DNA survives critical entry into Earth's atmosphere

[Ichingcarpenter]

The genetic material DNA can survive a flight through space and re-entry into the earth's atmosphere—and still pass on genetic information. A team of scientists from UZH obtained these astonishing results during an experiment on the TEXUS-49 research rocket mission.


Applied to the outer shell of the payload section of a rocket using pipettes, small, double-stranded DNA molecules flew into space from Earth and back again. After the launch, space flight, re-entry into Earth's atmosphere and landing, the so-called plasmid DNA molecules were still found on all the application points on the rocket from the TEXUS-49 mission. And this was not the only surprise: For the most part, the DNA salvaged was even still able to transfer genetic information to bacterial and connective tissue cells. "This study provides experimental evidence that the DNA's genetic information is essentially capable of surviving the extreme conditions of space and the re-entry into Earth's dense atmosphere," says study head Professor Oliver Ullrich from the University of Zurich's Institute of Anatomy.


Spontaneous second mission

The experiment called DARE (DNA atmospheric re-entry experiment) resulted from a spontaneous idea: UZH scientists Dr. Cora Thiel and Professor Ullrich were conducting experiments on the TEXUS-49 mission to study the role of gravity in the regulation of gene expression in human cells using remote-controlled hardware inside the rocket's payload. During the mission preparations, they began to wonder whether the outer structure of the rocket might also be suitable for stability tests on so-called biosignatures. "Biosignatures are molecules that can prove the existence of past or present extraterrestrial life," explains Dr. Thiel. And so the two UZH researchers launched a small second mission at the European rocket station Esrange in Kiruna, north of the Arctic Circle.
DNA survives the most extreme conditions


The quickly conceived additional experiment was originally supposed to be a pretest to check the stability of biomarkers during spaceflight and re-entry into the atmosphere. Dr. Thiel did not expect the results it produced: "We were completely surprised to find so much intact and functionally active DNA." The study reveals that genetic information from the DNA can essentially withstand the most extreme conditions.


http://phys.org/news/2014-11-dna-survives-critical-entry-earth.html

[silverweb]

1. "Father Sky, Mother Earth"

[font color="navy" face="Verdana"]Panspermia: No longer an "indigenous myth," but a valid theory that stands up to scientific scrutiny.

As Dr. Ian Malcolm said, "Life will find a way."

[Ichingcarpenter]

2. Each of these articles posted have links to the papers at the link

1. Origins, Evolution, and Distribution of Life in the Cosmos: Panspermia, Genetics, Microbes, and Viral Visitors From the Stars. Rhawn Joseph, Ph.D.1, and Rudolf Schild, Ph.D.2, 1Emeritus, Brain Research Laboratory, Northern California. 2Center for Astrophysics, Harvard-Smithsonian Cambridge, MA Journal of Cosmology, 2010, Vol 7, 1616-167

2. Mechanisms for Panspermia W. M. Napier, Ph.D., and N. C. Wickramasinghe, Ph.D., Centre for Astrobiology, 2 North Road, Cardiff University, Cardiff CF10 3DY, UK. Journal of Cosmology, 2010, Vol 7, 1671-1691.

3. Are Microbes Currently Arriving to Earth from Space? Milton Wainwright, Ph.D., Fawaz Alshammari, BSc., Khalid Alabri, MSc., Department of Molecular Biology and Biotechnology, University of Sheffield, S102TN, UK Journal of Cosmology, 2010, Vol 7, 1692-1702.

4. Panspermia: Testing for the Interplanetary Transfer of Life Journal of Cosmology, 2010, Vol 7, 1703-1718.

5. Tunguska: Comets, Contagion and the Vernadskiy Mission to NEA 2005NB56 Pushkar Ganesh Vaidya, Indian Astrobiology Research Centre, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India. Journal of Cosmology, 2010, Vol 7, 1719-1725.

6. Purposeful Panspermia: The Other Conquest of Space? Ethical Considerations Jacques Arnould, Ph.D., CNES - French Space Agency, 2 place Maurice Quentin, F-75039 Paris Cedex 01, France. Journal of Cosmology, 2010, Vol 7, 1726-1730.


7. Transfer of Life-Bearing Meteorites from Earth to Other Planets Tetsuya Hara, Ph.D., Kazuma Takagi, Ph.D., and Daigo Kajiura, Ph.D., Department of Physics, Kyoto Sangyo University, Kamigamo Motoyama, Kitaku, Kyoto, 603-8555, Japan. Journal of Cosmology, 2010, Vol 7, 1731-1742.

