# Talk:Red rain in Kerala

re some of the above discussion, please note a) that there is no such thing as a lichen spore.  Lichens are the result of symbiosis between a fungus and an alga or cyanobacterium, both of which produce their spores separately. b) Trentepohlia is not a lichen, and no lichenised organisms have been detected in red rain. c) The capacity of Trentepohlia to survive exposure to space or martian conditions has never been tested. The lichen species exposed to space on the ISS were Rhizocarpon geographicum and Xanthoria elegans, in both of which the algal symbiont is Trebouxia d) their capacity to survive re-entry was not evaluated e) the colour of Trentepohlia and the colour of red rain "spores" are completely different. f) in addition, the Trentepohlia hypothesis for red rain fails to provide a mechanism for the accumulation of its spores in rain in sufficient quantity to colour it red. g) no credible molecular data confirming the common identity of red rain spores and Trentepohlia has ever been produced. Without this confirmation the hypothesis is worthless. Plantsurfer (talk) 21:09, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

a) Glad someone mentions the fungus/algae symbiosis of lichen. We could do a better job here to note that fact.
b) Microbiologists (eg. not Chandra) involved in researching the rain water sediment reported Trentepohlia spores, if you disagree, I expect you have papers supporting that?
c), d)  Explain that to Chandra.
e) re: The color of lichen ≠ spores, the quote being used is: "The color was found to be due to the presence of a large amount of spores of a lichen-forming alga belonging to the genus Trentepohlia."  As far as I know, the color of the spores vs. the color of Trentepohlia lichen is not an issue nor matter of controversy. But if what you meant is that you detected a sentence where "spore"  should be changed for "lichen" (or vis et versa, please feel free to change it.
f) I am glad you also read the quoted joint-report issued by the CESS and the TBGRI stating that there is no satisfactory explanation to microbiologists for the high spore concentration in rain drops. The last thing we knew, meteorologists proposed some hypothetical [wind] models for that. Did you find an update to include or just wanted to chat in point-form?
g) You mean there is no positive ID other than growing actual Trentepohlia algae from the red rainwater spores?  Obviously it was definitive enough to the actual microbiologists (versus mathematicians) so they decided it was not even necessary to use PCR or immunochemistry. But hey, even if done, and since the spores do not even have nucleic acids, Chandra would still call it false, unsatisfactory, non-credible, and non-definitive, right?   Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 00:55, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
c),d) with due respect Chandra's pov is irrelevant. If there is no citation supporting evidence of testing Trentepohlia's survival in space or re-entry then reference to it is inadmissible in this article.
e) the color is an issue. Trentepohlia's pigments are orange, those of red rain are red, hence the name. At the very least the discrepancy requires explanation.
g) If, as you say, the spores do not even have nucleic acids they cannot be of biological origin, therefore not Trentepohlia or lichen. QED.Plantsurfer (talk) 01:30, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
c),d) We obviously agree in the scientific merits of their (Chandra, Louis, Kumar) pipe dreams, and you confirm to me that you just want to talk about it. Yes, they have not done research and have no evidence. Their claim is discredited by science, yet, they are given a lot of attention by the popular press, and that is the only reason this Wikipedia article exists.  Yes, their "research" is "faulted" and their "hypothesis" is not grounded on scientific evidence. It bothers not just you that reporters give them a soap-box. My point is that we gain nothing by bitching about it in this talk page. In Wikipedia we present all sides of this [popular] story, and I have payed close attention to remark that this fringe claim is not supported by microbiologists, and I would like to even mention in the article that it does not even qualify as a scientific controversy.  Deleting this article (which seems to be your aparent request) would leave the popular press in charge of educating the public in this issue.  Got it?
Regarding the color issue, please share the link where it is actually treated as an issue.  I am all for trashing Kumar Louis and Chandra's pathological science.  If it is your assessment (POV), you know how far it will go.
g) Are you trolling or you need a sarcasm transplant?  Now you -like Kumar, Chandra and Louis- are demanding an ID confirmation at molecular level, and unless that is done, there is no "credible" ID.  Get it straight: HE (not me) says the spores do not contain nucleic acids, so even if somebody puts Chandra/Kumar/Louis out of their missery pointing at a nucleic acid marker ID (PCR), those lunatics would still reject it.  Fact: The spores'  ID was done by the competent authorities (who actually went to school to understand microbiology) to their satisfaction, so I don't care if YOU don't believe it either. As much as I want to entertain your forum-like comments, next I will only address useful feedback (e.g: published references) to improve this article.  Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 15:07, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

