Tywkiwdbi ( tai-wiki-widbee ) panspermia and the cambrian explosion gas 10 8 schlauchadapter

"abiogenesis on the cosmologically diminutive scale of oceans, lakes or hydrothermal vents remains a hypothesis with no empirical support and is moreover unnecessary and redundant." – Even if life didn’t start on earth, it had to start somewhere. To state that abiogenesis is unnecessary and redundant is not very objective.

"They [viruses] are then nanoparticle-sized genetic vectors which contain all the essential information to take over and drive the physiology of any given target cell within which they mesh." – Wrong. Our cells are perfectly safe from the vast majority of viruses on our own world. We can inject ourselves with millions of bacteriophages and nothing happens, and the same is true vice versa. It is extremely, extremely, unlikely that a completely alien virus could simply interact with earth life. For all we know it will not even have the same DNA, if any.

Simple statistics in the vast emptyness of space make it extermely unlikely for any object, flung randomly from a source outside of our solar system, to hit earth. Even if, this object would have traveled for hundreds of thousands of years to get to us. This would be more than enough time for space radiation and other harsh conditions to completely destroy even the hardiest virus or tardigrade…

"Another related phenomenon concerns the red rain events recorded throughout history (McCafferty, 2008) but most recently in Kerala, India (Louis and Kumar 2006) and Sri Lanka in 2012. All the available evidence point to red pigmented organisms that are unlikely to have a terrestrial origin."

Louis and Kumar (2006), incidentally, give correlation in timing with a possible meteor airburst and the fact that the red substance in the rain looked like cells but had no DNA or RNA (other studies on the same rain did find DNA) as their only evidence for an extraterrestrial origin. McCafferty (2008) is about the same.

There’s also a suspicious degree of self-citation for a wide range of vital claims. There’s a legitimate time for a lot of self-citation – I’m currently doing scientific research in a sub-sub-subfield where there’s maybe six people working and they are all citing each other and themselves – but this is still sending up red flags. It looks like the authors are just citing themselves for very bold claims that their argument relies on because there isn’t any external corroboration to cite. This is a good example:

because this is a claim I have not seen anywhere else, has very broad relevance in the field of exoplanet research, is very different than every other claim I have seen in the field of exoplanet research, is critical to the argument being made, and is being cited from a paper where three of the five authors are also authors on this paper.

A few citations like this wouldn’t be worrying because researchers do build on their previous work and sometimes they are the ones writing the groundbreaking paper that demonstrates this bold claim. It’s the pattern throughout the paper that’s concerning.

"Thus the possibility that cryopreserved Squid and/or Octopus eggs, arrived in icy bolides several hundred million years ago should not be discounted (below) as that would be a parsimonious cosmic explanation for the Octopus’ sudden emergence on Earth ca. 270 million years ago."

There is no evidence presented for how squid or octopus eggs could survive and be viable after being frozen, transported through space for indefinite periods of time, and then subjected to entry of the meteorite carrying them into Earth’s atmosphere. There’s certainly no evidence presented for assuming that that did happen, even if it could. If Steele et al. (2018) don’t want that possibility to be discounted, then the onus is on them to provide at least some of that evidence.

The defensive attitude against "mainstream science" and constant reminders of cases where theories that seemed crazy turned out to be right is also often a sign of somebody who has a poor argument and knows it. If they actually had the solid evidence to overturn the standing scientific paradigm, they would probably not be wasting paragraphs and paragraphs on "this sounds crazy, but…". (Especially given that this is fairly long for a scientific paper and a lot of that space is this kind of bletherskate rather than the actual science.) Reply Delete