I believe that comets probably helped seed the Earth with much of the water it has today. But the amino acids are just as likely to have formed right here, as they were to have formed anywhere else in the solar system, galaxy, or universe.
Hi Bobby Joe! What an interesting question! I wonder where those comet-borne microbes would find a source of energy to maintain their existence during the eons before their comet’s orbit became perturbed enough to hurl it out of the Oort Cloud in toward the sun. And how they would survive the dramatic heating as the comet made its plunge toward the sun. All earth microbes, and all other known life of every description, uses the same genetic code, an incredibly complex one that obviously cannot merely have sprung up in a flash. I wonder how microbes on a comet would have occasion to develop one on their own aboard a tiny chunk of ice far beyond the orbit of Pluto. This leaves aside questions of how the microbes would survive the fiery heat of the plunge through the atmosphere and the colossal energy of impact with the planet (which, many paleontologists think, wiped out the dinosaurs and most existing life on earth 65 million years ago). Several writers here seemed convinced that panspermia by means of a comet is a plausible explanation for the beginning of life. My response to them is to suggest that Charles Darwin should be consulted at once.
Could it have happened? Yes. Is there even the slightest bit of actual physical evidence that it DID? No
I didn’t follow your link, I find Yahoo’s News service well nigh worthless. But the theory or panspermia is certainly not new. It fails, in my mind, because of Occams’ razor, which says take the least complicated solution.
In the panspermia idea, life evolved elsewhere in the universe, somehow ends up on a comet, then crashes to earth, seeding the planet. Okay, could be I suppose. But why would we take THAT as more likely than that life simply started here on it’s own? You see, the comet hypothesis implies life DID develop somewhere, THEN somehow it ended up on a comet, AND it managed to survive through the rigors of interplanetary space, AND the comet itself had to traverse interstellar space AND it had to manage to hit the earth, WITHOUT killing the life seeds on board, at EXACTLY the time in the earth’s history when survival was possible. That’s a string of unlikelihoods far greater than “life developed here’.
So until I see some evidence of the theory, I’ll stick with a single unlikely event: life developed on earth when the conditions were right.
Anything is possible really, however a comet generally originates from the cold outer reaches of our solar system where life would have found it difficult to begin. If it was an extrasolar comet…maybe it could have come from one but whatever life that was on that comet would have to stay in a dormant state for millenia or even millions of years before reaching earth which is not impossible but highly unlikely.
It could be that the comet maybe brought organic amino acids with it to the earth which could have aided in helping life form or develop on the earth but then thats also very unlikely
My thoughts are is if its that easy for amino acids to form in the choatic days of our solar system when comets formed, there is no reason to believe that it didn’t form here to. The other option I can think of is if its left over from the solar debris that the sun and planets formed from then why would it have been picked up by the comet and not by us originally as well. Yeah a comet could have seeded life here, but I think the true thing to take away from this is if comets have the basic building blocks of life, then maybe its not so rare in the universe.
yes it is thought to have started life on earth. and the comet or asteroid is now named the moon.
No, God created life on Earth
and that’s how it did begin.
i believe the answer is yes