Panspermia

[smartie]

<font color="yellow">Will Sir Fred Hoyle be proven right about his controversial theory of Panspermia after the Stardust probe returns its cargo to Earth on the 15th Jan. I for one am confident that there will be a unexpected surprise. </font><br /><br />http://stardust.jpl.nasa.gov/<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panspermia<br /><br />http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/planetearth/flu_in_space_000121.html

 

[yanks1419]

I think there is a very little chance that life came from space. But I guess we will just have to wait until the 15th.

 

[harmonicaman]

I would like to align myself with member <b>YANKS</b> opinion. There is no evidence that Panspermia has ever occurred and I think the concept, although kind of glamorous, is a real long shot.<br /><br />But after saying that, I wouldn't be too amazed if life exists elsewhere in our own Solar System which can trace its origins back to Earth. (Would that be called Terraspermia?)

 

[bonzelite]

i don't think waiting until the 15th is going to garner any definitive answer to panspermia, for or against it.

 

[yanks1419]

You may be right bonzelite. If their is absolutely no evidence to back up an answer to Panspermia, I dont think the scientists who believe in Panspermia will stop beleiving in it. If the evidence from Stardust shows that Panspermia is not real, many people are also going to think that it doesn't exist also. But most likely you are right, there would'nt be a final answer to Panspermia.<br /><br />

 

[bonzelite]

yes. i think even the hardest skeptics of panspermia may in the back of their minds be enamored were it true. who wouldn't? it'd shake the world's idea of itself. <br /><br />what may happen is that we discover --- /> WE, the people of earth, are the ones who are the seeders. we have the seeds RIGHT NOW! it is US. WE are the aliens. WE are the children of the cosmos. why? ---who knows.

 

[smartie]

Did you all know certain viruses can survive in space? Shouldn't we ask ourselves why? Panspermia has not been taken seriously for two reasons. <br /><br />1.Viruses are inert until they are in a host. Ionised plasma may take up this role in space. Planetary nebula, solar wind and comets contain ionised plasma. Ionised plasma displays living characteristics. <br /><br />http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn4174<br /><br />2. We have never obtained samples from space. But then material from a comet has never been obtained before. <br /><br />Lets just hope the samples from Stardust are not lost or contaminated.<br /><br /><br /><br />

 

[alokmohan]

Amino acids are available plenty in space.These are life building elements.

 

[bonzelite]

yes, but it's too bad that people who think like you are considered ******** and lost in a fantasy world, and you are probably illiterate, have leprosy, and are uneducated. how dare you have an imagination. stop that at once. cease. <br /><br />i have leprosy and am stupid, too. i think i'm going to flog my naked back with a cat-o-nine tails. i'll check back in later and let you know how much i bled and scarred myself. <br /><br />

 

[mcbethcg]

Radiation sterilization, anyone?<br /><br />I seriously doubt that a virus or any other life form could survive in the high radiation environment of space for many years at all.

 

[bonzelite]

but what if the stuff was protected from the radiation? like how when you go to the dentist for xrays they put that lead blanket over you.

 

[alokmohan]

That is one of the things under study.

 

[smartie]

viruses are hardy things anyway. But remember life can adapt to nearly any enviroment. Plants still grow around the chenobyl nuclear reactor you know. I suppose with your reasoning, a scientist who had never seen an ocean would assume nothing could live in it.... all life would drown he would say.

 

[CalliArcale]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>It would have to be buried quite deeply within a sizable chunk of rock to be protected against high-energy cosmic rays. Putting this condition upon it makes the feasibility of Panspermia more complicated, and less likely. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Or it would have to be better at enduring the radiation than life on Earth is currently (which suggests that either terrestrial life originated independently, or somehow evolved away most of the traces of that talent). Or it could've simply been so numerous that it wouldn't matter if most of the organisms died. Send out enough seeds and it doesn't matter if they are all strong enough to endure, as long as some of them get lucky. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[smartie]

9 November 2005<br /> Lichens survive in space aboard ESA's Foton M-2 mission launched into low-Earth orbit by a Russian Soyuz rocket, 31 May. After reaching orbit, the Biopan facility containing the lichens opened to expose them to the vacuum, radiation and wide temperature fluctuations of space for 14.6 days. It closed again for reentry and landing by parachute. The samples were examined at the ESA research facility in Noordwijk, the Netherlands. The survival rate exceeded 90% and photosynthesis was not impaired, according to the scientist in charge of the experiment, Leopoldo García Sancho of the Complutense University of Madrid. The results "would support the theory of panspermia," he said

 

[mcbethcg]

Radiation breaks molecular bonds and moves some atoms from where they need to be in an organism or virus.<br /><br />Radiation rarely even converts some elements into other elements.<br /><br />In a active living organism, this does not matter much, since the survival strategy is to either heal after damage or to reproduce prior to such damage.<br /><br />I dont see how such organisms could be anything but dormant in space, since there would be no liquids to provide lubrication or as a medium for the movement of lifegiving nutrients or biological processes.<br /><br />A dormant lifeform would be most easily harmed by radiation, because it would neither be able to heal or reproduce.<br />

 

[CalliArcale]

Or it would have to be able to detect the damage upon revival and correct it then. Computers have means of detecting and fixing corrupted data, so it should be possible with DNA as well -- the same principles could be applied. Or at least correct it enough that it still functions, even if it's not the same organism it was before it went into a cyst state (the hibernatory state for a single-celled organism).<br /><br />Personally, I favor the "insanely large number of seeds" idea more; it's been successfully exploited in so many terrestrial situations that it seems plausible. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[toymaker]

