Slashdot Mirror
Study Puts Hole In Comet Theory Of Life's Origin
Astervitude writes "A new study by US and Japanese scientists has put a serious dent into one version of the popular panspermia theory that credits comets for bringing the seeds of life to Earth. Surveys conducted by the University of Arizona, the National Astronomical Observatory of Japan and others now show that objects from the main asteroid belt between Jupiter and Mars were largely responsible for the period of Late Heavy Bombardment that ended 3.9 billion years ago. UA Professor Emeritus Robert Strom believes that no more than 10 percent of the Earth's water comes from comets and any oceans then extant would have been 'vaporized by the asteroid impacts during the cataclysm.'" Interesting, because this directly contradicts the Nova mini-series Origins that just finished running on PBS. Science never stops moving.
Let them continue their futile work. In the Bible they have already been told what really matters, but they refuse to listen.
New study by scientists disagrees with programme made by television professionals to give the illusion of education to the masses?
;)
Shocking!
I don't read your sig, why do you read mine?
"...the popular panspermia theory that credits comets for bringing the seeds of life to Earth.
Popular AND full of innuendo.
Besides, we all know that Gil Gerard used a time machine, went back, and ejaculated into the primordial ooze.
80 percent of all studies are wrong...
We all know that the Flying Spaghetti Monster created life, you fools!
Why would it be easier to believe that life began elsewhere than to assume that life started here on Earth? Is there some particular reason not to believe that the life on Earth got started on Earth?
Sure, this is an interesting paper with important ramifications - but I don't see how it has any bearing on the theory of panspermia.
Surely it only takes one tiny droplet of life-carrying comet water to make it into earth's early oceans without being boiled into sterility. If conditions were right, that initial small pocket of bacteria or virii could multiply to cover the planet in a matter of years.
You can't tell me that over millions of years and millions of impacts, not one would come down at a sufficiently low speed or favorable grazing angle to gently melt comet ice into an existing ocean.
Given what we've observed of Mars meteorites ending up on Earth, it's perfectly possible for life from one part of the universe to spread from planet to planet - and even solar system to solar system.
If you buy into the idea that there was life elsewhere in the universe long before life has been found to have existed on Earth - then panspermia is very possible.
My problem with that theory is that it doesn't answer any questions about how life formed in the first place. There still has to be an origin world - and explaining how life appeared there is just as hard as explaining how it might have formed here in the absence of panspermia.
www.sjbaker.org
The article says that 10% of the earths water may have come from comets. That's a lot of water.
...observation contradicts propaganda. Big surprise.
Strike a shocked pose and ask "What? You believe what a TV show claims?"
that we are the second evolution of the Ancients, who left the galaxy several millenia ago.
probe puts hole in comet!
Well, the panspermia theory is a bit like intelligent design - it is not one theory, but several theories, however, the panspermia theories have a chance to be proven true, while the ID theories tend to be proven wrong.
Examples:
- the cosmos helped life come into existance by simple organic molecules that were
- formed in space
- ejected from a planet
- life spread through our solar system, that is:
- from mars
- the asteroid belt was formely a planet hosting life which
- DNA/RNA came from space
- bacteria survived a journey through the cosmos
The study reported by slashdot makes some of these theories unlikely, but not all of them.
I'm still trying to figure out what people mean by 'social skills' here.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
God: You must decide how you will WorShip Me.
Me: How about not at all, you fucking pompous windbag of the sky.
Although the panspermia theory is intriguing, it does NOT answer the question of the origin of life -- was it from another planet that was inoculated by an even earlier comet..... It's like the theory that the Earth rides on the back of a giant turtle/ But what does that turtle ride on? Or is it turtles all the way down.
If we are to assess the probability that life is exogenous or endogenous to Earth, we must ask about the relative probability of: a) life forming on a planetary body versus b) life forming on a planetary body which then survives being blasted into space, travelling interstellar distances, happening to collide with another forming planet of just the right composition (without ever venturing too close to some hot star), and surviving that collision.
Even if the probability of life arising on a planet very very low, the relative probability of endogenous versus exogenous origin is very skewed toward endogenous origin. Because exogenous origin requires both endogenous origin (somewhere else) and then a low probability trip between planets, exogenous origin would seem to be very unlikely unless there are large numbers of planets with endogenous life that spew lots of interstellar-traversing chunks. But if there are large numbers of planets with with their own endogenous life, then the probability of life forming on Earth endogenously must also be high and trump the low likelihood of life just happening to make it from somewhere else.
Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
And yet, when fighting alternative models like "Intelligent Design", everyone pretends scientific findings were cast in stone.
Look, regardless of what we call that life-bearing probe some intelligent entity lobbed at us, we can be certain it would be smart enough to make sure that some of the payload reached the surface and began multiplying.
The more you regulate a company, the worse its products become.
That's an interesting comment that glosses over many of the statements of science that are commonly excepted so much as "fact" that anyone that points out inconsistancies in them is labeled as anti-science or ignorant. Of course we are always learning more and yesterday's accepted theories have to adapt to new knowledge, but the virulence some people have for defending pet theories borders on intolerance. /. you get modded into oblivion. Please note I didn't relate it to Creationism or Intelligent Design, it's just that the theory of evolution itself has about as many holes as IE. Sure, right now it's the best idea going, but that doesn't mean it's the end of the conversation. Yet questioning it all usually does end the conversation.
A good case in point is evolution, where if you don't mention it in a glowing light on
If thou see a fair woman pay court to her, for thus thou wilt obtain love
Regarding the articles' statement that prior water was "vaporized", all I can say is "so what"? Just because it turned to vapor doesn't mean that the water left the planet.
Any water which existed before the asteriod bombardment could well have remained afterwards. The water would have returned to its liquid form back from the gaseous state, after it cooled down.
In order for the water to have left the Earth, the water molecules would have had to reach the Earths' escape velocity, of 25,000 Miles per Hour (IIRC).
Certainly some water molecules did. But ALL of them? I would find that really hard to believe.
From the post:
UA Professor Emeritus Robert Strom believes that no more than 10 percent of the Earth's water comes from comets and any oceans then extant would have been 'vaporized by the asteroid impacts during the cataclysm.'
Uhuh, so that one that did get through can use the excuse "wha? criminey, Tara was still virgin, its not supposed to happen the first time!"
I think you underestimate just how much I just dont care.
I do believe that "The Daily Show" already answered all of these questions this week. If you saw the three way interview with the Evolutionist, Creationist, and Metaphysical something or other, aka, the "Schmevolution Panel," we learned that life was created by twelve energies, and we don't actually exist anyway. Since we are all virtual, and it is a moot point.
e r/play.jhtml?itemId=18132
(http://www.comedycentral.com/sitewide/media_play
"If it is just us, it seems like and awful waste of space" - Carl Sagan Increasingly complex molecules competed for energy and material to form larger and more sustainable molecules. The molecules that arranged themselves by chance to absorb the most energy and strongest structure surivied the longest, and this process continued until basic structures combined in a symbiotic relationship that would help sustain the period of those structures existance. This process continues until basic cell structures formed, and again combined by chance to form larger structures. Eventually the strongest and most energy effecient structure was developed by chance through the process of natural selection until we had basic repoductive structures. Mutations which led to longer life and thus more chance of reproduction continued until movement and adaption were constituents, from there entire structures began to work together to from basic cells, which over time developed processes for reproduction and survival through chance combination and mutation. Cells began to grow in complexity in a bid for survival, by chance some began working together to form multicellular groups, which became organisms with adaption relative to the abilities of each cell, then came encoded cellular variation to ensure multicellular groups continued to form by precedence. Over much time increased numbers of simple structures combined to form larger and more complex structures witht he ability for their own kenetic movement beyond growth, because of the natural selection of moveable multicellular organisms made them more adaptable then others and thus more likely to reproduce. Eventually all sorts of mutation and chance combination occured which would lead to ever more complex structures with better adaptability till the first regonizable biological systems formed. From there we have basic sea life and countless steps later down the evolution chain, human beings. Of course, it might be out of order, and one would have to know that the time this would take would be immense. For those who make the chance argument, stateing that such complex structures canot possibly arise by chance i say: Look at the size of the universe, there must be at least 125 billion galaxies, each with roughly 100 billion stars, each with the possibility of terrestrial planetoids, each with a massive surface area with plenty or energy and materials for the possibility of forming the molecular strutuces by chance that are a prelude to life. Then take that number, and times it by the age of most galaxies.....All of a sudden the chance doesnt seem so small. As for complexities, whos to say life is complex, its equally possible that life is mearly countless basic systems working symbiotically for the goal of survival and reproduction. I give the cargo cult as ana example: In World War 2 several tribes worshiped American cargo planes because the ability and complexities of human flight were so vast to them that the cargo planes could only be explained as items of a supernatural nature. It never appeared to them that these planes were not godly and no complex beyond their understanding, such is a cargo plane simply a number of systems discovered by humans by chance working in parrallel. As for thurther complexity: If life is so complex that the possibility of chance is so small, then how does one explain oru manipulation of life, for example insulin producing bacteria, or the mapping of the genome. How does one explain the evolution and appearance of new viruses and bacterial strains by chance. Life is beautiful, it is wonderous and magestic, but it is not beyond our understanding. It arose by chance, it's growth is determined by evolution and it is not complex. It just appears that way to some. I always think, that maybe the reason ID and creationalists fight progress and science is they think that discovery is taking the magic and beauty away from life. But instead, what they dont realise, is that all it is doing it discovering more beautiful and wonderous details. We are not finding ans
I'm actually the reason for the origon of life... You ever forget stuff on a trip? Well, I went back in time and left a pair of old, smelly socks...
