FACT CANNON: Blowing big holes in entrenched thinking.
Evolution From Space
Hopefully you’ve all read FACT CANNON #5: The Origin of Life – Panspermia and Cosmic Ancestry, which gives an overview of Sir Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe’s wonderful 1981 book ‘Evolution From Space’. This arresting book gives an engrossing and highly plausible explanation of cometary panspermia, the mechanism which may have spread life across the universe at large. It also explains how inter-related this unimaginable multitude of life forms is likely to be.
As I said in that post, I’ve done some of my own internet research on panspermia, mainly to satisfy my own curiosity around the topic, although it’s also been interesting to see how well new evidence has stacked up in support of Hoyle & Wickramasinghe’s hypothesis over the intervening years.
Spoiler alert: Yes, it’s rather well!
The bulk of this post is about research into extremophiles that has taken place since the book was published, as I believe this is the area that lends the greatest weight to the hypothesis. As far as I can tell, the information presented here is generally established fact, although some is a little controversial, but it should all be verifiable from internet searches or the links I’ve provided.
Terrestrial Extremophiles
In line with Hoyle and Wickramasinghe, my understanding is that natural selection will only give rise to adaptations that give a survival advantage in an organism’s current environment. I don’t think there’s anything controversial in this statement, but I’m open to correction here. Anyway, on this basis any particular ability or characteristic expressed by a species means that at some stage that animal must have lived in an environment that requires those characteristics for survival. This got me thinking about extremophiles. For me, these creatures, when viewed alongside the supremely well-established theory of natural selection, are a very firm indication of the reality of panspermia.
Simply put, and in the words of Wikipedia, an extremophile is an organism that thrives in physically or geochemically extreme conditions that are detrimental to most other life on Earth. Wikipedia lists 18 subcategories of extremophile organism, including:
• Cryptoendoliths (live in rocks)
• Hyperthermophiles and Psychrophiles (can survive extremes of hot and cold)
• Oligotrophs (can live with very little nutrient material)
• Piezophiles (live under high pressure)
• Radioresistant organisms (can tolerate high levels of ionising radiation)
• Xerophiles (live in extremely dry conditions)
These are often micro-organisms, e.g. bacteria or archaea, but also sometimes lichen, fungi or the perennial favourite, tardigrades. All have evolved to be able to colonise radical terrestrial environments where few other species can survive. They show us that life can get a foothold absolutely anywhere, from solid rock miles underground, to super-heated, 121°C water in the walls of deep sea hydrothermal vents. They can be buried deep in multi-millennia old Greenland glaciers, thrive in the driest deserts, and in the highly pressurised and nutrient poor waters of Lake Vostok miles beneath the surface of Antarctica.
We also have radiation resistant plants, worms and insects thriving on a uranium-rich hillside in Brazil; and, more remarkable still, fungi feasting on radiation in the melted down reactor core of the Chernobyl nuclear power plant.
Extremophiles In Space
Although the capabilities of the extremophiles discussed above illustrate the remarkable tenacity and near ubiquity of life on Earth, our real interest is in organisms that are able to survive in environments not found on this planet. Some examples:
• Streptococcus Mitis
Although controversial, NASA reported that this organism, which is normally found in your mouth, survived for 3 years on the surface of the moon in a colony on the camera of the Surveyor 3 probe, which was brought back to Earth for examination by the Apollo 12 mission in 1971.
• OU-20 Sample Bacteria, aka the Beer Bacteria
Taken from a cliff in Devon, England, in 2010, these bacteria survived for 553 days on the outside of the International Space Station as part of the ESA BIOPAN research program. They would have been exposed to extreme shifts in temperature, cosmic rays and unshielded ultraviolet light, hard vacuum, and as a consequence total dehydration. Not an environment generally experienced on Earth, even during a British summer!
• Thermoanaerobacter siderophilus
This bacteria was used by Russian scientist Alexander Slobodkin to understand whether bacteria can survive re-entry into a planetary environment. Colonies of the bacteria were embedded in centimetre thick basalt discs which were fixed onto the outside of the Foton-M4 space probe launched in 2014. Reportedly the bacteria remained viable after 45 days in orbit and re-entry at a velocity comparable to that attained by meteorites, reaching temperatures high enough to actually melt the basalt.
