Is Panspermia the answer to how life started on Earth rather than Adam & Eve?

Question

Panspermia: basically microscopic life that travels from other planets in space debris and meteorites and when these crash into other planets they become the seeds of life, evolution does the rest, with more complex organisms forming gradually from the less complex ones over billions of years.

It doesn't explain how life originated in the first place, but it does explain how life on Earth may have started.

abiogenesis separately or together with panspermia is possible, I imagine that the universe is teeming with various forms of life but we are all so impossibly remote from each other in space distance & time, this might be a good thing.

Answer 1

That it a very interesting theory that I would love to learn more about.

Answer 2

Not necessary.


Tons of simple hydrocarbons, gratuitous amounts of solar radiation, geothermal heat, an aqueous medium and a billion years or so is well enough to generate life.

If you start considering panspermia then you have to start wondering how life came about on some other planet in the first place... which leads you right back to the original problem.
Why assume the less likely option over the more likely?

Answer 3

Panspermia also incorporates the idea that just the building blocks were on the comets (amino acids, DNA bases, RNA bases), not formed life. This much has already been confirmed by Deep Impact (which found traces of complex organic molecules, including amino acids and RNA bases). On a comet which passes close to the sun, containing the appropriate elements, the formation of such molecules is practically certain.

However, that doesn't rule out the terrestrial origin either -- that same process can happen on earth in the pre-biotic state earth was in.

Answer 4

You are begging the question. If panspermia had any validity, then how did life start on other planets? Are you inferring a creator or that life always existed? Or are you admitting that abiogenesis is valid?

Abiogenesis starting on Earth is an argument that fits the evidence and needs no outrageous theories. Scientists have created building blocks of life in bell jars following the theory of abiogenesis: they stick in the simple molecules that existed on ancient Earth (water, carbon dioxide, nitrogen, etc.) and zap it with electricity.

The Earth was dormant for billions of years before life arose. Scientists have figured out and CREATED the building blocks of life in less than 50 years. Claims of supernatural and extraterrestrial beginnings are fanciful flight of fancy.


.

Answer 5

This is almost correct. The fact is, life on earth was purposely seeded by other civilizations in the Universe. This is why there is a 'missing link' between monkeys and man. Those who seeded life onto this planet, genetically altered a preexisting species that lived here, (i.e. monkeys). They added a bit of their own DNA, and here we are as humans. Its as simple as that. If you do not believe me, then do a little study on the subject. Life itself started, however, with God. All things come from (and return to) the Maker.

Answer 6

No, doubt cells would be able to travel that distance, survive an impact like that and procreate... I think the evolution of RNA, DNA from simple carbon is a better and more realistic answer.

Answer 7

in short NO WAY you dont need an alternate answer since direct creation is the only right one the rest are just specious speculations with no point Gorbalizer

Answer 8

-_- no...cuz then who gave life to the seed????Panspermia: basically microscopic life, right? i copied it...so who gave life to the seed?

Answer 9

Its amazing to me the lengths people will go to avoid a belief in God. if there's a God then this crazy 1 chance in 10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 or more event is not necessary. And as you said, it really doesn't solve anything.

Answer 10

No creation happened