Is Panspermia a Viable Explanation for the Origins of Life?

[skippy1729]

I read somewhere in a popular account of panspermia that astrophysicists have found evidence of organic molecules in intergalactic dust (no references given). I would be interested in more detail about this. Also, is this theory considered fringe or is it still considered seriously? I am talking about a natural dispersal of life, not little green men seeding earthlike planets.

Thanks for any input. Skippy

 

[zhermes]

I read somewhere in a popular account of panspermia that astrophysicists have found evidence of organic molecules in intergalactic dust (no references given). I would be interested in more detail about this. Also, is this theory considered fringe or is it still considered seriously? I am talking about a natural dispersal of life, not little green men seeding earthlike planets.

Thanks for any input. Skippy

The whole thing varies a lot, in all respects. There are lots of 'organic molecules' in dust, that's almost the definition of dust (as apposed to 'gas')---i.e. having carbon compounds and certain carbon/silicate structures. Organic compounds in intergalactic dust doesn't really mean anything in and of itself, except that there are some viable materials out there (hypothetically) to be used for forming life. It says little (to nothing) about whether there is life out there.

Panspermia is pretty fringe. Exogenesis is somewhat fringe, but more just a weird hypothesis that's virtually impossible to test. Unfortunately lots (maybe most) of the panspermia people out there are completely nuts, someone who believes extremely strongly in it is suspect in the first place---because belief in something without evidence is unscientific and therefore very fringe. Acknowledging that panspermia is a possibility, and an interesting idea is not fringe at all.

 

[qraal]

I read somewhere in a popular account of panspermia that astrophysicists have found evidence of organic molecules in intergalactic dust (no references given). I would be interested in more detail about this. Also, is this theory considered fringe or is it still considered seriously? I am talking about a natural dispersal of life, not little green men seeding earthlike planets.

Thanks for any input. Skippy

Zhermes reply covers most of your question, but some research you might be interested in is from Carl Gibson and Prof. Chandra Wickramasinghe. They propose a highly turbulent and energetic early epoch in the universe when trillions of planetary mass blobs of Hydrogen/Helium formed, basically acting as a cosmic incubator for the first life to arise in. Then the proto-planets began merging to form stars while others spread through out the universe, rapidly spreading life through out. I'm not sure I am convinced entirely, but it does make for interesting speculation as to when life began.

some papers on arXiv

 

[skippy1729]

Thanks to both of you. Skippy

 

[zhermes]

some research you might be interested in is from Carl Gibson and Prof. Chandra Wickramasinghe.

That is a good direction from qraal, you can check those out and decide for yourself (they are certainly interesting reads--as qraal said).

Wickramasinghe is exactly who I was referring to about being completely out there. Although he is well known and respected in other fields of (astro)physics for excellent work, I---personally---believe that his panspermia work is completely unfounded, and unscientific and frankly, ridiculous. It's one thing to hypothesize about things that are currently unknown (i.e. there doesn't exist observations or experimental evidence for them---string theory would be a good example), it's another thing to jump from 'a hypothesis' to 'a supposition' to 'a stretch' to 'a wild guess' to what's seems more like a science fiction alternative universe than anything resembling physics... End of rant.