• Bacillus Sphaericus
In 1995, Borucki and Cano reportedly extracted viable bacterial spores related to Sphaericus from the gut of an extinct bee embedded in Dominican amber aged between 25 and 40 million years. On a similar note, bacterial spores in excess of 250 million years old have also been reportedly extracted and cultured from salt crystals extracted from the air intake shaft of the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in New Mexico, 609 metres below ground level. This extreme longevity would be extremely useful for anything floating in interstellar space for countless millennia.
So, we are already aware of numerous organisms that could survive in environments in outer space and on other planetary bodies within the solar system, which could also survive the extreme heat experienced in atmospheric re-entry and the physical extremes that would be experienced during a meteor impact event of sufficient force to eject planetary material into space. See Wikipedia ‘List of microorganisms tested in outer space’ for more examples.
All these species are living here on Earth where many of these environments do not exist, and, very importantly, have never existed. So, using just the theory of natural selection, it is not such a stretch to infer that they have the capability to survive in these environments for the very reason that their survival as a species has depended upon adaption to these environments in the past. On this basis wouldn’t it be reasonable to propose that these organisms have very likely evolved on other planetary bodies or in space where these conditions do exist, and that either the organisms, or their genetic material, have arrived on Earth via cometary seeding or meteoric impact? It seems likely that space is permeated with unimaginably colossal clouds of these tiny packages, supremely well evolved to carry their cargo of genes to the edges of the universe.
Paracoccus Denitrificans
The jewel in the crown of this train of thought is Paracoccus Denitrificans.
Paracoccus Denitrificans has recently been tested for its resistance to extreme gravity. This was performed in 2011 using an ultra-centrifuge in a Japanese lab, by Deguchi and Shimoshige. It seems that P Denitrificans can survive gravity more than 400,000 times that found on earth, and remarkably it is also able to exhibit cellular growth under these conditions. These are gravitational conditions found on sub-stellar objects, or in the shock waves experienced by planets vaporised by supernovae. Perhaps P Denitrificans has been propelled across the depths of interstellar space, from star system to star system, at around 10% of the speed of light, borne along on the bow wave of a detonated star. What is even more mind-blowing about P Denitrificans, is that it is a candidate for being the originator of mitochondria, the tiny power plants that provide energy in the cells of most living organisms.
In case you were wondering whether material from supernovae ever reaches the Earth, scientists from the University of Munich have recently detected Iron-60 ejected from supernovae in deep-sea sediment in the Pacific Ocean. See Near-Earth Supernova.
So You Still Believe Life Originated On Earth? Really?
Obviously this evidence is heavily in favour of Hoyle and Wickramasinghe’s hypothesis of cometary panspermia. But let’s put this to one side for a minute, and consider a different problem. Conventional science tells us that abiogenesis, the emergence of life from non-living material, occurred on ancient Earth. Putting aside Hoyle’s objection to the extreme unlikelihood of abiogenesis actually happening anywhere at all in the universe, I have a major problem with the supposition that an event of this magnitude would ‘just happen’ to take place solely on our planet. In a ‘warm little pond’, or maybe at a hydrothermal vent, or deep underground, on Earth. Earth, which is one of 20 or so potential candidate planetoids in our solar system, itself one of 250 billion star systems in the Milky Way, itself one of 150 billion galaxies in the universe. Hmmm… Now you put it that way, taking into account the pure unlikelihood, and all of the extremophile evidence set out above, it does seem just a touch unlikely… Just a little bit like ‘the Sun goes around the Earth’. Wouldn’t it take some pretty strong faith, almost at religious levels, to believe something so improbable?
Interestingly, recent research has suggested that the LUCA (Last Universal Common Ancestor) of all life on Earth, the organism that we have all descended from, was likely very closely related to a thermophile Clostridium bacteria (itself an extremophile) that probably lived in an extreme environment around a hydrothermal vent. So did this appear via auto-evolution of self replicating molecules leading to an improbable abiogenesis on Earth, or did it arrive via cometary delivery, as a bootstrap for life on the planet - a gift from a universe already crawling with life? The truth is that we don't know yet, but new evidence is arriving all the time, and the cometary panspermia hypothesis is looking increasingly compelling.