'it would have to be buried quite deeply within a sizable chunk of rock to be protected against high-energy cosmic rays.''<br />Its actually quite common. Endoliths are that type of creature.<br />Also I wonder how water or ice could effect such radiation.<br />There is also Deinococcus radiodurans<br />http://web.umr.edu/~microbio/BIO221_2000/Deinococcus_radiodurans.html<br />With the above serving as informative background reference, one may now examine the intriguing array of captivating features that D. radiodurans have to offer. Among the many characteristics of D. radiodurans, a few of the most noteworthy include an extreme resistance to genotoxic chemicals, oxidative damage, high levels of ionizing and ultraviolet radiation, and dehydration. The ability to survive such extreme environments is attributed to D. radiodurans ability to repair damaged chromosomes. It is known that heat, dehydration and radiation causes double-strand breaks in chromosomal DNA. D. radiodurans will repair these chromosome fragments, usually within 12-24 hours, using a two-system process with the latter being the most crucial method. Initially, D. radiodurans use a process called single-strand annealing to reconnect some chromosome fragments. Next, D. radiodurans use a process known as homologous recombination, where a modified yet efficient RecA protein patches double-strand breaks. RecA protein works by cutting usable DNA from another molecule and inserting it into the damaged strand. However, these repair methods alone are not unique to D. radiodurans, which therefore cannot account for its radiation resistance. The aforementioned statement has led scientists to propose the "Life Saver" hypothesis. The hypothesis states, that in order to speed homologous recombination, D. radiodurans align copies of its genome so that identical DNA sequences are near each other. This proposal is now entirel

 

[bonzelite]

<font color="yellow">I dont see how such organisms could be anything but dormant in space, since there would be no liquids to provide lubrication or as a medium for the movement of lifegiving nutrients or biological processes. <br /><br />A dormant lifeform would be most easily harmed by radiation, because it would neither be able to heal or reproduce. </font><br /><br />you have a good point and then one that could be revisited: <br /><br />i somewhat agree about dormancy. but in a pro-dormancy, pro-survival way: this hibernative quality may be a means of interstellar protection for the transport of life. seeds, for example, have been planted after 2000 years and have grown into palm trees. of course gamma ray exposure in outer space is much harsher. <br /><br />yet i see no reason to prohibit, despite no evidence whatsover, seeds or spores or cells from remaining dormant for centuries, for aeons, and then stirring to life --today, this is science fiction. but could be plausible. there is no crime in entertaining the idea and acting upon searching for it. this is how all pioneering begins: there is an idea. and it is pursued. <br /><br />panspermia is far more plausible, to me, than is the loch ness monster or the abominable snowman. and yet people organize regularly to find these beasts. recently was discovered soft tissue of tyranosaurus. no conclusive DNA evidence is present, as the tissue is highly altered, but that discovery is earth-shattering. this is soft tissue. not rock. and it has survived millions of years of geologic entrapment. <br /><br />it is not "alive." i know. but i'm making a case for survivability of soft tissue, of organic material that is literally alive, for millions of years. there is no evidence of course. but if we ceased curiosity and pursuit of answers simply because there is no extant evidence, then there would never be any evidence of anything, as nothing would be searched for.

 

[CalliArcale]

Yes, it does tend to sound like an organism totally unlike anything currently living on Earth, doesn't it? Which would seem to imply that either its descendents did an awful lot of evolving (and on a more fundamental level than has been observed in the fossil record), or life on Earth arose independently of any alien life, even if panspermia does occur elsewhere in the Universe.<br /><br />But it's not impossible. Impossible to test without getting really lucky at some point, but just sufficiently plausible that it makes for some very fun speculation. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br />The British sci-fi sitcom Red Dwarf had an interesting take on the idea of panspermia. It's not obvious unless you watch a lot of episodes, but the writers created it with two constraints: there is no God, and life only arose once in the entire history of the Universe: on Earth. Three million years in the future, our dubious heros encounter what seem to be aliens but are in fact the traces of human expansion across the Universe -- there has been a sort of reverse panspermia, with life starting here and then moving out as human technology gave it the opportunity to do so. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[smartie]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>14 days in space is not the 10's of thousands of years needed to get from stellar system to stellar system at escape velocity speeds. Nor did the article discuss viability, for that matter. <br /><br />It's ludicrous to believe that 2 weeks of 'space exposed" lichen, unconfirmed, constitutes a serious test for panspermia, any more than staying underwater for 7' without breathing means it can be done for years, for that matter. <br /><br />If viability (continuing living with reproduction) can be shown after 100's/1000's of years in hostile space environs, then that's a good piece of evidence. <br /><br />The above is evidence of one thing only, wishful thinking unsupported by the evidence. <br /><br />Sorry, but a dot of cheese is NOT a cheese pizza. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Your reaction is interesting. Are you a spiritualist with strong beleifs? Would such a discovery not be in accordance with your beleifs? It certainly is not a balanced open minded view.<br /> Of course14 days is not sufficient, but it is a start. What it does prove is that certain lifeforms can survive unprotected in space for a while. If the litchens had been killed off then this would of supported your view more... but they didn't die. <br /> To prove the Panspermia theory is I think actually straight forward, but it is a very difficult task technically. The Stardust probe has the ability to settle the argument. Lets prey that it survives re-entry.

 

[toymaker]

''I can see this possibly working for organisms moving between planets within a solar system''<br />Its called exogenesis. I personally view this as interesting to speculation about potential exchange of life between objects in our Solar System.

 

[yanks1419]

Stardust...............comes....................in....................a.......................couple...............of.......................hours................., can.................u.......................wait?............... I know i cant.

 

[smartie]

<br />YYYYYYYYYEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!<br /><br />We done it! Now lets prove whether I and Sir Fred Hoyle are right or wrong about Panspermia. Anybody fancy helping Nasa speed up the process?<br /><br />http://stardust.jpl.nasa.gov/home/index.html<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />