Talk:Panspermia

Separate Article on Directed Panspermia

I am proposing a Wikipedia article on Directed Panspermia (draft) in addition to the existing Panspermia article. The subjects are complementary but different as the Panspermia article concerns mostly natural panspermia, while Directed Panspermia concerns the deliberate spreading of microbial life in space, possibly by our civilisation. This can have signficant consequences for the future of life in space, which requires informed public debate. A dedicated WP article covering the scientific and ethical aspects can be a resource for such a public discourse. Of course, the present Panspermia article can retain the short section on Directed Panspermia, with a link to the main Directed Panspermia article. The proposed article concerns the science and ethics of planting life in new solar systems. It covers related aspects of interstellar travel including launch, propulsion (eg., solar sailing), navigation, target selection, capture, selection of microbial payload, and microbial survival. The ethical motivation, possible objections and counterarguments are also covered. The article is documented with 20 references to books and peer-reviewed scientific literature. The subject has been also covered recently in popular science articles in international media including New Scientist (UK), Discovery News (US), Popular Science (US), Maclean’s (Canada), and further magazines, radio programs and websites, followed by stimulating comments. Evidently, Directed Pansperma is noteworthy on its own. For these reasons, I suggest that the submitted article on Directed Panspermia will be accepted in Wikipedia. The administrator suggested this discussion. Please read the submitted article at User:AbrahamDavidson/Directed panspermia, and your responses will be much appreciated. Thanks AbrahamDavidson (talk) 03:04, 29 August 2011 (UTC) AbrahamDavidson

FWIW - At First Glance, And At The Moment, The Material In The Proposed Article On "Directed Panspermia" Seems To Be A *Really, Really* Excellent Academic Effort - A Worthy Contribution To Wikipedia - And - Sufficiently Substantial To Be A *Separate* Article From The Main Article On Panspermia - After All, The Present Panspermia Article Seems To Be More About "In-Coming" [to planet Earth] Whereas "Directed Panspermia" Seems To Be More About "Out-Going" [from planet Earth] Instead - A *Very* Important (seemingly neglected?) Consideration In My Opinion At The Moment - Also, The Minimal Mention Of "Panspermia#Directed_panspermia" In The Present Main Panspermia Article Does *Not* Seem Sufficient For This Very Important Topic In My Opinion - That Said - In Some Ways, The Material In The Newly Proposed "Directed Panspermia" Article Seems Similar In Basic Notions (in a much more extensive way of course) To The (less extensive?) Material In The Present Forward-contamination Article - Perhaps The Two Articles Could Be Combined In Some Way? - Perhaps The "Directed Panspermia" Article Could Be Edited Into The Present Forward-contamination Article - Or - The Material In The Forward-contamination Article Could Be Merged Into A Newly Created "Directed Panspermia" (or related title) Article - In Any Case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 18:20, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

ALSO - New Followup (& related) Comments Have Been Posted At -> Talk:Astrobiology ("Forward-contamination" Section) + Talk:Forward-contamination ("Directed panspermia (draft)" Section) + User_talk:RHaworth#Deletion_of_directed_panspermia + User_talk:AbrahamDavidson + User_talk:Drbogdan#Directed_Panspermia + User_talk:BatteryIncluded#Separate_article_on_Directed_Panspermia - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 14:37, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

PLEASE NOTE - The Following May Also Be Particularly Relevant To The Present Discussion:

Copied From User_talk:RHaworth#Deletion_of_directed_panspermia

ALSO - Of Possible Particular Interest - And By Coincidence - A Related Earlier Discussion - In The Section "Forward-contamination" On The Astrobiology Talk Page - Occurred In March, 2011 Between Myself (User:Drbogdan) And User:BatteryIncluded On The Very Real Need For Some Of The Very Same Material That Seems To Be Well Presented In The Proposed "Directed Panspermia" Article- But Apparently "Deleted" The Previous Month (Feb, 2011) (?) - As Noted In This Astrobiology Discussion "...is there any real, and complete, assurance that there is not a single (at least potentially viable) microbe inside the Voyager spacecrafts being hurtled *out* of the solar system at this very moment? The related possible implications may be interesting to consider..." - In Any Case - Perhaps Time For A Reconsideration Of This *Very* Important Material? - And Possible Incorporation Into Wikipedia? - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 13:40, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Comments From Other Editors On This Topic Would Be *Greatly* Appreciated - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 13:24, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

