Hello Ziaedin; Testability is a requirement for hypothesis testing. The panspermia proposal isn't testable in an obvious way. However the suggestion that H1N1 has an extraterrestrial origin is. If it originated away from Earth, it should have genetic characters that are unique. It evidently doesn't! At least none of the vast literature about that critter suggests an extraterrestrial origin...hypothesis disproven!?

Best regards, Jim Des Lauriers

Dear James Des Lauriers

Thanks for your response.

There are so many scientific theories which are not testable such as various theories for the genesis of the universe, multiverse idea, cosmic inflation, atmosphere of the early Earth and what happens in the core of the sun. We know that “the speed of light in vacuum” is accepted to be constant without any experiment. However, these kinds of theories are proposed, analysed and sometimes partly simulated in labs. Hence, we have astrobiology, a branch of which focuses on issues related to panspermia.

My analysis of panspermia is not in support of the theory rather tries to investigate the viability of the idea. What I wanted to get out of this discussion is criticism of my arguments some of which may be original.

For example, micro-organisms cannot reproduce below −20°C. But, “we know that bacterial spores can survive for millions of years, tolerate high temperature and amazingly emerge unscathed from a very long dwelling in liquid nitrogen with boiling point of −196°C or shorter lodging in liquid helium with boiling point of −269°C, which is just about 4°C above absolute zero.” Are these facts support or defy panspermia?

The full argument is in the appendix of the attached article.

Preprint SCIENCE IN THE SHADOW OF METAPHYSICS Part 1 -Gods of Science!?

Of course, since no-one was there to observe what happened. But I accept the Genesis account in the Bible :)

Dear Andrew Paul McKenzie Pegman

Please read my response to James Des Lauriers which is a reply to your first sentence.

Regarding your second sentence, I fully respect your belief but I anticipated and would appreciate your scientific opinion/analysis of panspermia in this thread.

PS. Here is my study of religion which is also uploaded to RG. You might find much better criticism of Christianity and Judaism in numerous books but I think my investigation of other religions in the document is unbiased and novel. Preprint Religion-The Triumph of Deceit

Ziaedin Shafiei We can answer questions however we like because we have freedom 😊

.

Cannot entirely agree. Experiments have not to be only manipulativem, mensurative experiments also produce objective facts and they (conducted in space or on the Earth) show that the speed of light is varies but little under all the conditions we were able to measure.

Dear Zaal Kikvidze

Many thanks for highlighting this important issue. You are right that speed of light in vacuum should not be considered as constant as we have not yet been able to measure it, one way speed measurement, in vacuum. However, it is accepted in mainstream physics to be constant since Einstein declared it to be so by introducing special relativity. I only mention this case for the sake of argument [1].

Here I wanted to argue that we can have these types of theoretical discussions about the feasibility of panspermia too.

[1] Preprint Special Relativity: The Revival of Metaphysics

It was only the hypothesis but not viable

Panspermia is an interesting theory, but its viability and testability are topics of debate in the scientific community. While the idea of ​​panspermia is intriguing, there are significant challenges to testing and confirming it.

The viability of panspermia is hampered for several reasons: 1-Lack of Conclusive Evidence 2-Survival in Space 3-Origin of Life 4-Limited Testability

Dear Francisco Mesquita

Thank you for your comment. Your four points are discussed in some details in the App. of the attached file to the discussion. For example:

"One then can imagine the harsh conditions life can go through in

its journey through the universe. However, we know that bacterial

spores can survive for millions of years, tolerate high temperature

and amazingly emerge unscathed from a very long dwelling in liquid

nitrogen with boiling point of −196°C or shorter lodging in liquid

helium with boiling point of −269°C, which is just about 4°C above

absolute zero. The widespread use of liquid nitrogen in preserving

not only bacteria but also sperms, ovarian tissues and even embryos

evidently suggests that these living organisms can easily tolerate

widespread cryogenics temperature conditions within our universe.

Based on historic data there is no record of temperature

decreasing to about −196 °C or lower on Earth for any organism to

be given chance to gradually evolve for tolerating extreme low

temperature.

Moreover, if no micro-organism can reproduce below −20 °C then the

survival of some types of micro-organisms at cryogenics

temperatures is just another layer of chance survival of life."

I hope that RG members will engage in more detailed discussions on these issues, as there is still so much that remains unknown.

There is a lot of confusion with this question. Panspermia is an idea, but since it can not be tested it does not even rise to the level of a hypothesis. And without a well tested and supported hypothesis it is definitely not a theory. A Theory in science is well supported, and can be considered close to being 'true' but you are using it in the 'common' sense of any belief held by someone (opinion) even if it has not evidence supporting it. On this site we should use the language of science/research.

Dear Robert John Wolff

You're correct. Scientists might face challenges conducting lab tests to conclusively prove or reject the theory. However, consider the scenario where a meteorite is discovered containing life with a distinct genetic code. Notably, we have transported life to the Moon and perhaps Mars, and while it's feasible to transport it to other places within our solar system, current understanding indicates they lack life-supporting environments. Additionally, it's crucial to consider astrobiology, defined as "the study of the origin, evolution, distribution, and future of life in the universe," actively researched at scientific institutions, including NASA[1].

I've endeavoured to analyse the potential for life being transported to other habitable planets or vice versa, if they exist. My objective is to gauge whether my analysis reasonably aligns with the prospects for extra-terrestrial life. I appreciate your time and hope you can review my analysis linked to the question [2].

[1] Astrobiology @ NASA | Research | Astrobiology

[2] Please see App 1 in the link Preprint SCIENCE IN THE SHADOW OF METAPHYSICS Part 1 -Gods of Science!?

Dear Ziaedin Shafiei I did take a look at your article on Metaphysics, unfortunately it is an area where I struggle to remain interested. I find so many wonderful mysteries all around me in the biology and geology of this world. My response to your scenario is that I am really not expecting that we will find life. I am interested, and work with, endospores. While they have remarkable abilities to survive, I am not sure they can survive the harsh conditions of space, or the surface of the moon or mars. But do not feel like your postulating about these issues to be bad. Keep it up, but if you can use your curious mind on helping to solve current human problems (and we have a plethora of them) that would also be great.

Dear Robert John Wolff

Thank you very much for your advice. We all have our unique abilities and limitations, and I'm doing my best to navigate them. Over time, I've delved into the realms of religion, philosophy, and science. The PowerPoint summary of my findings is now available on ResearchGate[1]. I welcome constructive criticism from scientists to enhance my understanding and sincerely hope not to cause any annoyance.

[1] Presentation God: Valid Scientific Conclusion