There are exactly 42,935,718 letter sized sheets in a square mile.
To paraphrase Carl Sagan:
"If it is just us, it seems like and awful waste of space"
Increasingly complex molecules competed for energy and material to form larger and more sustainable molecules. The molecules that arranged themselves by chance to absorb the most energy and strongest structure surivied the longest, and this process continued until basic structures combined in a symbiotic relationship that would help sustain the period of those structures existance. This process continues until basic cell structures formed, and again combined by chance to form larger structures. Eventually the strongest and most energy effecient structure was developed by chance through the process of natural selection until we had basic repoductive structures. Mutations which led to longer life and thus more chance of reproduction continued until movement and adaption were constituents, from there entire structures began to work together to from basic cells, which over time developed processes for reproduction and survival through chance combination and mutation. Cells began to grow in complexity in a bid for survival, by chance some began working together to form multicellular groups, which became organisms with adaption relative to the abilities of each cell, then came encoded cellular variation to ensure multicellular groups continued to form by precedence. Over much time increased numbers of simple structures combined to form larger and more complex structures witht he ability for their own kenetic movement beyond growth, because of the natural selection of moveable multicellular organisms made them more adaptable then others and thus more likely to reproduce. Eventually all sorts of mutation and chance combination occured which would lead to ever more complex structures with better adaptability till the first regonizable biological systems formed. From there we have basic sea life and countless steps later down the evolution chain, human beings.
Of course, it might be out of order, and one would have to know that the time this would take would be immense.
For those who make the chance argument, stateing that such complex structures canot possibly arise by chance i say:
Look at the size of the universe, there must be at least 125 billion galaxies, each with roughly 100 billion stars, each with the possibility of terrestrial planetoids, each with a massive surface area with plenty or energy and materials for the possibility of forming the molecular strutuces by chance that are a prelude to life. Then take that number, and times it by the age of most galaxies.....All of a sudden the chance doesnt seem so small.
As for complexities, whos to say life is complex, its equally possible that life is mearly countless basic systems working symbiotically for the goal of survival and reproduction. I give the cargo cult as ana example: In World War 2 several tribes worshiped American cargo planes because the ability and complexities of human flight were so vast to them that the cargo planes could only be explained as items of a supernatural nature. It never appeared to them that these planes were not godly and no complex beyond their understanding, such is a cargo plane simply a number of systems discovered by humans by chance working in parrallel.
As for thurther complexity: If life is so complex that the possibility of chance is so small, then how does one explain oru manipulation of life, for example insulin producing bacteria, or the mapping of the genome. How does one explain the evolution and appearance of new viruses and bacterial strains by chance.
Life is beautiful, it is wonderous and magestic, but it is not beyond our understanding. It arose by chance, it's growth is determined by evolution and it is not complex. It just appears that way to some.
I always think, that maybe the reason ID and creationalists fight progress and science is they think that discovery is taking the magic and beauty away from life. But instead, what they dont realise, is that all it is doing it disc
Guys, you have it all wrong.
After all your theories, I think you'll find that Al Gore invented Life.
Say there was an ocean on earth, and something big slammed into it, vaporizing all the water. Wouldn't that water just eventually precipitate back down?
I mean, vaporizing something like a person would pretty much destroy them, but it doesn't do much to eliminate individual atoms, it just moves them around. So the ocean itself might be turned into water vapor, but then where does that all go?
I'm sure a big enough impact could blow matter up into space, where it'll float away never to bother the busy earth again, but I would think that most matter gets propelled outwards from an impact, not up. So wouldn't a meteor hitting an ocean just spread the water around?