ALSO - In An Effort To Present Relevant Materials On This Topic In One Place, The Following Is Copied From An Earlier Posting: Copied From Astrobiology Discussion Page ("Forward-contamination" section)

Chandra Wickramasinghe's fringe science

I just moved an entry regarding Wickramasinghe's latest fringe article (in his fringe Journal of Cosmology, where he is the Executive Editor) on microfossils discovered in a new meteorite. In this [not peer-reviewed] article, he still fails to acknowledge that the particles isolated from the Red rain in Kerala have been identified by microbiologists as spores of a lichen-forming alga belonging to the genus Trentepohlia. He still denies they contain DNA and now, without any data other than a picture and lots of faith, he declares that he discovered ET organisms in a meteorite. Following the Allan Hills 84001 meteorite fiasco, the international scientific community agreed on not using morphology alone to make such claim. Chandra keeps not just ignoring consensus, but introducing heavy bias where actual data is missing, and then using his own non-peer reviewed journal to publish his stuff. I could keep going and going on his pathological science, but it is enough to establish that he and his journal are widely considered in the scientific community as biased, non-peer reviewed and fringe. My point is: do we leave this entry on his hypothetical microfossils in the "inconclusive" section or delete it altogether? If it is to stay, I'd like to tone it down with a heavy dose of reality and scientific skepticism wher his faith goes wild. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 19:45, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

P.S: It took him less than 10 days from the alleged meteor fall to publication. That goes to show his enthusiasm does not match the methodical scientific method. Never mind peer-review. BatteryIncluded (talk) 20:35, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

FWIW - I *entirely* agree with your recent edits on this - truly reliable sources are better - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 20:40, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Just to add my agreement with the above from BatteryIncluded and Drbogdan. Regards, David J Johnson (talk) 20:46, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

• "...morphologies that mimic primitive living organisms are easily obtained under different physico-chemical conditions including those that are geochemically plausible. The application of this information to the problem of deciphering primitive life on the early Earth and Mars is discussed. It is concluded that morphology cannot be used unambiguously as a tool for primitive life detection." Proc. SPIE 3755, Instruments, Methods, and Missions for Astrobiology II, 74 (December 30, 1999); doi:10.1117/12.375088
• "...and use of morphology alone has led to numerous errors of interpretation (Schopf and Walter 1983; Mendelson and Schopf 1992). NASA Astrobiology Institute.
• "[...] neither morphology, nor carbonaceous makeup, nor carbon isotopic composition is considered alone." Evidence of Archean life: Stromatolites and microfossils

Just for the record. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 21:37, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

2011 paper on microbes being able to breed in hypergravity - relevance to panspermia

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2011/04/20/1018027108.full.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.89.117.154 (talk) 12:52, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Fungal Spores Should Probably Be Mentioned Somewhere In This Article

www.ted.com/talks/paul_stamets_on_6_ways_mushrooms_can_save_the_world.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.196.195.125 (talk) 08:30, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

New evidence?

See here. Looks like someone actually conducted proper research rather than fringe nonsense and panspermia might be possible, in a sense. Silverseren^C 21:20, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

The attention-grabbing headline is worthless. However interesting the research, the discovery is not novel; aminoacids in many meteorites are not unusual, as well as glycine in a comet, and glycoaldehyde and PAH in interstelar dust. That is a far cry from discovering extraterrestrial "life" in asteroids/comets. For your amusement, take a look at Polonnaruwa (meteorite)‎. Cheer, -BatteryIncluded (talk) 12:59, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

What about this slash dot posting, this talks about micro fossils?

"On December 29th of last year a comet exploded over Sri Lanka. When examined by Cardiff University one of the comet samples was found to contain micro-fossils akin to plankton. NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center tested additional samples with similar results. The research paper was published in the Journal of Cosmology. In practice this means that the argument that life did not start on Earth has gained additional evidence."

