Back to Search Start Over

Reply to commentary by R Duggleby (2019)

Authors :
Dayal Wickramasinghe
Brent J. Stewart
Godfrey Louis
Keith R. Oliver
J.T. Wickramasinghe
John A. Schuster
J.D. Wetherall
Yongsheng Liu
N. Chandra Wickramasinghe
Alexander Unzicker
Rohana Chandrajith
J. Wallis
Gensuke Tokoro
Milton Wainwright
Julian A. Steele
William E. Smith
Mark Gillman
Brig Klyce
Reginald M. Gorczynski
Edward J. Steele
S. Al-Mufti
Julio Padron
Duane P. Snyder
Jiangwen Qu
Robert Temple
Max K. Wallis
Kithsiri Mahanama
John P. Coghlan
Stephen G. Coulson
Daryl H. Wallis
Sudipto Ghosh
Christopher A. Tout
Kenneth A. Augustyn
Source :
Progress in biophysics and molecular biology. 141
Publication Year :
2018

Abstract

Duggleby (2018) has made a numerical analysis of some aspects of the wide range of phenomena we reviewed in Steele et al. (2018) and asserted " .that panspermia as proposed by Steele et al. (2018) is extremely implausible.” It seems to us that Duggleby has based his viewpoint on a quite narrow and specific model of Panspermia which he supposes to be active in the cosmos. Here we address both his conclusions and his numerical analysis. Our response therefore will be at two levels, his specific analysis and his general conclusions. In the specific section below we show that while Duggleby's numerical analysis appears in part correct it is, in the final analysis, quite irrelevant to Cosmic Panspermia. In the general response which follows we address his unsupported conclusion throughout his critique, namely that … " none of the examples mentioned by Steele et al. (2018) is decisive enough to allow no other explanation."

Details

ISSN :
18731732
Volume :
141
Database :
OpenAIRE
Journal :
Progress in biophysics and molecular biology
Accession number :
edsair.doi.dedup.....d9d8b336054d50ea1b0bb489e43c2c81