The first sentence states that analyses by different groups using different techniques gave similar results. On the contrary, these analyses show worrying discrepancies and omissions that are not easily reconciled. The CESS analysis only accounts for about 65% of the elements in the sample, omitting to report four of the most crucial elements for biological cells: oxygen, nitrogen, sulfur and hydrogen. Bizarrely, CESS reports a number of elements that are unknown to science. The table of Louis and Kumar's EDX data purports to account for 99.99 wt% of elements, yet again omits the life-critical nitrogen, sulfur hydrogen and phosphorus, among others without which biological cells would not be able to function. The same authors find some hydrogen and nitrogen by CHN analysis but with considerably lower amounts of carbon.  By modern standards, and particularly in view of the controversial claims which rest on the identity of the red rain cells, these wildly different results are highly unsatisfactory. Plantsurfer (talk) 12:33, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

 Done.  Yes, the procedures were not standardized between the teams. Changed the sentence to: "Several groups of researchers analyzed the chemical elements in the solid particles, and different techniques gave different results."  -BatteryIncluded (talk)

You asked for more evidence on the extraterrestrial hypothesis. Well, here it is. I don't plan on going in a legthy discussion, its just releated material and i am forwarding it "as is".
http://www.panspermia.org/diatomsinpolonnaruwa.pdf  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.56.246.242 (talk) 10:18, 12 January 2013 (UTC) 
source: http://www.lankaweb.com/news/items/2013/01/17/chandra-wickramasinghe-coming-to-sri-lankato-gather-further-information/
217.89.117.154 (talk) 11:03, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you guys.  The target article is Polonnaruwa (meteorite).  BatteryIncluded (talk) 13:52, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
Article in the Huffington Post (weird news section)--- Posted: 01/18/2013 10:50 am EST  |  Updated: 01/18/2013 11:37 am EST.
source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/18/extraterresterial-life-exists-chandra-wickramasinghe_n_2500008.html
84.56.246.242 (talk) 21:55, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

new paper on Polonnaruwa meteor
http://journalofcosmology.com/JOC21/Polonnaruwa5R.pdf
217.89.117.154 (talk) 09:48, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

new paper on red rain
http://journalofcosmology.com/JOC22/Polonnaruwa9B.pdf
217.89.117.154 (talk) 10:40, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Same old story:  Deny, deny, deny, deny, and write your science fiction in your private journal. BatteryIncluded (talk) 13:41, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

In 1968, polycyclic aromatic molecules were detected in interstellar dust. In 1972, convincing evidence that the dust contained porphyrins was obtained. Then in 1974, Wickramasinghe demonstrated that there are complex organic polymers, specifically molecules of "polyformaldehyde", in space. These molecules are closely related to cellulose, which is very abundant in biology. By 1975, Hoyle and Wickramasinghe were convinced that organic polymers were a substantial fraction of the dust. This line of thought was considered wildly speculative at that time. Now however, the idea that organic polymers in space are abundant and may be necessary for life is well accepted. But Hoyle and Wickramasinghe were not satisfied. In the middle 1970s, they turned their attention to an apparent anomaly in the spectrum. This spectral feature could be explained if the grains of dust were of a certain size, and translucent. After trying almost everything else first, in 1979, they looked at the spectrum for bacteria. Dried bacteria refract light as irregular hollow spheres, and their size range is appropriate. The match between the spectrum for dried bacteria and the ones from the interstellar grains was nearly perfect. Thinking without prejudice, Hoyle and Wickramasinghe concluded the grains probably were dried, frozen bacteria. This finding was ridiculed at the time, is still ridiculed today, and is definitely not accepted by mainstream science. Most astronomers rebut this claim by saying that you can produce spectra that match those from space with a wide variety of substances that are not necessarily biological.
"You don't! You don't. It is established in minds that there are alternatives. Nobody bothers to check them. They just go around and say that. They will take tiny little bits, maybe five percent of that wavelength range and they'll find a substance that has some rough correspondence, not very good one but a rough one and they just say it's the same. None of them ever look at the full range. NO. This makes me angry." - Fred Hoyle, Institute for Astronomy, Cambridge, England, 5 July 1996
1976 the two Viking probes landed on Mars. One of the mission goals was to look for biosignatures on Mars. Among its equipment was the Labled Release Experiment, wich returned quite astownishing data. It was discounted as inconclusive because the gas chromatograph didn't indicate the presence of carbon. Today there is consensus that the gas chromatograph was not sensitive enough to detect carbon compunds and, quite frankly, the Curiosity Rover did indeed detect carbon compounds in the soils of Mars. Dr. Gilbert Levin, the engineer designing the equipment, maintains since the seventies that the probes detected life on Mars. He also is behind a series of subsequent studies and recent re-analysis of the Viking data, pointing out a chicadian rhythm in the supposedly purely chemical reactions. Findings wich conclude that Mars had an active magnetosphere in ancient days, as well as the confirmation of ancient riverbeds lend further credibility to his conclusions.
http://www.gillevin.com/Mars/Reprint129-SPIE2005HVD.pdf
http://www.gillevin.com/Mars/complexity_Analysis_IJASS.pdf