8. Identification of Micro-biofossils in Space Dust. Noriume Miyake, Ph.D., Max K. Wallis, Ph.D., and Shirwan Al-Mufti, Ph.D., Cardiff Centre for Astrobiology Cardiff CF10 3DY, Wales, UK. Journal of Cosmology, 2010, Vol 7, 1743-1749.

9. Comets and Contagion: Evolution and Diseases From Space. R. Joseph, Ph.D., and N. C. Wickramasinghe, Ph.D., Centre for Astrobiology, 2 North Road, Cardiff University, Cardiff CF10 3DY, UK. Journal of Cosmology, 2010, Vol 7, 1750-1770.

10. The Forgotten History of Panspermia and Theories of Life From Space. Milton Wainwright, Ph.D., and Fawaz Alshammari, BSc., Department of Molecular Biology and Biotechnology, University of Sheffield, S102TN, UK Journal of Cosmology, 2010, Vol 7, 1771-1776.



11. Microbial Survival Mechanisms and the Interplanetary Transfer of Life Through Space. Robert J. C. McLean, Ph.D.1, and Malcolm A. C. McLean2; 1Department of Biology, Texas State University-San Marcos, San Marcos, TX, USA. 2University of Colorado at Boulder, Boulder Colorado, USA Journal of Cosmology, 2010, Vol 7, 1802-1820


Commentaries: Stephen Hawking's Aliens Stephen Hawkings, Ph.D., Cambridge University, UK, has voiced concern about the dangers, he believes, are posed by alien predators who may arrive in giant space ships, to conquer, enslave, destroy, colonize, and voraciously exploit the resources of Earth. A dozen scientists from around the world comment on his fears. Journal of Cosmology, 2010, Vol 7, 1777-1794.

12. Darwinism and Hawking's Aliens. Blair Csuti, Ph.D., Research Associate, Department of Forest Ecosystems and Society, Oregon State University. Journal of Cosmology, 2010, Vol 7, 1778.

13. Alien Conquistadors? Hawking is Right, Robert Ehrlich, Ph.D., Professor of Physics, George Mason University. Journal of Cosmology, 2010, Vol 7, 1779.

14. Hawking's Alien Invaders Might Be Microorganisms, B.G. Sidharth, Ph.D. International Institute For Applicable Mathematics & Information Sciences B.M. Birla Science Centre Adarshnagar, Hyderabad, India. Journal of Cosmology, 2010, Vol 7, 1780.

15. Alien Life and Quantum Consciousness, Randy D. Allen, Ph.D., Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Oklahoma State University. Journal of Cosmology, 2010, Vol 7, 1781.


16. Are Intelligent Aliens a Threat to Humanity? Diseases (Viruses, Bacteria) From Space. Chandra Wickramasinghe, Ph.D., Centre for Astrobiology, Cardiff University, UK. Journal of Cosmology, 2010, Vol 7, 1782-1783.


17. Aliens and Stephen Hawking: The Wisdom Principle. Pushkar Ganesh Vaidya, Indian Astrobiology Research Centre, Mumbai – 400103, Maharashtra, India. Journal of Cosmology, 2010, Vol 7, 1784.


even more at link:


http://journalofcosmology.com/Contents7.html

[silverweb]

4. Thank you!

[font color="navy" face="Verdana"]I'll look up each of these when I get the chance. Fascinating stuff!

Happy Thanksgiving!

[longship]

7. The Journal of Cosmology is a known hack journal.

Sorry.

Journal of Cosmology (Wiki)

The quality of peer review at the journal has been questioned. The journal has also been accused of promoting fringe viewpoints and speculative viewpoints on astrobiology, astrophysics, and quantum physics. Skeptical blogger and biologist PZ Myers said of the journal "... it isn't a real science journal at all, but is the... website of a small group... obsessed with the idea of Hoyle and Wickramasinghe that life originated in outer space and simply rained down on Earth." The journal has responded that the paradigm "life on Earth came from Earth" is like a religious belief.

In particular, Wickramasinghe is heavily invested in panspermia and the Journal of Cosmology. That may not be a bad thing in and of itself. However, no matter what one thinks, it is a theory on the fringe.

[Ichingcarpenter]

8. Yet the discussion is not allowed?

since this discovery shows something amazing?

I consider that close minded

[longship]

9. No, it is allowed.

But the Journal of Cosmology does not publish anything but panspermia articles. That is not in any way typical of science journals. It is, in itself, the definition of close minded.

The journal is known for this, which is why it is not taken seriously by mainstream science.

