Talk:Panspermia

message: 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)
thread_title:  [[Astrobiology|Life in Space]] 

message: The Article "Electromagnetic space travel for bugs?" on New Scientist is now reachable here -- Hartmann Schedel cheers 15:01, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  new URL for reference No. 43 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Is it 'truth' if it can be read oppositely by different readers? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Original research in the article 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Ball containing DNA 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Relevant news 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Loads of prebiotic molecules found in Milky Way? 

message: === What is life ===
 
=== References ===
::Sorry, , 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)
replies: text: I accept your opinion on this talk:Astrojed|talk]]) 22:16, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe a link would be better than a new paragraph.Astrojed (talk) 22:44, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed Edit Reverted By Zefr

message: ::Sorry, , 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)
replies: text: I accept your opinion on this talk:Astrojed|talk]]) 22:16, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe a link would be better than a new paragraph.Astrojed (talk) 22:44, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Large Icy Asteroids 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  "Habitable epoch" section removed. Please revert. 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Another cometary panspermia paper 

message: — Assignment last updated by Ujons (talk) 22:31, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: ASTBIO 502 Astrobiology Special Topics -Origin Of Life

message: Context for future editors: The hatnote was added, after a lengthy discussion at WP:FTN. An editor had expressed concern that , 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)
thread_title:  Hatnote 

message: 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)
thread_title:  [[Cosmic dust|Cosmic dust particles]] spread life to [[Earth]] - and elsewhere? 

message: 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)
replies: text: Agree, but do not have access to the sources for a better edit. Slatersteven (talk) 11:28, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Isn‘t this part a little inconsistent, year-wise?