Originally posted by twhitehead
Whether or not bacteria from Mars is a panspermia theory depends on the current usage of the word, not its etymology. (I admit I don't know much about what its current usage is).
[b]Btw - the bacteria from Mars is still a controversial theory.
The possibility of bacteria from Mars is not controversial at all. ie if bacteria existed on mars in the ...[text shortened]... to earth. Whether it actually did is not so much 'controversial' as 'unknown at this time'.[/b]
Etymylogically 'pan' mean 'everywhere', 'spermia' means 'seed'. The general idea is tht live exists alread between the planets and between the stars. 'Seeds' 'rains' down and fertilize planets. This has nothing to do with transportation of bacterial life from Mars.
The controversability of the 'bacteria from Mars' hypothesis is that it hasn't been shown without a doubt that the micro-structures hidden in the martian meteorite is a fossilized bacteria, there could be another form of cristallization. Until this question is settled, it remains as a controvery.
Noone doubts that the origin of the stone is Martian. But there are a great deal of people that doubt the interpretation of the micro structures insid the stone.
I would be very glad if the structers actually is fossilized bacterial life, and in the future will find living Martian bacterias. I'm very interested to see if it has a DNA type of genetic information storage as Earthly life have. If so, if it is exactly the same as Earth DNA. I would be even more gladder if it has some other alien kind of genetic information storage.
Bottom line - the question is controversial. The question is not settled at all.