[eppur_se_muova]

11. Thank you for that information.

This whole "life from space" is wild-eyed speculation at its worst. Any panspermia hypothesis fails to answer a single question that cannot be answered as well, if not better, without it. Worst of all, it provides no explanation for the origin of life -- instead, it requires that the explanation relies on evidence which cannot be accessed from Earth, and thus never proven or disproven. With no testable hypotheses, it doesn't qualify as a "theory". But then, most people don't even realize that a hypothesis is NOT the same as a theory.

[Ichingcarpenter]

12. Yet ..a belief in a single act of spontaneous generation on earth

is the belief of what caused life on earth is not a belief? It still doesn't have a testable hypothesis does it?
We haven't created life yet have we?



The current scientific consensus will have nothing to do with panspermia thinking and resolutely maintains that life arose as a one-off act of spontaneous generation (abiognenesis) at some point in the past. This view has a long history; Robert Chambers in his influential, pre-Darwin book on transmutation (i.e. evolution) of 1845 stated that:

The first step in the creation of life on this planet was the chemico-electric operation by which simple germinal vesicles were produced (Chambers, 1845).

While this view has become the orthodox opinion on the origin of life, Alfred Russel Wallace, whose theory of "natural selection" provided the foundation for Darwinism, took the following, different view:

"I submit that….living protoplasm has never been chemically produced, the assertion that life is due to chemical and mechanical processes alone is quite unjustified. Neither the probability of such an organism nor even its possibility has been supported by anything which can be termed scientific facts or logical reasoning" (Wallace, 1912).
The current popular view of the likely origin of life then depends firmly on a belief in a single act of spontaneous generation; that simple life arose from chemicals here on Earth (they may however originated from space). This proto- life then became more complex, via an evolutionary process explained by the Darwinian and neo-Darwinian syntheses.

However a largely ignored schizophrenic turmoil pervades biology in that while most (but not all) scientists believe that a, one off, act of spontaneous generation created life on Earth in the dim and distant past when conditions differed from what they are at present, these same scientists firmly believe that spontaneous generation is not occurring at the present time. This apparent certainty is however, backed up only by a miss-reading of the experiments and findings of Louis Pasteur in the 1860



I know, I know it all stills begs the question ....... where in the universe did life originate?

Anyway I think evidence is pointing to the universe and not our geocentric views we had in the past
and I welcome this new finding in science that I posted.

[eppur_se_muova]

14. No one believes in that, unless you seriously abuse the word "single" ...

to describe a process which takes place over billions of years, and only has to work occasionally, for success to be realized. That's the whole idea behind emergent complexity -- it's like a ratchet and pawl mechanism that preserves most of whatever progress is made. That way a large number of individually improbable events, over time (not simultaneously) add together to create a class of outcomes which is virtually certain, even when the precise outcome within that class is wholly unpredictable or irreproducible, just as one cannot predict, or repeat, the course of biological evolution, even though it is well documented to occur. Oh, and **NO ONE*** insists it's a one-off process -- quite the contrary, it's generally accepted that complex life *could* emerge in many locations other than Earth. We just happen to KNOW about the one on Earth, but haven't found any others -- an example of the Weak Anthropic Principle, which should not confuse the issue, but which obviously does, for all too many people. Spontaneous, abiotic generation of life could be incredibly rare and unlikely, but that would not in any way constitute evidence against an abiotic origin of life on Earth -- we are blinded by the ultimate observation biases that we only have one biosphere to examine (so far), and if life had not arisen here *somehow*, who would be present to argue over it ?

And while we might not have created full-blown life yet, we have created many of the building blocks of life with far more facility than could ever be achieved in outer space. I see no point in arguing that life somehow spontaneously generated *elsewhere* -- which must surely be an improbable event, if you accept that it was improbable on early Earth -- then somehow managed to migrate to Earth, an even more improbable, and one would think even more likely to be a "one-off", event. Why not settle for one process of low probability, that allowed to steep and simmer for a billion years, becomes highly probable ?

Finally, I'm not sure I would be arguing against an abiotic origin for life on Earth by quoting *anyone* from 1912, however brilliant they might have been. Our knowledge of what is and is not possible has changed immensely in the CENTURY which has passed since then.

Again, what does panspermia explain that cannot be explained without it ? Occam's Razor objects to multiplying hypothesis.

[TRoN33]

10. Amen!

[Enthusiast]

3. How completely amazing!

This changes everything!

Thank you, Ichingcarpenter.

[Hoppy]

5. -- and you stand there, laughing your silly asses off at our fellow citizens who tell us

they are from another galaxy.

Well, the more fool, you.

[Historic NY]

6. They're Here!!!

[bahrbearian]

13. "We are star dust, we are golden"