Keep up to date with the Space calendar 2022: Rocket launches, sky events, missions and more!
To be clear: that does not happen right now though, for reasons already Darwin found out, earlier life consuming cell building compounds as nutrients.I believe that life is appearing all the time deep underground in places where there is heat, water, and perhaps enough pressure, but the old life eats the new one. Everything points to the fact that there is life on the martian underground, and probably that happens in many planets.
Actually there are a lot of major-league supernatural believers in Japan (see Shinto), like everywhere else. Why should they be any different?!
To pile on just a tad, the impression I get from reading this is that Professor Totani makes only a minor and trivial case for the origin of life's chemistry. In reality, it is vastly more complex then he is suggesting - indeed, almost infinitely so.
Beyond that, there is nothing he notes to even remotely model probability. much less relating it to having long odds (various comments suggest a rather bio-naive Astrophysicist). He stated "I hoped to find at least one realistic path of abiogenesis, to explain abiogenesis by words of science..." . That is a remarkable statement since even the greatest minds in biochemistry are struggling with just one or two elements that may play into it all. And he hopes to find one presumably complete path? That is certainly the definition of naive, and rather comical to be sure.
Probably the most outlandish aspect is when he (an Astrophysicist mind you) asks:
"So, how would these RNA molecules made up of at least 40 to 60 nucleotides have popped up on their own? "
This question has no validity whatsoever regarding modeling abiogensis considering it is a tiny fraction of all the chemistry involved. It is equivalent to asking:
"So, how could all the components of the universe have popped up on their own? "
Both are reasonable questions, but neither provides any consideration whatever of probability. Neither does his extended treatment of "RNA everything", never dealing with the myriad other components that are surely involved, to say nothing of the vast amount of time abiogensis would require. If he had done so, based on the "logic" used in the entirety of the article, he would certainly have proclaimed beyond any doubt whatsoever that "Abiogensis is simply not possible." That would certainly send "I think therefore I am" right out the window!
The good professor knows not of what he speaks. Probably should stick to Astrophysics and model things for which there are no direct proofs. He could always go back to school and get a Ph.D. in a life science, giving him a better understanding of the topic at hand, something he is clearly lacking in the extreme. No doubt there are a lot of Astrobiologists who would take up this bio-blasphemy and run with it.....
That's what is thought the most likely somewhere in these posts or the original article, I'm not sure where though. There's also a name for that process, but I can't remember it. The cause of this process would be a massive collision and the resulting debris, with life attached, scattered through space. Not such a daft idea, as some pieces of Mars have been found on earth (I think?)Or would it be claimed that life must have somehow bounced from one solar body to another, within our system?
Panspermia. But I don't know if this is the case in such a relatively small world as our solar system.That's what is thought the most likely somewhere in these posts or the original article, I'm not sure where though. There's also a name for that process, but I can't remember it. The cause of this process would be a massive collision and the resulting debris, with life attached, scattered through space. Not such a daft idea, as some pieces of Mars have been found on earth (I think?)![]()