Directed panspermia in the "scientific" literature

[Ernest Major]

It's mentioned in passing in "Beyond Origins: Evolution and Extinction
of humans Unraveling the Remarkable Story of Life's Evolution from
Single-Celled Organisms to Modern Humans"
(https://www.xisdxjxsu.asia/V20I05-17.pdf). Several of the references
look dodgy*, so I wouldn't trust the attribution of this to Lovelock
without verification.

Scare quotes because I don't see why this was publishable even as a
review article.

* This paper came up in a Google Scholar Alert because a paper on the
origins of allotetraploid cotton was in the references, as a citation
for the statement "The study of the evolution of life on Earth is
essential in comprehending the origin of the diverse species that
inhabit our planet today". That's an odd place to cite that particular
claim; I wondered whether it had been stated as a platitude in the
abstract or introduction, but it doesn't appear to have been.

[erik simpson]

Post by Ernest Major
It's mentioned in passing in "Beyond Origins: Evolution and Extinction
of humans Unraveling the Remarkable Story of Life's Evolution from
Single-Celled Organisms to  Modern Humans"
(https://www.xisdxjxsu.asia/V20I05-17.pdf). Several of the references
look dodgy*, so I wouldn't trust the attribution of this to Lovelock
without verification.
Scare quotes because I don't see why this was publishable even as a
review article.
* This paper came up in a Google Scholar Alert because a paper on the
origins of allotetraploid cotton was in the references, as a citation
for the statement "The study of the evolution of life on Earth is
essential in comprehending the origin of the diverse species that
inhabit our planet today". That's an odd place to cite that particular
claim; I wondered whether it had been stated as a platitude in the
abstract or introduction, but it doesn't appear to have been.

A weird paper, from a weird journal. I won't say weird authors, because
I've never heard of them. (Not pejorative; most people have never heard
of me either.) The "directed panspermia" seems to be included for the
sake of presenting all suggested possibilities. "Dodgy" is a good
description.

[Ernest Major]

Post by Ernest Major
It's mentioned in passing in "Beyond Origins: Evolution and Extinction
of humans Unraveling the Remarkable Story of Life's Evolution from
Single-Celled Organisms to  Modern Humans"
(https://www.xisdxjxsu.asia/V20I05-17.pdf). Several of the references
look dodgy*, so I wouldn't trust the attribution of this to Lovelock
without verification.
Scare quotes because I don't see why this was publishable even as a
review article.
* This paper came up in a Google Scholar Alert because a paper on the
origins of allotetraploid cotton was in the references, as a citation
for the statement "The study of the evolution of life on Earth is
essential in comprehending the origin of the diverse species that
inhabit our planet today". That's an odd place to cite that particular
claim; I wondered whether it had been stated as a platitude in the
abstract or introduction, but it doesn't appear to have been.

A weird paper, from a weird journal.  I won't say weird authors, because
I've never heard of them. (Not pejorative; most people have never heard
of me either.)  The "directed panspermia" seems to be included for the
sake of presenting all suggested possibilities.  "Dodgy" is a good
description.

My list of possibilities for the origin of life is considerably longer,
with spontaneous abiogenesis at the top of the list, local panspermia in
a distant second place, and a collection of implausible also runs; if
they were attempting all possibilities they need more imagination.

Looking at the boilerplate immediately before the references I garnered
the impression that the authors are undergraduates at a university in
Pakistan. The subject would be a reasonable topic for an article in a
popular science magazine - I look askance at the anthropocentrism, but I
see how it fits the audience there - but for a scientific journal
there's supposed to be degree of novelty even if it's only the first
assemblage of an overview of results in a field. What gets me is the
failure of the editorial process - it appears to be the house journal of
a Chinese university, not an imprint of a predatory commercial
publisher, and I'd expect quality controls, especially on externally
submitted papers.

