Recently i came across this story from the BBC
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6146292.stm
They claim they have found bacteria in red rain over India that does not have DNA and this supports the panspermia hypothesis. Has anyone followed this story, how legitimate is the claim?
I noticed Milton Waiwright at sheffield University had the samples and in March 2006 said they would announce shortly the results of their studies, but a year later and i cant find out anything.

Previously discussed here and the "general concensus" was not legitimate. I believe there were other threads discussing this, but I'm having rotten luck with the search function.

I am unaware of anything "recent" concerning this.

Let's make a list:

• Red Rain: Extraterrestrial Microbes?
• Story of Red Rain in Kerala, India
• Physicist suggests life from comet
• Mysterious red cells might be aliens
• panspermia or something more mundane?
• Alien Microbes or Cells?
• Red Rain on India: Alien microbes or prosiac explanation?

keywords: red rain kerala india godfrey louis santhosh kumar wickramasinghe alien microbes fungus dust dna

Wikipedia: Red rain in Kerala

__________________
0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0....

The wiki article cites it but here is the paper (pdf) published in Astrophysics and Space Science journal last year.


I think this may well, constitute more evidence for panspermia.

__________________
"Where the telescope ends, the microscope begins. Which of the two has the greater view?" - Hugo

"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened." - Churchill

Unfortunately, this does not seem to be very good evidence. Firstly the coloured rain fell for two months, in a local area, effectively eliminating any possible extraterrestrial origin.
The rain was identified in 2001 (when the spores were still fresh) as red algae of the Trentepolia species.
Although Louis and Kumar were unable to find any DNA in the sample, they subsequently took it to Cardiff University where it was examined by Chandra Wickramasinghe's team, who did find DNA. As is well known, Wickramasinghe is a panspermia advocate; but his team disproved the suggestion that these particles contained no DNA.

That makes three strikes against the extraterrestrial hypothesis; looks unlikely to say the least.

__________________
Orion's Arm . The Starlark . Voices: Future Tense . OA Flickr set

And yet their findings made it through peer review?

__________________
"Where the telescope ends, the microscope begins. Which of the two has the greater view?" - Hugo

"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened." - Churchill

Nope...however it is evidence that you love to "cherry-pick" evidence.

Nothing new there...

More about me, RAF?
That's ad hom, isn't it?

I suggest you get an interdisciplinary science degree and publish some peer review papers to argue against the scientists who, in their work, state:

"The present study of red rain phenomenon of Kerala shows that the particles, which caused the red colouration of the red rain, are not possibly of terrestrial origin. It appears that these particles may have originated from the atmospheric disintegration of cometatory meteor fragments, which are presumably containing dense collections of red rain particles. These particles have much similarity with biological cells though they are devoid of DNA. Are these cell like particles a kind of alternate life from space? If the red rain particles are biological cells and are of cometary origin, then this phenomena
can be a case of cometary panspermia (Hoyle & Wickramasinghe, 1999) were (sic) comets can breed microorganisms in their radiogenically heated interiors and can act as vehicles for spreading life in the universe. Future collaborative studies are expected to provide more answers."


my bold

But of course, I'm "cherry picking."

__________________
"Where the telescope ends, the microscope begins. Which of the two has the greater view?" - Hugo

"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened." - Churchill

You believe that the "peer review" process arrives at correct answers??

So conversely, if something is NOT "peer reviewed", then it cannot be taken seriously, scientifically??

Huh?

Are you serious?

__________________
"Where the telescope ends, the microscope begins. Which of the two has the greater view?" - Hugo

"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened." - Churchill

Peer reviewed or not, the information in Louis and Kumar's paper is out of date. The hypothesis that the red rain could only be caused by extraterrestrial organisms was based on data that suggested the spores in the rain contained no DNA, yet were self replicating.

Subsequent research which I have mentioned disproved that; the spores do, in fact contain DNA. So the paper's hypothesis must, alas, be discarded.

__________________
Orion's Arm . The Starlark . Voices: Future Tense . OA Flickr set

Please provide a similarly published paper and I'll be inclined to dismiss my suggestion that this may constitute evidence for panspermia.


And do you really think 1yr is so "out of date" information?

__________________
"Where the telescope ends, the microscope begins. Which of the two has the greater view?" - Hugo

"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened." - Churchill

The information that is in the paper that states that there is no DNA in the spores is simply wrong; the father of panspermia himself, Chandra Wickramasinghe, allowed his team to test for DNA and they found it. Therefore the hypothesis in the paper is by all appearances wrong.

Here is a report on the red rain from 2001, which shows that the spores were algae
http://www.geocities.com/iamgoddard/Sampath2001.pdf

__________________
Orion's Arm . The Starlark . Voices: Future Tense . OA Flickr set

Well then, let's check with the "father" (though inaccurate) himself:

Analysis of the red rain of Kerala.

"Further work in progress has yeilded positive for DNA using DAPI staining in the cells and daughters. However, this identification is not yet fully confirmed, and might be considered equivocal. We hope to pursue our efforts in extracting DNA (if it exists), amplifying it and carrying out genetic sequencing, but his work takes time."

Hmm...

I don't think it has been shown conclusively either way.

__________________
"Where the telescope ends, the microscope begins. Which of the two has the greater view?" - Hugo

"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened." - Churchill

And no update on that info since March 2006. Stiil, as they say, no news is no news...

__________________
Orion's Arm . The Starlark . Voices: Future Tense . OA Flickr set

Agreed, but the most recent news involves a peer reviewed paper stating explicitly that terrestrial origin is not possible.

Of course, "impossible" I don't agree with ever, so...

panspermia, in my opinion, gains momentum.

__________________
"Where the telescope ends, the microscope begins. Which of the two has the greater view?" - Hugo

"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened." - Churchill

Simple enough question, although I do understand the difficulities you would have in answering it.

You either trust the scientific method or you don't. You can't agree with it only when it "suits you".

Of course, and you'll call into question the preferred method of scientific review when it suits you?

__________________
"Where the telescope ends, the microscope begins. Which of the two has the greater view?" - Hugo

"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened." - Churchill

Why A.DIM...that is exactly what I am referring to when I say that you are "cherry picking".

I'm sorry, RAF, you're hardly making any sense.
What other Science are you talking about exactly from which I am allegedly "cherry picking?"
What is it you'd rather I accept about the red rain?
That it has already been explained and is so easily dismissed?
Why, RAF, that strikes me as entirely pseudoskeptical considering what we've just seen in the peer reviewed lit.

I'm finished for now.

__________________
"Where the telescope ends, the microscope begins. Which of the two has the greater view?" - Hugo

"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened." - Churchill