Directed panspermia - a plausible theory of intelligent design?
- Would have more time for it if there were evidence for life having been brought to earth. That's the point where the various ideas on how that may have happened would start to get interesting. Until then, not really much to it.
What if ancient Sumerian texts are correct, and Enki created us from tweaking the DNA of existing hominids? It doesn't explain anything.
Where did the "Gods" come from? Why was life on this planet when they supposedly arrived?
I don't really care. Just don't steal children's ice-cream money, or their dreams.
I haven't read much on panspermia.
But doesn't it just push the problem of life's origin back further? If life on earth came from outer space/another planet, then how did life arise there?
If life on Earth really is the result of "directed panspermia", that fact alone casts more doubt on the possibility of a supernatural creator than virtually anything else...
...simply because there's no way a supernatural creator would use such a mundane, "real-world" process.
He wouldn't need to, simply by virtue of being a supernatural creator.
An ordinary, flawed, "real-world" (i.e. non-supernatural) creator, though? Absolutely.
In fact, if an ancient alien species wanted to seed the universe with life, panspermia would probably be the best way of doing it, considering the interstellar distances involved.
Who would have thought that ancient Sumerian mythology would turn out to be closer to actual reality than the Bible? :smirk:
LuvUniHateExams - But doesn't it just push the problem of life's origin back further? If life on earth came from outer space/another planet, then how did life arise there?
My understanding is that when people like Crick talked about panspermia, it was because there appeared to be insurmountable problems with the idea that life arose on earth. The Miller Urey experiments failed to produce all of the necessary amino acid building blocks necessary, etc. But then it was discovered that some amino acids seemed to be found in meteorite fragments, and some scientists took it a step further and said this could be directed, not accidental.
The idea was that if conditions weren't right on earth for life to start, then either 1) parts of it might have started on earth (the parts that could in pre-biotic conditions), and the other needed ingredients could have hitched a ride on meteorites ejected from, for example, Mars, which had the conditions necessary for the parts earth lacked. 2) there was some other planet somewhere with the right conditions for all of the building blocks to form, and on that planet arose an advanced civilization which eventually seeded our planet for some unknown reason.
But this was decades ago, when a "pre-biotic soup" was pretty much the only game in town as far as origins of life was concerned, and I think they were looking for DNA production, not the much simpler RNA.
Now there are other options that are much more probable, and that could have produced all of the necessary building blocks of life right here on earth.
Sounds like a speculation that's worth entertaining. Your thoughts?
The bottom line is that the speculation is worthless.
In scientific terms and hypothesis that is not observable in not worth the paper it's written on and can be discarded.
If you can find a way to observe or demonstrate it then that becomes a different matter.
I remember this Star Trek episode. Humanoid races from Vulcans to Klingons were all the creation of an ancient godlike people.