[erik simpson]

Post by Ernest Major

Post by Ernest Major
It's mentioned in passing in "Beyond Origins: Evolution and
Extinction of humans Unraveling the Remarkable Story of Life's
Evolution from Single-Celled Organisms to  Modern Humans"
(https://www.xisdxjxsu.asia/V20I05-17.pdf). Several of the references
look dodgy*, so I wouldn't trust the attribution of this to Lovelock
without verification.
Scare quotes because I don't see why this was publishable even as a
review article.
* This paper came up in a Google Scholar Alert because a paper on the
origins of allotetraploid cotton was in the references, as a citation
for the statement "The study of the evolution of life on Earth is
essential in comprehending the origin of the diverse species that
inhabit our planet today". That's an odd place to cite that
particular claim; I wondered whether it had been stated as a
platitude in the abstract or introduction, but it doesn't appear to
have been.

A weird paper, from a weird journal.  I won't say weird authors,
because I've never heard of them. (Not pejorative; most people have
never heard of me either.)  The "directed panspermia" seems to be
included for the sake of presenting all suggested possibilities.
"Dodgy" is a good description.

My list of possibilities for the origin of life is considerably longer,
with spontaneous abiogenesis at the top of the list, local panspermia in
a distant second place, and a collection of implausible also runs; if
they were attempting all possibilities they need more imagination.
Looking at the boilerplate immediately before the references I garnered
the impression that the authors are undergraduates at a university in
Pakistan. The subject would be a reasonable topic for an article in a
popular science magazine - I look askance at the anthropocentrism, but I
see how it fits the audience there - but for a scientific journal
there's supposed to be degree of novelty even if it's only the first
assemblage of an overview of results in a field. What gets me is the
failure of the editorial process - it appears to be the house journal of
a Chinese university, not an imprint of a predatory commercial
publisher, and I'd expect quality controls, especially on externally
submitted papers.

There are a number of gratuitous mistakes in their anthropocentic line.
Many of their dates are seriously wrong, and "pelycosaurs" are at best
stem synapsids and probably paraphyletic. They could have paraphrased a
lot of this from Wikipedia and made a better job. If the authors are
indeed undergrads and this is a group "term paper", I'd give it no more
than C, if that.

[Ernest Major]

Post by erik simpson

Post by Ernest Major

Post by Ernest Major
It's mentioned in passing in "Beyond Origins: Evolution and
Extinction of humans Unraveling the Remarkable Story of Life's
Evolution from Single-Celled Organisms to  Modern Humans"
(https://www.xisdxjxsu.asia/V20I05-17.pdf). Several of the
references look dodgy*, so I wouldn't trust the attribution of this
to Lovelock without verification.
Scare quotes because I don't see why this was publishable even as a
review article.
* This paper came up in a Google Scholar Alert because a paper on
the origins of allotetraploid cotton was in the references, as a
citation for the statement "The study of the evolution of life on
Earth is essential in comprehending the origin of the diverse
species that inhabit our planet today". That's an odd place to cite
that particular claim; I wondered whether it had been stated as a
platitude in the abstract or introduction, but it doesn't appear to
have been.

A weird paper, from a weird journal.  I won't say weird authors,
because I've never heard of them. (Not pejorative; most people have
never heard of me either.)  The "directed panspermia" seems to be
included for the sake of presenting all suggested possibilities.
"Dodgy" is a good description.

My list of possibilities for the origin of life is considerably
longer, with spontaneous abiogenesis at the top of the list, local
panspermia in a distant second place, and a collection of implausible
also runs; if they were attempting all possibilities they need more
imagination.
Looking at the boilerplate immediately before the references I
garnered the impression that the authors are undergraduates at a
university in Pakistan. The subject would be a reasonable topic for an
article in a popular science magazine - I look askance at the
anthropocentrism, but I see how it fits the audience there - but for a
scientific journal there's supposed to be degree of novelty even if
it's only the first assemblage of an overview of results in a field.
What gets me is the failure of the editorial process - it appears to
be the house journal of a Chinese university, not an imprint of a
predatory commercial publisher, and I'd expect quality controls,
especially on externally submitted papers.

There are a number of gratuitous mistakes in their anthropocentic line.
Many of their dates are seriously wrong, and "pelycosaurs" are at best
stem synapsids and probably paraphyletic. They could have paraphrased a
lot of this from Wikipedia and made a better job. If the authors are
indeed undergrads and this is a group "term paper", I'd give it no more
than C, if that.

I concur. The dates are not only often wrong, but are inconsistent
within the paper.