Final Thoughts
Ok, I’m going to stop here for now. I’ve got quite a few more thoughts on this subject that delve a little deeper into the realms of conjecture, but I’m going to save that for a follow up post which won't be for a couple of weeks for reasons beyond my control. In the meantime, you might want to give ‘Evolution From Space’ a read, or check out Chandra Wickramasinghe’s excellent 2014 book ‘The Search For Our Cosmic Ancestry’. I’ve now read about half of this book, and it gives a much more thorough update of the many advances in supporting evidence. I’ve really just scratched the surface here.
Anyway, let me know how you feel about this post. Your feedback is always very much appreciated.
Inspiration:
‘Evolution From Space’ – Sir Fred Hoyle & Chandra Wickramasinghe
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panspermia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hoyle
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chandra_Wickramasinghe
Previous editions of FACT CANNON:
FACT CANNON #5: The Origin of Life on Earth – Panspermia and Cosmic Ancestry
FACT CANNON #4: Pholcus – The Other People Who Live In Your House
FACT CANNON #3: The Sad Tale of Paul The Psychic Octopus
FACT CANNON #2: How Frankenstein Was Born In The Fiery Heart of A Super Volcano
FACT CANNON #1: Romanesco Broccoli, A Reality-Bending Vegetable
Image Credits: All images released free of copyrights under Creative Commons CC0 from Pixabay
If you enjoyed this edition of FACT CANNON, please upvote, comment, share and follow me. If you do maybe I’ll write some more!
I still like the read and have no attachment to any specific theories, I simply follow the logic and question it at the same time, leaving the paradigm open to movement and change, as well as a healthy dose of uncertainty caused by the permanent mysteries of life itself. Namaste :)
Now that I really do agree with... Nice one!
An overlooked post on the same topic: The Death of Darwinism Part I: Behe’s 2nd and Joseph Too
Thanks very much for this link, thoroughly recommended for anyone interested in this topic.
Was going to comment on your post but can't. Guess it might be too old? Anyway fantastic stuff, will check out the books and completely agree with your conclusions- that's where my next post was going.
You and I are thinking along very similar lines. Perhaps it's something in our DNA? ;-)
This post has been linked to from another place on Steem.
Learn more about and upvote to support linkback bot v0.5. Flag this comment if you don't want the bot to continue posting linkbacks for your posts.
Built by @ontofractal
The evidence just isn't there to support this theory yet. I disagree today as I did yesterday.
I thought you might say that! :-)
To be fair the evidence is as strong for this as it is for any alternative hypothesis, and while that's the case it's just a balance of probabilities, although I believe the evidence is mounting for panspermia. I think I said that in the article...
So you're welcome to disagree that it's yet a fully proven theory - so long as you concede that there is no fully proven alternative theory either!
Cheers for reading and commenting, appreciate it!
Actually, there is 'no evidence' for any hypothesis so far, at least to my knowledge. The word 'evidence' has a very well defined ground in science, and this does not apply here.
Ok, I'll bite... Why's that?
I would think that Slobodkin's experimental proof of bacteria surviving terrestrial atmospheric re-entry (see link above) would count as pretty reasonable supporting evidence for the hypothesis of cometary panspermia? Am I missing something?
Slobodkin's experiment does not demonstrate panspermia. That's it. It only proves what you said: bacteria can survive entering the atmosphere. Even if you may need this for panspermia, it does not imply panspermia.
PS: there is no need to bite, we can just talk. This will be fine ^^
I agree, it doesn't demonstrate panspermia - I didn't say it proved it, just supported it. It certainly makes it more probable - see my answer to justtryme90 below. Are we arguing about words here?
It's the weight of convergent supporting 'evidence' or ('data' if you prefer) that's starting to tip the likelihood of panspermia as a realistic explanation for the phenomenon of life on Earth. Isn't this sort of consilience the main thing that holds up the theory of evolution itself?
Anyway, don't worry about biting - just a figure of speech! Have had a quick look at your blog and can see you have an aversion to vampires (Dracula anyway)! :-)
It's good supporting evidence that bacteria can survive entry into the atmosphere, but doesn't at all support that life here began that way.
Its an example of If A = B and B = C then A = C. But that isn't necessarily true you know ;)
Come on now... Granted it doesn't prove it, but it does support it.
Let's assume for the sake of argument that bacteria were proven to be unable to survive re-entry (I know thats not going to happen - this is a logical point) then that would absolutely refute panspermia. Well this experiment has proved that that's not the case, so the argument for panspermia is strengthened as a significant obstacle has been removed. And in any case, the central point here is that the bacteria would not have that capability if it hadn't been selected for - on that basis this bug has had a fairly traumatic history in one way or another.