One time I threw a brick at a duck.
Well, of course. It's religion that holds the job of remaining unchanging and stagnant, in spite of growth or change of evidence.
Well, I will point out that the various theories of Creation in the last few hundred years has been far more stable than any scientific theory put forward. Perhaps it would be better if science types started using rhetoric like "We Think" or "We Believe" instead of "We now know..." I mean, the version of Darwinism that was taught in my school has pretty much been shot to heck, but my Biology teacher sure enough said, "This is how it happened." Just thought for debate, not fuel for the fire. Also, I can't seem to believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster as I have yet to find any historical or archeological evidence to support the revelation. Surely anyone who believes in any Deity should be able to give examples of it's work on the history of man.
Yeah, I guess I'm funny like that.
nxtr: 80 percent of all studies are wrong...
sbaker: Which means that there is only a 20% chance that the study that shows that "80% of studies are wrong" is right. Which means that we have no idea what the probability of error is without doing a lot more studies on the subject.
Which means we'll just have to commission a bunch of "scientists" to study the matter further.
Ain't life grand as a "scientist" at the teat of the government sow? It's a win-win proposition, no matter whether you're wrong or you're right.
NOTICE TO DIETY BELIEVERS: No degree of error on the part of science in explaining the origins of life and matter, whether in whole or in part, shall be misconstrued as proof or evidence of the validity of any other theory or belief structure. I.E. EVEN IF SCIENCE IS COMPLETELY WRONG, THAT IN AND OF ITSELF DOES NOT PROVE RELIGION CORRECT IN ANY WAY!
My trusty steed politely declines your kind offer (says you are "too small"), I am still considering, and I know how to spell asshole, asshole. Wow...I'm crushed by your overwhelming intellect combined with your mastery of the written language. Leave me bruised and broken on the rocks of mental majesty, why don't ya?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Many of the plaintiffs in lawsuits against idiotic creationist "equal time" laws have been religious figures. Do not make the assumption that all religious people buy into the creationist agenda.
comet impacts
"Interesting, because this directly contradicts the Nova mini-series Origins that just finished running on PBS. Science never stops moving."
Those inclined to believe the Bible and feel skeptical when science apparently contradicts it, should take comfort in the fact that science's story has changed over the century whereas (relatively) the Bible's has not.
This is does not mean that religion ought to ignore and deprecate science. Things like that Galileo business provide powerful insights into how to interpret scripture. If the Bible says "sunrise" it should be interpreted phenomenologically. That is as an observation of brute phenomena and one should not take that as an explanation of the mechanism that gave rise to the phenomena. (Incidentally, the weatherman is not a flat-earther because he tells us sunrise/sunset times.)
With this phenomenological principle in mind, someone who believes in the Bible will be able to interpret its statements about God according to that same phenomenological principle. Troubling verses about God "doing evil" are thus explained. To wit, God establishes things like gravity and hydrodynamics that move in predictable patterns. When those patterns conspire to crush us, via tsunami or hurricane, we perceive evil fom God's hand.
But the character behind these phenomena is more reflective of the scientific principles of natural law.
I suppose I should ask for an offering at this point. Instead, I'll ask that we all work a little harder at our science so we can better predict natural forces and prepare for them.
There's another explaination for where most (or all) of the surface water on Earth came from, the small comet theory (see http://smallcomets.physics.uiowa.edu/ for details). And this bombardment has been going on ever since the Earth formed.
Good point. There are so many gods out there, you can't just generalize, can you? So confusing. Speaking of "annoying and counterproductive", every time science does what science does, as in throw out a theory that no longer holds water, you can bet your ass that members of the superstitious faction who believe the world is 8-10K years old will be right there, demonstrating yet again their failure to comprehend that the nature of empirical science is to develop theories based on a body of evidence, knowing full well that the theory will be abandoned upon the discovery of evidence or proof to the contrary. It just irks me that they put forth the notion that every time that healthy method is brought into play, it somehow automatically validates their silly assed explanation. But if you are religious, yet do not subscribe to the "theory" of creation, my apologies. The caps were an attention getter meant to convey my exasperation at the same old same old. I'm actually pretty quiet and reasonable in person, unlike most zealots I have met.
Then those "rational" religious folks should be a LOT more vocal about denouncing the fanatics who claim to represent them, and should vote against putting those fanatics into positions of power. It makes it awfully easy to assume that they DO buy into such idiocy.
