Talk:Panspermia

Life in Space

Of possible interest --

• Finding => NASA Workshop on the Potential for Finding Life in a Europa Plume (02/18/2015)
• Spreading => NASA Workshop on Planetary Protection Knowledge Gaps for Human Extraterrestrial Missions (03/24/2015)

In any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 14:12, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

new URL for reference No. 43

The Article "Electromagnetic space travel for bugs?" on New Scientist is now reachable here -- Hartmann Schedel ^cheers 15:01, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Is it 'truth' if it can be read oppositely by different readers?

I try to stay away from the zones of "we found the truftfh!" but just reading through the article gives the obvious impression that much is popularized by people having trouble grasping that slippery devil 'reality'. I come here to point out these diametrically opposed statements:

"... the bacteria's DNA is unlike any on Earth."

and

"... and were determined to be related to modern day Bacillus subtilis and Bacillus pumilis bacteria ..."

WTF? This is in section Case studies, second bullet point section, with lede "On May 11, 2001, two researchers from the University of Naples ..." These two opposite statements are supposedly supported by the exact same ref? Unbelievable, yes? Shenme (talk) 03:30, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Original research in the article

The whole section on Extremophiles seems to reference quite a few studies that don't mention panspermia or anything closely related at all. The right place for most of that is in Extremophile. I'm sure a short summary could be put here but it should have something that mentions the connection. What's here is just editors writing up the article as if it was in some magazine rather than having it conform to the WP:Original Research policy. Dmcq (talk) 10:48, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

ET signal in the genetic code: Reaching consensus (2017)

Hello, I've seen the changes by Rp2006 and Drbogdan, but there was indeed a long discussion on this topic some time ago (see above), which led to consensus formulation, so I find new changes somewhat unfair. Specifically, the point is whether it is appropriate to present a reference to PZ Myers' post as a refutation. There was another paper published recently on this topic in a profile journal, where the authors seem to answer some of the critics they received (including that from PZ Myers). So I think it would be fair either to leave the consensus version of the paragraph, or, if referring to post by PZ Myers, the authors' response should also be included (there is also a small relevant FAQ point at their blog for that: https://bioseti.info/faq/#pzmyers).AndyShepp (talk) 13:57, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Ok, so Drbogdan finds that consensus reached in 2014 is not a true consensus, so a new one is needed. To start with, I propose the following version:

In 2013 a team of physicists claimed that they had found logical and numerical attributes in the genetic code which, they believe, is evidence for such a signature. This claim has been criticized, in particular, by biologist PZ Myers in Pharyngula. As the authors respond in their blog, PZ Myers might have been confused by similarity with Intelligent Design; meanwhile, according to the authors, their result does not contradict natural evolution, and that "the very idea of preserving non-biological information is based on the natural mechanism of negative selection". In 2017, the same authors published a paper in the International Journal of Astrobiology, where they respond to previous criticisms. Further investigations are needed.

AndyShepp (talk) 16:47, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

References

FWIW - Drbogdan Talk-page discussion (copied below) seems relevant:

Copied from "Drbogdan Talk-Page discussion"

-- Panspermia revert --

Thanks for your revert, restoring the material I added! I was reading the Talk page over and over trying to find any discussion on this topic without success. As I was doing this, your revert happened! I wonder if that editor honestly misconstrued something, or was just making it up - and gave that reason to allow them to delete information (without push-back) that they personally did not like! RobP (talk) 15:10, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

@Rp2006: Thank you for your comments re recent WP:SPA ip edits (ie, edit-Panspermia, edit-Direct panspermia) on the Panspermia and Directed panspermia articles - *entirely* agree - no discussions, esp ones leading to WP:CONSENSUS, re the noted text, seemed to have occurred on the related talk-pages (ie, Talk:Panspermia, Talk:Directed panspermia) - Thanks again for your comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 15:27, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Rp2006 and Drbogdan: what Talk page you have looked at? 90% of discussion on the Talk page of the Panspermia article is exactly about reaching the consensus formulation on that point - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Panspermia#ET_signal_in_the_genetic_code AndyShepp (talk) 15:24, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

