[dcmike]

"an actual theory"

My punctuation is the key actual and theory being used together.

Is there any evidence of either?

There is certainly evidence that there is life here - we are speaking to one another.

There is solid logic that out of billions of other possibilities that there must be at least pond scum somewhere else. That we have none in our hands for exibit A does not constitute evidence for absolute proof of non-existence.

Even scientifically a theory is still a theory. History has proven that even what we have proven with all available technology can turn out to be a (wrong) theory when we observe again with wiser or more technologically advanced eyes. Take for example new advances in telescopy that employ other wavebands of of light. A completely different picture emerges and shows us we were wrong.

I couldn't care less where microbes came from at this point - a scientific debate must have a base in logic. If you can't prove something is not then the dialog is logically "I don't subscribe to that theory" - not "no way that's bullshit!!!"

It is not whether anyone here doubts this theory or that. It is when someone states unequivically that what they believe is undeniable fact that I debate them. And I am not even debating the issue but rather the egotism of one man's opinion - even if trends indicate it is likely. It is not likely that organisms can withstand boiling - but some do. It is not likely that a platypus should even exist - but they do.

I saw Neil DeGrasse Tyson live and he is far more humble about absolutes than some here.

Enlightnment is always preceeded by humility. Humility and open mindedness open the eyes to new possibilities and dogma is the enemy of science.

[dcmike]

Snippets from Moontanman

First of all I have no problem with the theory of panspermia, it would seem to be unlikely but not impossible,

My whole point and nothing more

but contrary to popular belief, virus's are not primitive organisms, they might appear to be simple but they have evolved over billions of years along with their hosts, virus's are not separate and apart from the ecosystem

What could be more simple than a strand of RNA or DNA wrapped in protein? It would seem logical that viruses and bacteria appeared before mammals - who'd they live in untill we got here ;-}

1918 if indeed birds spread it then you have answered your own question, humans do become infected with bird virus' due to the fact the humans have lived in close association with various bird for thousands of years. When animals live in close proximity they often exchange various infectious agents.

What birds are common to the Arctic and Spain? And Eskimos, to my knowledge do not live in proximity to any species of bird. The theory was the birds got the 'drift down', took a flyin' sh** and spread it in the wind. But whatever, it's not my theory -it's just one that is being taken seriously by some.

Again, the issue I am debating here is not the absoluteness of any of these theories but the absoluteness of absoluteness itself!

[modest]

Originally Posted by modest

Is there any evidence of either?

Originally Posted by Thunderbird

We have plenty of evidence of life as a terrestrial phenomenon , as part and parcel of the planet. The how life formed is the debate. Origins of life is about working with what we have available, and what we have is a vast amount of life to study on the earth and a vast record contained within the earth.

Originally Posted by dcmike

There is certainly evidence that there is life here - we are speaking to one another.

My question was not: “is there life on earth”. As Tbird says, “how life formed is the debate.” - as was my question. As far as I know there is no evidence of either panspermia or terrestrial abiogenesis. I personally lean toward our terrestrial origins much as Pyrotex aptly summarizes here. However, I know of no evidence directly linked to that description nor of any linked to panspermia.

-modest

[dcmike]

Originally Posted by dcmike
There is certainly evidence that there is life here - we are speaking to one another.

That was in context to a statement about knowing there is life here (you can hold a gerbil in your hand and show it to me) VS. a point of logic that states that lack of proof for something constitutes tangible proof against it.

lack of proof is not usable in an argument outside of court.

[Thunderbird]

Originally Posted by dcmike

Originally Posted by dcmike
There is certainly evidence that there is life here - we are speaking to one another.

That was in context to a statement about knowing there is life here (you can hold a gerbil in your hand and show it to me) VS. a point of logic that states that lack of proof for something constitutes tangible proof against it.

lack of proof is not usable in an argument outside of court.

You do need to have some evidentiary foundation to make a case in a court of law or in the realm of science. That was my point. You can only make a case with evidence. My point was not that because life is here on earth so epso facto that makes exogenesis false. Its simply what we have to work with. my contention is when we want to study origins of life.., we only have terrestrial life to study. When, and if there comes a time that we have extraterrestrial life to study then a theory may emerge about origins based on new information. That day has not yet come.

