This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Panspermia article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3 |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
Of possible interest --
In any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan ( talk) 14:12, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
The Article "Electromagnetic space travel for bugs?" on New Scientist is now reachable here -- Hartmann Schedel cheers 15:01, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
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:
and
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)
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)
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 [1], 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. [2] [3] [4] This claim has been criticized, in particular, by biologist PZ Myers in Pharyngula. [5] As the authors respond in their blog, [6] 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. [7] 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 - /info/en/?search=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)
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)
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)
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)
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. [1] [2] - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan ( talk) 13:02, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
References
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link)
Drbogdan ( talk) 13:02, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
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)
My edits were reverted. https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Panspermia&oldid=prev&diff=1180332554
The reason given is that it is "fringe".
1. Being fringe does not automatically disqualify content. See /info/en/?search=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'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)
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)
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)
New studies (2/18/2024) [1] [2] 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
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)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Panspermia article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3 |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
Of possible interest --
In any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan ( talk) 14:12, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
The Article "Electromagnetic space travel for bugs?" on New Scientist is now reachable here -- Hartmann Schedel cheers 15:01, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
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:
and
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)
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)
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 [1], 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. [2] [3] [4] This claim has been criticized, in particular, by biologist PZ Myers in Pharyngula. [5] As the authors respond in their blog, [6] 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. [7] 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 - /info/en/?search=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)
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)
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)
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)
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. [1] [2] - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - Drbogdan ( talk) 13:02, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
References
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link)
Drbogdan ( talk) 13:02, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
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)
My edits were reverted. https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Panspermia&oldid=prev&diff=1180332554
The reason given is that it is "fringe".
1. Being fringe does not automatically disqualify content. See /info/en/?search=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'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)
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)
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)
New studies (2/18/2024) [1] [2] 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
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)