@AndyShepp and Rp2006: Thank you for your comments - seems that the discussion in "Talk:Panspermia#ET signal in the genetic code" did not reach a true "WP:CONSENSUS" view (afaik - a "formulation" is not a true consensus view - please see => "WP:CONSENSUS") - the closest view of the discussion seems to be (as noted in the edit summary) the following => "... deleted section should be left in until everyone reaches consensus on a new neutral version ..." - see => "Talk:Panspermia#ET signal in the genetic code" - hope this helps in some way - in any case - Thanks again for your comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 15:46, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

In any case - Comments Welcome on reaching a true WP:CONSENSUS of the proposed text/refs (noted above) - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 19:05, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

So, any other suggestions? If not, I'll put the version above into the article in a day. AndyShepp (talk) 03:31, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

• I object to the removal of the PZ quote as well as addition of the response. This serves to doubly weaken the impact of the criticism. Did PZ reply to there response? Should that go here? Where does that chain end? RobP (talk) 11:24, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

• The sentence "Further investigations are needed" is WP:OR. Actually, everybody who has any experience with pseudoscience, such as PZ Myers, can see that this is just the same methodology as with Bible Code, Pyramidology, Cyclosophy and so on: pure cherry picking. There is nothing to see here, and further investigations are a waste of time. PZ is not confused, his analysis is spot on, the similarity with ID is superficial, and the references to "not contradicting natural evolution" and "preserving non-biological information" are red herrings. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:46, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

• @AndyShepp, Rp2006, and Hob Gadling: Thank you for your comments - *entirely* agree with the comments above to *keep* the "disputed PZ quote" in the current "Panspermia" article - esp the comments made above by "User:Rp2006" and "User:Hob Gadling" which are *excellent* - and "spot on" imo as well - also, *entirely* agree with those who object to the addition of the proposed response "noted above" by "User:AndyShepp" - in any case - hope this helps in some way - Thanks again for the comments - and - Enjoy! :) 13:13, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

• I doubt if PZ Myers is aware of the response, and I doubt he will comment on it unless the paper will be again lauded (mistakenly) by the ID-community. As a practicing astrobiologist, I am certainly not convinced by the authors' conclusions (they themselves do not pretend to have it beyond doubt). However, I find their last paper quite interesting and the argumentation quite illuminating on some points. And certainly I find that PZ Myers is wrong on that this is a piece of ID (the authors are very clear on that in this paper). Besides, this paper was published in an on-topic peer-reviewed journal. Wiki should state things as neutrally as possible. The current state of the facts is that the authors responded to criticism in a journal publication, so this should be reflected. I do not really think the chain will go forever. As for "further investigations" - that's not my sentence, it is from the previous text from the article. I also completely endorse rational skepticism, and my favorite figure is Carl Sagan on this point. As Michael Shermer said, Sagan was able to balance between most skeptical scrutiny and openness to new ideas. In my opinion, the case discussed here is exactly that. I do not find the methodology in their last paper the same as in the Bible code. They do not choose an arbitrary methodology for analysis, but try to reason out. So my suggestion remains. I do not insist that the quote by PZ Myers should be deleted, but I disagree that the authors' responce publication should be ignored. AndyShepp (talk) 13:31, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

  "PZ Myers is wrong on that this is a piece of ID" - Where does he say it is? He calls it "numerology" but not ID. He says the ID folks are trying to appropriate it but not that is is ID. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:16, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

There you go: "why be impressed that another set of Intelligent Design creationists in Kazakhstan are using the same tired tropes?" They are clearly not creationists, and clearly they are not using the same tired tropes - again, as I already mentioned, the authors emphasize in their last paper that their reasoning does not rely on ID arguments (irreducible complexity, etc.), but instead they use semiotic arguments that are typically discussed in SETI community. But I also disagree that this is numerology. Not convincing is not the same as just pure numerology. AndyShepp (talk) 14:37, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