On August 6, 1996 Dr. David McKay of NASA claimed that the martian ALH84001 meteorite may contain evidence of traces of life from Mars, and published an article in Science. The announcement of possible extraterrestrial life caused considerable controversy. When the discovery was announced many immediately conjectured that the fossils were the first true evidence of extraterrestrial life, making headlines around the world, and even prompting the President of the United States Bill Clinton to make a formal televised announcement to mark the event. Despite the subsequent work of Dr. David McKay, wich he continued to his death in February 19, 2013, confirming his initial conclusions and broadly defeating aciticisms made the public quickly lost interest. The same can't be necessarily said about the scientifc community, as the emergence of the field of astrobiology is mainly to his credit. Concerning the small size of the "biomorphs", wich caused a bit controversity about nanobacteria i'd like to point out that every one-celled organism has organelles. These organelles are evidently symbionts and some still reproduce independently of the host cell, effectively discounting any doubts about the size constraints (cell size) of living organisms. However, the strongest confirmation of a biogenic origin of the "biomorphs" was found in the presence of magnetides wich can evidently only be produced by a biogenic process.
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/johnson/pdf/403099main_GCA_2009_final_corrected.pdf
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_x60v3E-yZ8

Similar claims have been made by Richard Hoover in 1997, 2007 and 2011 and Wickramasinghe & Hoover in 2013, as both have now joint forces and work together.
http://www.panspermia.org/hoovermeteorites.pdf
http://journalofcosmology.com/JOC22/Paper22%282a%29.pdf