This theory also directly contradicts another theory I saw this month in Sky and Telescope, which referred to this article. This one is for the formation of the outer gaseous planets and the kuiper belt. The basis of the theory is that the orbits of all the gas giants should have been closer to the sun, as they would have required a much denser gas-and-dust cloud than would have existed as far out as they are now. As well, the kuiper belt would have formed closer to the sun.
Due to gravitational interactions between the gas planets and the kuiper belt objects, Jupiter's orbit shrinks and Saturn, Uranus and Neptune expand, with the latter two actually changing place and moving into much more elliptical orbits before settling down into their current orbits. These larger orbits put both planets squarely into the primordial kuiper belt and, well, cause the Late Heavy Bombardment.
"No problem. I have the capacity to do infinite work so long as you don't mind that my quality approaches zero."-Dilbert
"I am still considering"
Faggot!!
"I know how to spell"
Yes, but your punctuation still needs work.
One thing I wonder through reading all the posts is why everyone considers a comet or meteor zipping through the atmosphere impacting the earth at great velocities? Yes, there's gravity, but you're assuming there's no reactionary forces.
Billions of years ago, I would expect the atmosphere was thinner (not smog-dense like as current)--and considering the earth had less surface water, the impact was at a much slower pace than what we idealize, so slow that not much really "burned" up, i.e. nothing spectacular as everyone would desire (we all know ./-ers like things that go boom). For all I know, we could be living on Earth V2.1, i.e. remember the theories on how the moon was created? Recombination.
As for the PBS's series and PBS's politics, I see a lot of their shows now becoming strawmans, so buyer/watcher beware.
Vaporized? And then gone where? Just vanished?
The small percentage of ocean vaporized by the impact would just condense again. Very little would be lost to space.
This quote allone makes me reach for the salt.
It's true that comets are not meteors, but your comment makes it sound like you don't know what a meteor is. A meteor is the streak of light you see when a small object passes through the atmosphere. That object (by definition a meteoroid) could be a piece of a comet or an asteroid.
a,e,i,o,u and sometimes w and y (at be if of up cwm by)
Water gets vaporized on earth all the time.
Then it comes down as rain.
I don't see any problem with the theory that "organic matter" came to primative earth from comets, mixed with water, which was vaporized, then condensed, then that "organic matter" became the building blocks for life.
But at that stage of earth's life, there's little distinction between a comet and earth. They're both big hunks of rock and ice floating in space. I'm sure some "organic matter" originated on earth too. What they're saying is simple hydrocarbons were catalyzed into more complex organic molecules by; lighting, UV, volcanic activity. All of those could happen on earth, and the first two could happen on comets.
What I really don't understand is, where they think they're going with this line of theory. I mean, we can speculate on which of the two was possible - or that both were possible. But there's no way in hell we're going to know which of the two it was. Not until someon invents a time machine, or until we discover a new primordial planetary system to observe.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
backwards.
this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom. -- Lincoln, Gettysburg Address
That is true. There are some fake Christians out there who do believe in the invisible phrase of "separation of church and state" in the Constitution and who don't believe in the Creation occuring.
this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom. -- Lincoln, Gettysburg Address
Nova is known to do documentaries on crackpot and minority theories.
Using Nova as an educational tool, you are likely to learn about theories that are already proven false or have little evidence backing them up. The documentaries are certainly twisted into a certain point of view and convey information that the scientists they interview wouldn't have agreed with. Especially on topics related to Geology.
I'd say the same thing about most of the Discovery Channel's content, given the experiences of some scientists I know. A friend of mine is on a research project, and the Discovery Channel came to do a documentary. The Discovery Channel people kept attempting to change the focus to an infamous aspect of what they were researching, not what actually *mattered*.
Just remember that these programs are designed as entertainment and to get high ratings (even on PBS... nobody donates if nobody watches), not necessarily to deliver the best information. I don't mean to say that all the information is bad, innacurate, or not mainstream, but a lot of it is.
Caveat emptor...
"Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives" should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
It's called the BIBLE! It tells us that God made the Heavans and the Earth! and then guess what!? He then made Man after his own image and then made Woman from his rib. Guess what then, God breathed the breath of life into them and... Drum Roll Please! ......brrrr rbbbrbrbrbrbrbrbr!
Man's life was created!Damn scientists! They're only rediscovering things that already are. How about that for deep thought. God created all of this stuff and we're just discovering to our current knowledge. Honestly, we're never going to get along if we can't have a little faith in God!