I see. Thank you, I overlooked that one. PZ tends to overdo it sometimes. Still, the link contains interesting information. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:30, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, sometimes he tends to overdo, and I think in saying that this is numerology he had also overdone it. Sorry, don't get what link you are talking about. AndyShepp (talk) 02:48, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

• Hi, I'm one of the authors of the papers being discussed here (thanks for pointing out this discussion, Simone). Saying right off: I am not going to make war and press on changing anything in the wiki-article. I'll appreciate if the wiki-editors here will take my note into account; but if not - well, I can live with that ;) From the discussion here I see that the point is not whether our papers are ID or not (they are not; if that matters - I share entirely naturalistic worldview). Rather, the point is whether they are numerology or not. As I guess, this is a short way of saying that the data we described might be just the result of our arbitrary "juggling" until we found some "desired patterns". In our recent paper (mentioned here by the user AndyShepp) we devote a good chunk of text to discussing this very point, so here I'll instead make a comparison between our study and the Bible Code (the comparison brought about by PZ Myers, I suppose). First - there is no any scientific hypothesis behind the Bible code (at least none that I've heard of. God? That's not a hypothesis, since the notion of God is notoriously ill-defined ;) ). Without such restriction, you are free to choose/invent any method you like for data analysis. In our case, we have the working hypothesis (that of Sagan and Crick & Orgel), and we attempt to develop analysis methodology appropriate for that hypothesis - the condition which greatly restricts the options (in particular, we are trying to follow similar basic logic that was used to construct Earth-made messages such as the Arecibo message, etc.). Second - the analogy with the Bible code is irrelevant simply from statistical standpoint. In one case the data (Bible) is millions of letters long - what a scope for opportunities ;). In another case, the data (genetic code) is only a few hundred bits. Next, the Bible is but one of many books ever written, while the genetic code is unique (with several minor variations). The Bible is written with a writing system which is itself completely arbitrary and is but one of many existing writing systems; in contrast, in our approach we do not rely in any way on arbitrary cultural codes, relying instead on the language of abstract logic and mathematics (yes, I know not everyone agrees that even mathematics might be useful for communication with another intelligent species; still, if you attempt to do that, first of all you'll most proboaly resort to logic/mathematics, not Hebrew, right?). ----------- Of course, I by no means imply that our data unambiguously supports the hypothesis of Crick & Orgel. My point is that the data favors this hypothesis to the extent which makes it unreasonable to dismiss it as numerology just like the Bible code. As typically happens in such situations, the problem is that it is difficult to find an objective criterion for judging opinions and biases. Yes, PZ Myers is a popular authority, and I really have nothing against PZ, I like most of his writings which I had time to read. That said, like all of us, he has biases. I mean, I will hardly ever doubt anything he says about developmental biology or atheism. But, to be honest, models of the genetic code evolution are simply not his forte (I mean exactly the genetic code here, not genome - there are only few researchers on the scene who specialize specifically in the genetic code; most biologists just use it as a dictionary for genes, without going into much details about existing models of how the genetic code might have evolved). Or, for example, would you also agree with PZ that Elon Musk is an evil man? ;) So, we have an opinion by PZ here on one side, but as a counterbalance I may count more than a dozen of researchers who do not find our study to be just numerology. Three reviewers and editor in Icarus, and two reviewers and editor in IJA - that's already seven ;) I might provide more (with prooflinks). ---------- So, what's all this in aid of? Personally, I would prefer that all mentions of our work were deleted from the article. After all, it hasn't been discussed widely in relevant scientific literature. But since I'm not well familiar with the wiki policy, I am not sure this is actually an option. If these mentions are to be left, along with PZ Myers comments, of course I find it relevant also to add a note that we had tried to make it clear about points on which PZ Myers seems to "overdo" (as they say here :) RobP objects to this because this would "weaken the impact of criticism" - as if whatever the authors might reply, that would be certainly wrong :) Though I wouldn't call our last paper a "reply to criticism". I would call it an "attempt to clarify points which were misinterpreted or misunderstood by some overly skeptical guys from the start (given that the topic is tough being far from mainstream), including those points which might have been due to our poor presentation or to us being not quite clear in the previous paper" :) Either PZ responds or not, I am not going to publish other papers on this topic, so the chain stops here (if he responds, I have nothing against stopping the chain with his new comment). Thus, I will appreciate if the wiki-editors will 1) replace the beginning "In 2013 a team of physicists claimed that they had found..." with something like "...published a paper where they expressed a belief that they had found..." and 2) add a note after PZ's comment that "in 2017 the authors published another paper in IJA in which they tried to clarify certain points concerning the methodology of their research, which might have led to inappropriate interpretation or understanding of their previous paper". Or something along these lines. Thanks. Maxim Makukov (talk) 15:08, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Ball containing DNA

