well i found this alternate theory which modifies evolution and its called panspermia , well i havent read much abt it but just read it and tell , i think this theory is not explaining the mechanisms of evolution .

http://www.panspermia.org/

Panspermia replaces abiogenesis, while not modifying evolution at all. And it doesn't even do that - it just moves the issue somewhere else.

what is abiogenesis?

what is abiogenesis?

The hypothesis that organic molecules were formed from inorganic ones. This is seperate from evolution that describes biological change. Evolution didn't start until well after the first self-replicating molecules were formed.

From the link:

The same kind of truce has helped, to a lesser degree, the Darwinian paradigm for evolution and the origin of life on Earth. The theory says life originates out of nonliving chemicals and evolves to higher levels of organization simply by following mechanistic laws.

It's hard to take them seriously when they lump TOE with the origin of life on Earth. There could easily be some truth to organic molecules being seeded from cosmic materials, but what difference would that make to evolution?

Or abiogenesis for that matter.

 

As swansont hinted, if life on earth started from panspermia then life would still have had to have arisen wherever the pansperm(?) came from; meaning abiogenesis would still have had to have happened, albeit elsewhere.

 

In the abscence of evidence spesifically suggesting panspermia occoured, okkrhams razor suggests terrestrial abiogenisis is the most likely model.

does it really matter if abiogenesis occured on earth or not? I don't see much of a difference between having a couple of dna molecules form on earth or having them form on anouther planet and landing here.

this is a little bit belated, but what exactly is "creationalism?