Bingo. We'll just have to observe that primordial planetary system, won't we? Just because a theory is difficult to observe currently (as opposed to invoking supernatural stuff), doesn't mean we shouldn't consider them.
All praise to the great and mighty Quik-E-Stop!
Personally I always hate panspermia. It seemed to fail Occams Razor pretty soundly. Yes, life on this planet came from an asteroid or comet from another planet. Well, if life can exist there to bring it here why can't it just develop here. Seemed like a big waste of time to me. I see no reason we cannot have a homegrown abiogensis on good old Earth. It's not like we hit some major hitch and need an alternate explanation that explains nothing.
Occam provides an excellent mechanism for analyzing and prioritizing hypotheses, not a doctrine for generating prima facie "truths".
The life-from-comets theory was inspired by the discovery of complex carbons in comets (the dirt in those dirty snowballs), molecules that, if found "in the wild" on Earth would be deemed "organic" and that can form basic proteins. It was raised in the face of evidence and models that showed Earth to be a very unlikely place for "life as we know it" to evolve (this could indeed be, and in fact was, considered a "hitch"), and was developed as a theory to broaden the "origin of life" models. We know much more now than we did then and the theory is still a competitive explanation. Theories as rule are typically dead before breakfast.
Life-from-comets is Exogenesis, but not necessarily (or even likely, apologies to the late Sir Fred Hoyle) Panspermia. There is no reason why comet-borne carbon molecules could not survive entry into Earth's atmosphere under some circumstances any more than all meteors are destroyed. Meteors could also theoretically carry endolithic bacteria intact to the surface, though this is difficult to prove with old meteorites on Earth due to the possibility for contamination.
The intriguing part of the life-from-comets theory (which is a specific theory of Exogenesis and doesn't rely on Panspermia) is that the conditions required for the development of life may somehow actually prove to have been a dirty snowball in an eccentric orbit.
Panspermia specifically predicts the interstellar distribution/seeding of life. We are a long way from being able to gather and study interstellar samples. We are a long way from studying the Oort Cloud directly, though we are fortunate to be able to visit the occasional dirty snowball.
And since we started theorizing alternatives to the purely terrestrial development of life (Geogenesis), we have discovered endolithic bacteria and other outrageous but often simple forms of life in places unthinkable even 50 years ago. Time may prove comets unnecessary to explain life on Earth, but exploring all of the ways life might develop and all of the forms it might take is essential to intelligently exploring the Solar System. We may find life or life-like processes in some form everywhere.
Free Adam Smith! (Or best offer.)
It only takes a single viable microbial spore from space to start life on a planet. A single impact could have delivered it. Or it could have drived through space without any impact at all. Therefore, where most of the objects impacting on earth originated is pretty much not relevant to panspermia.
It seems that what that article is talking about is not panspermia, but the composition of the atmosphere and how that was determined by impacts.
Kiss me, you fool. You know you want it.
The Ori are the path to origin.
Is that like a planetary pearl necklace?
"And as was shown by Deep Impact, comets are really mostly porous ice"
All right, you tried this once, and I let it go. I had to call you on it the second time however.
The Depp Impact mission suggested just the opposite of what you say, that there was very little ice in that particular comet.
I don't know how you drew your conclusions, but they are incorrect.
Science is important because it asks a question not simply to have an answer, but to provide a basis to ask the next question. As a result, the body of knowledge is expanded.
In this case, the reason it is important to consider the idea of panspermia is not to determine the ultimate origin of life (on Earth, or in the Universe). If panspermia is true, then the likelyhood of finding life outside Earth increases (because a means of life to spread is known, so any source of life may seed many locations). If panspermia is false, then we have no new information on the possibility of life elsewhere.
You all can conjecture all you want...and do so, it is part of our nature to explore...but there is a much more rational answer given - Intelligent Design
Hey, Dimensio, stands2reason here!
I'm guessing you're the Dimensio on FR as well? I'm having browser difficulties and can't log on to FR (perl commands issue), so now I'm just a lurker.
I don't know if you remember me, but my nic should let you know where I stand on the CREVO debate.
Just wanted to let you know that I appreciate your comments on the threads on FR. I know you guys might feel it's a fruitless task, but, trust me, it isn't. In fact, the scariest thing to see on FR is a science thread without a single reasoned comment.
If you could let Patrick Henry, Vaderetro and the other guys know for me I'd appreciate it!
(or maybe you can tell me what's wrong with my browser?)
Thanks, will check back--
s2r