So one of the cheapest tabloids publishes a BS story of a vanadium ball that `may contain extraterrestrial DNA`` and it finds its way to this article. Where a `reputable` editor oposes the deletion. Can you please review the guidelines on reliable sources and relevance before reverting. ALso, the scientific process does not include beliefs, but thought processes firmly based in the laws of nature. thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.158.91.33 (talk) 20:41, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

If you are going to contribute to Wikipedia, then please learn to sign your "contribution" in the accepted way. The reason that I reverted the deletion of the vanadium ball entry was that the astrobiologist, Milton Wainwright and the University of Buckingham are reliable sources, even if the publication that picked-up the story is questionable. David J Johnson (talk) 09:40, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Milton Wainwright, partner of Chandra Wickramasinghe published this joke in their own predatory Journal of Cosmology. Where it was picked up by tabloids and other outlets. If you had looked into it (I assume you have a computer), you'd know that Wainwright and Wickramasinghe are the laughing stock of the astrobiology community. 98.100.145.6 (talk) 19:09, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

First, indent your "contribution" correctly per Wikipedia style. Secondly, your comments are your own point of view: see WP:POV. Please don't assume that Wainwright and Wickramasinghe are the "laughing stock" of the whole "astrobiology community", they are not - although I personally don't agree with all their views, but that is my WP:POV! Time for you to create an account, rather than hiding? Regards, David J Johnson (talk) 19:20, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Directed panspermia and undue weight

TZubiri, could you explain your concerns with the "directed panspermia" section? Also, I think template:Undue weight section is more appropriate; you placed the article-level template in the section. Schazjmd (talk) 20:53, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

In biology, panspermia is a respectable theory related to abiogenesis or the origin of life, the article on that subject contains 400 respectable references from diverse branches of biology as well as astronomist and geologists.

The marked section on the other hand is mainly concerned with futurology, and only tangentially serves as a theory for the past as a fringe theory. A focus on the word panspermia only serves to piggyback on the credibility of the subject, it is not primarily a theory that explains the origin of life million of years ago, it is primarily an idea about possibly spreading existing life today.

As a weight comparison, accidental panspermia, which is more likely than directed panspermia, only has a single paragraph devoted to it.

--TZubiri (talk) 21:01, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Note, I have reached the concept of RNA World independently by reading an unrelated biology book, so Francis Crick is notable. But the theory was retracted specifically for this reason. I propose that the first an second paragraphs be kept, while merging the rest of the content into its own artice (it's all probaby there anyway.)--TZubiri (talk) 01:06, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Panspermia as a whole is a fringe theory, regardless of what their supporters say otherwise. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:11, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Relevant news

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/04/26/life-earth-started-meteorite-new-evidence-suggests/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.47.237.65 (talk) 16:21, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Loads of prebiotic molecules found in Milky Way?