[dcmike]

Thunderbird

Yes, I agree - you do need substantial proof to get an idea accepted as fact, and twenty years up the road even that might get canned.

I think some are just starting to get my point. It's not that you do not need proof to establish something as fact, but lack of tangible evidence (on it's own) does not conclusevly prove a case against something. Contrary to the axiom of "not voting is a vote for the opponent" - lack of evidense does not constitute evidence against.

The scientific approach is to not "subscribe" to that which you are doubtful of, rather than to personally guarantee, upon your word, it does not exist.

[dcmike]

From Modest
"Is there any evidence of either?"

I agree 100% - where is the evidence that life even germinated here. They are all theories. Twenty years ago there would be no debate. But that was then and this is now.

[Moontanman]

Originally Posted by modest

My question was not: “is there life on earth”. As Tbird says, “how life formed is the debate.” - as was my question. As far as I know there is no evidence of either panspermia or terrestrial abiogenesis. I personally lean toward our terrestrial origins much as Pyrotex aptly summarizes here. However, I know of no evidence directly linked to that description nor of any linked to panspermia.

-modest

Modest, no evidence of the origin of life on Earth? Are we in different universes? I've read so many books and papers pertaining to abiogenesis in the distant past of the Earth I wouldn't even know where to start. Proof? Not yet, evidence? Yes, totally over whelming, getting absolute proof is probably impossible unless some builds a time machine but I'm not holding my breath for that. Absolute indisputable proof of anything is rather rare but lack of absolute proof of what gravity is doesn't make me think I can jump off a building and live.

[dcmike]

Originally Posted by Moontanman

Modest, no evidence of the origin of life on Earth? Are we in different universes? I've read so many books and papers pertaining to abiogenesis in the distant past of the Earth I wouldn't even know where to start. Proof? Not yet, evidence? Yes, totally over whelming, getting absolute proof is probably impossible unless some builds a time machine but I'm not holding my breath for that. Absolute indisputable proof of anything is rather rare but lack of absolute proof of what gravity is doesn't make me think I can jump off a building and live.

Gravity is provable and measurable with instruments, whether you drop an apple off a building or drop your ex-wife, it functions consistently. But however logical life beginning here with pertinacious goop and a fraction of a lightning bolt meeting fortuitously at a magic moment it is still unproven. No one was there when it happened.

It is also known that much of our water came from ceaseless cometary bombardment. Add to that - microbes can be in suspended animation for millions of years and survive entry into the Earth's atmosphere and the ensuing impact.

Add to that, Mars:

• Had liquid water at one time
• Is believed by some to maybe have been favorable to life prior to this planet
• Had been battered so badly that pieces of it have been found here

For all we know the origin of life here could be an amalgam of two or more sources - or you may be right. If we can find an eye witness I will accede and agree unequivocally.

It is human nature, even in science, to defend what you have invested in. However, there is a refreshing new attitude in the theoretical sciences, like astrophysics and quantum mechanics (even archeology!) of amazement and wonder that overwhelms their desire to always be right. Science is supposed to be about the quest for answers - religion already controls the market for their manufacture.

I can tell you for myself - I can see merit in all but I see no clear winner at the finish line nor do I profess to have the answer myself.

[Moontanman]

Then you shouldn't have included the idea that virus' come to earth, Life is one thing infective virus' are another ball of wax.

Simple does not mean primitive, do you really think virus' have only been around since mammals came to be? Bacteria live independent of complex animals, virus' have been a part of our environment since the beginning, they lived on , in and in symbioses with bacteria since the beginning and maybe ever before as simple strands of RNA, DNA virus are descendants of DNA life forms, RNA virus' are possibly descendants of an RNA world and RNA life forms. Virus' are a natural part of our world, why would you want to invoke an extraterrestrial origin?

I don't know, you are the one who made the odd claim not me.

No one has suggested the absoluteness of any of these things but there is evidence for them and in some cases it is more over whelming than the evidence of the cause of gravity.