2006-08-22 03:58:33 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous in Science & Mathematics ➔ Biology
While it may be possible, I've never understood why (mostly astronomers) continue to push this idea. I've never seen any evidence presented that would indicate that Mars was somehow a better candidate for the origin of life than the Earth.
Our current theories of abiogenesis, include the chemistry of the seas, sea beds and atmosphere of the Earth acting in conjunction with electrical energy from the extreme weather and the sun. All of this protected from harmful cosmic radiation by the Earth's magnetic field, and shielded to some extent from meteor impacts by our large moon and thick atmosphere all play a role in developing the stage that allowed life to form here.
There is little to no evidence that any of this ever occurred on Mars.
So while the panspermia hypothesis may be plausible, it seems far more parsimonious that life did indeed develop independent of Martian influence right here on Earth.
I think it's probably a lot more plausible that if we ever find real evidence of life on Mars, that it was actually a panspermic introduction of life from Earth rather than the other way 'round.
2006-08-22 04:51:01 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's possible. Meteorites from Mars are more likely to hit Earth than the other way around, because the Sun's gravity makes it difficult for an Earth meteorite to hit Mars. The evidence from Martian meteorites discovered on Earth so far is inconclusive, and scientific opinion generally doubts that the "fossils" are actually any indication of life.
2006-08-22 18:30:30 · answer #2 · answered by stevewbcanada 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
How do we know that Panspermia from Earth is not the source of life on Mars...? Going by the odds, it is much more likely. We know that there is life on Earth. A meteor impact on Earth could have caused rocks containing bacteria to be splashed up to Mars.
Not only do we know that there is life on Earth, but in the handful of examples on record, people from Earth put life on the Moon! (temporarily), so it could happen to Mars, too.
What is so different between men putting life on the Moon via an Apollo rocket and a meteor impact on Earth splashing rocks with bacterial life on them onto Mars...?
They are both simple mechanical processes, aren't they? Even if human life and thought seems complex to us, that is only because we are so close to it that it looms large in our awareness. Probability doesn't say it CAN'T happen.
You're not suggesting-- are you...? that some intelligent designer made us travel to the Moon and put life there temporarily... ?
So how is our Moon landing any different from a meteor landing and splashing rocks with bacteria on them into space? What difference does it make, whether Mars put life on Earth or Earth put life on Mars?
If it wasn't done by any intelligent designer beyond ourselves, then it 'just happened'. If WE weren't designed by anybody, then all that we have done was not designed by anybody. If WE 'just happened', then all that we have DONE 'just happened'.
...and the details of 'how' don't matter.
2006-08-22 11:44:24 · answer #3 · answered by cdf-rom 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's certainly possible, but I doubt it because Mars is smaller and less hospitable than Earth.
2006-08-22 11:09:36 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
well, it is possible form an meteorite form Mars that hit Earth has what looks like mocrobial life forms in it.
2006-08-22 11:19:16 · answer #5 · answered by Man 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It is a definite possibility.
2006-08-22 11:05:32 · answer #6 · answered by sam21462 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
maybe.
2006-08-22 16:02:00 · answer #7 · answered by tedschram 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