In February 2005, NASA scientists reported that they may have found some evidence of present life on Mars. Carol Stoker and Larry Lemke of NASA's Ames Research Center, based their claim on methane signatures found in Mars' atmosphere resembling the methane production of some forms of primitive life on Earth. NASA officials soon distanced NASA from the scientists' claims, and Stoker herself backed off from her initial assertions.
An Indian and British team of researchers led by Chandra Wickramasinghe reported on 2001 that air samples over Hyderabad, India, gathered from the stratosphere by the Indian Space Research Organization, contained clumps of living cells. Wickramasinghe calls this "unambiguous evidence for the presence of clumps of living cells in air samples from as high as 41 km, above which no air from lower down would normally be transported". A reaction report at NASA Ames indicated skepticism towards the premise that Earth life cannot travel to and reside at such altitudes. Max Bernstein, a space scientist associated with SETI and Ames, argues the results should be interpreted with caution, noting that "it would strain one's credulity less to believe that terrestrial organisms had somehow been transported upwards than to assume that extraterrestrial organisms are falling inward". Pushkar Ganesh Vaidya from the Indian Astrobiology Research Centre reported in his 2009 paper that "the three microorganisms captured during the balloon experiment do not exhibit any distinct adaptations expected to be seen in microorganisms occupying a cometary niche".
In 2005 an improved experiment was conducted by ISRO. On April 10, 2005 air samples were collected from six places at different altitudes from the Earth ranging from 20 km to more than 40 km. Adequate precautions were taken to rule out any contamination from any microorganisms already present in the collection tubes. The samples were tested at two labs in India. The labs found 12 bacterial and 6 fungal colonies in these samples. The fungal colonies were Penicillium decumbens, Cladosporium cladosporioides, Alternaria sp. and Tilletiopsis albescens. Out of the 12 bacterial samples, three were identified as new species and named Janibacter hoyeli.sp.nov (after Fred Hoyle), Bacillus isronensis.sp.nov (named after ISRO) and Bacillus aryabhati (named after the ancient Indian mathematician, Aryabhata). These three new species showed that they were more resistant to UV radiation than similar bacteria found on Earth. For any organism living so far up the Earth's atmosphere or having come from outside Earth, the UV radiation resistance would be extremely critical for survival.
The evidence was convincing enough to run a series of space exposure experiment on the ISS, and the findings of those missions turned out to be a big surprise. They gave positive results.
"The experiment Lithopanspermia and the experiment Life: The concept of both of the space experiments is to expose different eukaryotic species as there are the lichens Xanthoria elegans, Rhizocarpon geographicum and their mycobiont cultures, the black Antarctic microfungi Cryomyces minteri and Cryomyces antarcticus and Antarctic rocks colonized by cryptoendolithic communities. The aim behind this space research is to analyze the likelihood of Panspermia, which means the interplanetary transfer of life. Whereas the BIOPAN 6 experiment is a short time space experiment with 10 days space exposure, the experiment on the EXPOSE platform on the ISS is a long term experiment of about 1 years of space exposure what is a good tool to realize the second scenario of Panspermia, which means the travel of microorganisms through space. Experiment verification tests: investigations on the mentioned eukaryotic model organisms were still done during experiment verification tests (EVTs) and indicated a relevant high survival capacity. Nearly 70 to 90% of the lichens and up to 70% black microfungi have survived the tests before space exposure experiments. This has been checked by culturing methods, by the use of LIVE/DEAD staining investigations and in case of lichens additionally by photosynthesis activity tests. Space exposure: samples of the same model organisms were used for the space exposure experiments partly on BIOPAN 6 (FOTON M3) and completely on the ISS. The exposure time was between 10 days and 1 years and the results are indicating still maintenance of viability and even a preserved physiologic activity."
In 2007, a little known creature called a tardigrade became the first animal to survive exposure to space. It prevailed over sub-zero temperatures, unrelenting solar winds and an oxygen-deprived space vacuum.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/12855775

Also impact sudies have been conducted. Thos also come out with positive results. Virtually *every* test conducted so far confirms the theory.
http://www.ifa.hawaii.edu/~meech/a281/handouts/panspermia.pdf

As survival capabilities are revaled to be sufficient for life to spread into space people started to wonder about the probabilities of such a transfer. Unsurprisngly the work done so far leads to the conclusion Earth seeded the cosmos for billions of years.
http://www.edbelbruno.com/Belbruno-Lithopanspermia_Origin_of_Life%282012%29.pdf

Wich leads us to the question how ancient life truly is. There are also most intriguing projections. A study based on Moore's Law places the origin of life (not considering extinction events, wich makes it a conservative estimate) at 9.7±2.5 billion years ago, older than Earth itself.
http://arxiv.org/abs/1304.3381v1

and not without a little glee on my side we got confirmation of the meteor airburst scenario this year in Russia
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UL90rB-i7uw  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.56.214.206 (talk) 09:41, 6 June 2013 (UTC) 

You don't like the JoC source. Okay, no more JoC papers. There are others. I keep you up to date for sure. It now reached a point where deniers have to propose a mechanism wich *prevents* the spread of life into space, because all the indications so far suggest its happening on Earth. And we both know such a mechanism doesn't exist. Its evidently *not* a science ficton story.
Id' like to ask you: What kind of evidence would you consider as sufficient? Or is it more depending on what most people like to belive?
84.56.214.206 (talk) 09:04, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Just passing through. This sentence (last one in the first paragraph of the Criticism subsection) sounds very biased.
"And every time, they've been popular with the mass media, with major news agencies like CNN repeating their sensational panspermia story without critique, although almost nobody else in the scientific community accepts Louis and Kumar's space spore explanation.[50]"
76.216.149.73 (talk) 05:36, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

How is it biased? It's just what the facts are. NASA refused to give their paper the time of day because they're not botanist. They don't know the cellular walls have to be permeated to find the dna. Which is basic stuff for this type of analysis. 98.209.42.117 (talk) 05:33, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

total cannot be over 100%98.165.176.87 (talk) 18:03, 22 September 2013 (UTC)GW