FWIW - (For being aware only of newly published relevant studies - not necessarily to incorporate into the main article) - On 8 July 2022, astronomers reported the discovery of massive amounts of prebiotic molecules, including for RNA, in the galactic center of the Milky Way Galaxy. - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 13:02, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

References

Drbogdan (talk) 13:02, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Removed Edit Reverted By Zefr

References

Sorry, Astrojed, but I don't think this is mainstream thinking; rather, it appears to be mostly your WP:OR based on Schrödinger. I don't think it should be included. Zefr (talk) 21:37, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

I accept your opinion on this talk:Astrojed|talk]]) 22:16, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Maybe a link would be better than a new paragraph.Astrojed (talk) 22:44, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Large Icy Asteroids

Since 2010 large icy asteroids have been much studied and reported in journals, with regard to how they may have played a part in the final stages of forming earth oceans and providing organic content. Chemistry but not biology have been supported in the underlying scientific publications. Astrojed (talk) 21:13, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

"Habitable epoch" section removed. Please revert.

My edits were reverted. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Panspermia&oldid=prev&diff=1180332554

The reason given is that it is "fringe".

1. Being fringe does not automatically disqualify content. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fringe_theories

2. The entire article is "fringe". The 2nd sentence in the article is "Panspermia is a fringe theory with little support amongst mainstream scientists." If removing this section is actually justified, then the entire article should be deleted.

Please revert this removal. Cowlinator (talk) 20:35, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

There seems to have been the necessary secondary sourcing requirements, but most of the text probably belongs in Abiogenesis or another article, and not here. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 23:28, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Apologies, I didn't see this section. So yeah, in a nutshell, even for the generally fringe idea of panspermia, this "habitable epoch" idea is a fringe idea itself. Having an article on panspermia itself is of course okay, since there's tons of sources that talk about the idea anyway. As far as I can find, there's no academic interest in Loeb's idea, let alone giving some sort of standardized name to it like this. If one person writes about an idea, and no one else takes it seriously enough to discuss it, there's just not much worth saying about it in a high-level overview like this. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 17:03, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

To add to this a little, a search on G Scholar for "habitable epoch" shows essentially nothing outside of a couple things written by Loeb himself. Immediately afterwards, a handful of pop-sci outlets wrote blurbs about it, as they do, but since then, complete radio silence, especially in academic literature. So yes, inclusion of this material would be WP:UNDUE. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 17:37, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Another cometary panspermia paper

There's an interesting paper here on the cometary panspermia hypothesis, published in the reasonably prestigious Proceedings of the Royal Society A. Note that it's about spreading prebiotic molecules, not life itself. — The Anome (talk) 00:34, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: ASTBIO 502 Astrobiology Special Topics -Origin Of Life

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 30 September 2023 and 8 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Aulses (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Ujons.

— Assignment last updated by Ujons (talk) 22:31, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Hatnote

Context for future editors: The hatnote was added,[1] after a lengthy discussion at WP:FTN.[2] An editor had expressed concern that "panspermia" does not exclusively refer to the fringe theory, but most reliable sources do use "panspermia" in the fringe theory sense depicted by the lead image. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 06:42, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Cosmic dust particles spread life to Earth - and elsewhere?

New studies (2/18/2024) seem to provide support for the notion that panspermia may have been a way that life began on Earth? - Comments Welcome - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 18:49, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

References

Isn‘t this part a little inconsistent, year-wise?

The article says: "Prior to this, since around the 1860s, many prominent scientists of the time were becoming interested in the theory, for example Sir Fred Hoyle, and Chandra Wickramasinghe." But Hoyle and Wickramasinghe were born way after 1860. Either I don't really understand what the text wants to state here (easily possible the error is on my side) or this passage is simply erroneous.

2001:9E8:E1DD:2800:89B:1D8E:EAF6:EF2C (talk) 11:21, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Agree, but do not have access to the sources for a better edit. Slatersteven (talk) 11:28, 2 March 2024 (UTC)