Re your equation... It's true in my universe! :)
In science, an evidence is a proof. We do not have a proof/evidence here. Words have their importance.
I agree that this is a steemit post and not a thesis, but do you really need to have your title wrong to attract votes? Remember you are posting in the #science category...
Of course, there is no definitive proof for any other prevailing evolutionary theory dealing with the start of life. Your title just reads a bit misleading to me "it-s-looking-like-we-really-did-come-from-space" Its not looking like that at all to me :)
But its going to take a lot to fully convince me in any direction. Skepticism is a strong component in science.
Respect for your scepticism, and I fully agree. I treated the 'Evolution From Space' book in much the same way. Over the last couple of months I've also read CW's 'Where Did We Come From?' as I needed more convincing of his credentials. I read neo-darwinist Richard Dawkins latest 'The Ancestor's Tale' specifically to see if I could find anything to contradict, or contradicted by 'Evolution From Space'. I couldn't. I did my own research, (carefully) on the net, hence this article. I drew the line at reading the Genesis to get the creationist viewpoint, but then I will admit to having a little bias!
Once again, I'll recommend you have a look at CW latest, 'Search For Our Cosmic Ancestry'. I'd be interested whether your scepticism takes you down the same path mine took me... ;-)
And yes, the title is a bit provocative... But then this is Steem, not a thesis, and I want people to read it :-)
yes fascinating subject !! thanks for the great dream of space and innumerable possibilities and realities ) upvoted and resteemed !
Thankyou very much!
Glad you're enjoying it. Yep, we really are in the infancy of our understanding of the universe, and that's what makes new breakthroughs so fascinating. Exciting times!
Another well researched and very engaging article! I am not new to the concept of Panspermia but I have also read ‘Evolution from Space’ and found it to be both fascinating and entertaining - and would recommend it to anyone interested in this subject. My understanding is that natural selection is the main driving force of evolution and that with few exceptions this process favours characteristics which are immediately beneficial to the survival of a species within its current environment. So surely the evidence relating to the ability of various extremophiles to exist in conditions which are either rare or nonexistent on Earth presents two alternative options; 1) either these organisms evolved as a result of selection pressures in an environment other than Earth or 2) the theory of natural selection is wrong - in which case what alternative theory is there to account for the main driving force of evolution?! Answers on a postcard please!!!
Glad you liked it, and thanks for your support! You should definitely have a look at 'Search for Our Cosmic Ancestry' if you haven't already.
And yes, agree completely. I believe there is an alternative theory to evolution - but let's not go there... :-)
This is all so interesting to me. Just like Moby said, "We are all made of stars". This sounds more plausible to me than life just coming into being, but now we have a new problem of from where and how and when did the first life begin. Who knows, maybe our curiosity for our origin will help boost our space efforts.
Excellent, very glad you're interested. I think its an important topic for humanity just now.
Well, nobody's saying abiogenesis didn't happen at all, I'm just saying I don't think it happened on Earth - or not just on Earth anyway. Let's propose that life did arise in an evolutionary process of natural selection acting on self-replicating, self-complicating molecules. If this happened then either
a) It's not an unlikely process. In this case it may have happened on Earth, but will also have happened all over the rest of the universe as well. Therefore life will be widespread in the universe. Or...
b) It's extremely unlikely to happen like this. If that's the case, it would only have had to happen once in the universe (without a doubt NOT on Earth), but has then been spread here by panspermia. Once agin - life is widespread in the universe.
And that's what I find exciting - either way the universe is teeming with life.
There may of course be other explanations, but that's for another day!
Yes, absolutely we need to be out there in space finding answers to this stuff!
Cheers for your response!
Hey @matrioshka, good post. I'm a new Steemian and recently signed up. It would be great if you could take a minute to look at my blog and follow me if you enjoy reading my content. Much appreciated!
Congratulations @matrioshka! You have received a personal award!
Click on the badge to view your Board of Honor.
Do not miss the last post from @steemitboard:
SteemitBoard World Cup Contest - Semi Finals - Day 1
Participate in the SteemitBoard World Cup Contest!
Collect World Cup badges and win free SBD
Support the Gold Sponsors of the contest: @good-karma and @lukestokes