You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: FACT CANNON #6: It's Looking Like We Really Did Come From Space - Recent Evidence For Panspermia
Actually, there is 'no evidence' for any hypothesis so far, at least to my knowledge. The word 'evidence' has a very well defined ground in science, and this does not apply here.
Ok, I'll bite... Why's that?
I would think that Slobodkin's experimental proof of bacteria surviving terrestrial atmospheric re-entry (see link above) would count as pretty reasonable supporting evidence for the hypothesis of cometary panspermia? Am I missing something?
Slobodkin's experiment does not demonstrate panspermia. That's it. It only proves what you said: bacteria can survive entering the atmosphere. Even if you may need this for panspermia, it does not imply panspermia.
PS: there is no need to bite, we can just talk. This will be fine ^^
I agree, it doesn't demonstrate panspermia - I didn't say it proved it, just supported it. It certainly makes it more probable - see my answer to justtryme90 below. Are we arguing about words here?
It's the weight of convergent supporting 'evidence' or ('data' if you prefer) that's starting to tip the likelihood of panspermia as a realistic explanation for the phenomenon of life on Earth. Isn't this sort of consilience the main thing that holds up the theory of evolution itself?
Anyway, don't worry about biting - just a figure of speech! Have had a quick look at your blog and can see you have an aversion to vampires (Dracula anyway)! :-)
It's good supporting evidence that bacteria can survive entry into the atmosphere, but doesn't at all support that life here began that way.
Its an example of If A = B and B = C then A = C. But that isn't necessarily true you know ;)
Come on now... Granted it doesn't prove it, but it does support it.
Let's assume for the sake of argument that bacteria were proven to be unable to survive re-entry (I know thats not going to happen - this is a logical point) then that would absolutely refute panspermia. Well this experiment has proved that that's not the case, so the argument for panspermia is strengthened as a significant obstacle has been removed. And in any case, the central point here is that the bacteria would not have that capability if it hadn't been selected for - on that basis this bug has had a fairly traumatic history in one way or another.
Re your equation... It's true in my universe! :)
In science, an evidence is a proof. We do not have a proof/evidence here. Words have their importance.
I agree that this is a steemit post and not a thesis, but do you really need to have your title wrong to attract votes? Remember you are posting in the #science category...