WilliamKF (talk) 16:51, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

That is the Polonnaruwa (meteorite)‎ I mentioned above. Take a look at this critique. They did not demonstrate it is a meteorite and has not even been indexed in the international Meteoritical Society database. So, no. No new evidence. -Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 17:55, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Didn't they? You included the following paper into the entry of the Polonnaruwa metorite

http://journalofcosmology.com/JOC22/Paper22%282%29.pdf 217.89.117.154 (talk) 13:20, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Did they? Is this the standard analysis method to determine if the rock is a meteorite? Has it been indexed in the international Meteoritical Society database? The answers are no and no. BatteryIncluded (talk) 14:25, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

So in the face of carbon and oxygen isotope ratios inconsistent with terrestrial origin you still cling to the no-meteorite scenario because its not listed as a meteorite. I am not sure how to respond to this.217.89.117.154 (talk) 13:51, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

In the face of rejection by the scientific community (eg: pathological science & WP:fringe and [1]), it cannot be included. "there’s no mention on how the team avoided carbonate contamination of the sample — contamination that can throw oxygen isotope measurements. But even if they had (carried out the correct procedure), the non-standard oxygen isotope ratio is not proof of extraterrestriality, it just isn’t necessarily inconsistent with it. So really, their claim that the isotope ratio proves ‘unequivocally’ these are meteorites is wrong, plain and simple. So there’s every chance that either the rocks are meteorites (but they were contaminated) or they are, you know, rocks. As in rocky rocks; rocks that came from the ground (on Earth)." BatteryIncluded (talk) 14:55, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Carbon contamination can contaminate isotope results, however for contamination taking place you need something to be contaminated. If its all terrestrial isotopes there is no mixing. You need something different to mix with or its all standart isotopes found on earth (wich would indicate a terrestrial source). But it isn't standart isotopes, period. Additionally, if arguing for recent contamination, you would have to explain the notable absence of nitrogen wich are an indication for ancient fossils and not recent contamination. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.89.117.154 (talk) 14:01, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

You may find this interesting, you may also find it relevant for that Polonnaruwa Meteorite article

http://journalofcosmology.com/JOC22/Plait_Rebuttal_chg.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.89.117.154 (talk) 09:52, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Likelihood/majority view - source?

This statement: "There is as yet no evidence to support or contradict panspermia, although the majority view holds that panspermia – especially in its interstellar form – is unlikely given the challenges of survival and transport in space." I have no references myself, but my understanding was that many bacteria and viruses have been shown to survive just fine in space. Are there sources/references to support the claim in the article? Ride the Hurricane (talk) 15:34, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

FWIW - Noted Statement does not seem to be associated with any reference - even when first introduced - if interested, the "History" of the statement in the Panspermia article seems to be as follows:

• First Added (18 April 2005/User:Tonderai)
• Removed (14 July 2005/151.199.175.67
• Re-Added (30 July 2005/User:Marskell)

Maybe a reference should be added - or the statement changed in some way - or removed? (per WP:NOR?) - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 00:30, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Maybe if you make the distinction between spore survival and organism thriving? Since the only long-term experiment was destroyed at launch (Living Interplanetary Flight Experiment) we cannot speculate on interplanetary bacteria survival. We can, however report the weeks-long experiments done at the ISS. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 02:34, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm very much a passer-by on wikipedia I'm afraid, so much of the form etc is unknown to me, and I'm not involved enough to spend time hunting down references myself I'm afraid, unless it was an article close to my heart. This one's just a passing interest and I generally just correct an aberrant apostrophe or two!

So, with that caveat in place... the proof or not of interplanetary survival is irrelevant isn't it? The statement is that the "majority view" is etc. I think it can be taken as read that the "majority view" refers to academics rather than Joe Bloggs of course. But it's quite a strong statement and is rooted in academia so should be eminently referenceable (that's not a word, but ykwim).

Maybe I'm being a bit pedantic, but due to my interest in politics I'm very wary of unsubstantiated claims that something is the 'majority view'. If it can be substantiated then fine, but otherwise it's merely a 'dissenting' or 'opposing' view.Ride the Hurricane (talk) 21:38, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments - added a { {citation needed |date=May 2013 }} template to the text at issue - at least for now - thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 00:55, 7 May 2013 (UTC)