title just reads a bit misleading to me "it-s-looking-like-we-really-did-come-from-space" Its not looking like that at all to me :)
But its going to take a lot to fully convince me in any direction. Skepticism is a strong component in science.
Respect for your scepticism, and I fully agree. I treated the 'Evolution From Space' book in much the same way. Over the last couple of months I've also read CW's 'Where Did We Come From?' as I needed more convincing of his credentials. I read neo-darwinist Richard Dawkins latest 'The Ancestor's Tale' specifically to see if I could find anything to contradict, or contradicted by 'Evolution From Space'. I couldn't. I did my own research, (carefully) on the net, hence this article. I drew the line at reading the Genesis to get the creationist viewpoint, but then I will admit to having a little bias!
Once again, I'll recommend you have a look at CW latest, 'Search For Our Cosmic Ancestry'. I'd be interested whether your scepticism takes you down the same path mine took me... ;-)
And yes, the title is a bit provocative... But then this is Steem, not a thesis, and I want people to read it :-)