Reply to commentary by R Duggleby (2019)

Edward J. Steele; Shirwan Al-Mufti; Kenneth A. Augustyn; Rohana Chandrajith; John P. Coghlan; S. G. Coulson; Sudipto Ghosh; Mark Gillman; Reginald M. Gorczynski; Brig Klyce; Godfrey Louis; Kithsiri Mahanama; Keith R. Oliver; Julio Padron; Jiangwen Qu; John A. Schuster; W. E. Smith; Duane P. Snyder; Julian A. Steele; Brent J. Stewart; Robert Temple; Gensuke Tokoro; Christopher A. Tout; Alexander Unzicker; Milton Wainwright; Jamie Wallis; Daryl H. Wallis; Max K. Wallis; John Wetherall; D. T. Wickramasinghe; J. T. Wickramasinghe; N. Chandra Wickramasinghe; Yongsheng Liu

doi:10.1016/j.pbiomolbio.2018.11.002

Reply to commentary by R Duggleby (2019)

Edward J. Steele^*, Shirwan Al-Mufti, Kenneth A. Augustyn, Rohana Chandrajith, John P. Coghlan, S. G. Coulson, Sudipto Ghosh, Mark Gillman, Reginald M. Gorczynski, Brig Klyce, Godfrey Louis, Kithsiri Mahanama, Keith R. Oliver, Julio Padron, Jiangwen Qu, John A. Schuster, W. E. Smith, Duane P. Snyder, Julian A. Steele, Brent J. StewartRobert Temple, Gensuke Tokoro, Christopher A. Tout, Alexander Unzicker, Milton Wainwright, Jamie Wallis, Daryl H. Wallis, Max K. Wallis, John Wetherall, D. T. Wickramasinghe, J. T. Wickramasinghe, N. Chandra Wickramasinghe, Yongsheng Liu

^*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journal › Letter › peer-review

6 Citations (Scopus)

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."

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	74-78
Number of pages	5
Journal	Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology
Volume	141
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pbiomolbio.2018.11.002
Publication status	Published - Jan 2019

Access to Document

10.1016/j.pbiomolbio.2018.11.002

Cite this

Steele, E. J., Al-Mufti, S., Augustyn, K. A., Chandrajith, R., Coghlan, J. P., Coulson, S. G., Ghosh, S., Gillman, M., Gorczynski, R. M., Klyce, B., Louis, G., Mahanama, K., Oliver, K. R., Padron, J., Qu, J., Schuster, J. A., Smith, W. E., Snyder, D. P., Steele, J. A., ... Liu, Y. (2019). Reply to commentary by R Duggleby (2019). Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology, 141, 74-78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pbiomolbio.2018.11.002

@article{f02a0a017c3b4b598adb170776f4fd05,

title = "Reply to commentary by R Duggleby (2019)",

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.{"}",

author = "Steele, {Edward J.} and Shirwan Al-Mufti and Augustyn, {Kenneth A.} and Rohana Chandrajith and Coghlan, {John P.} and Coulson, {S. G.} and Sudipto Ghosh and Mark Gillman and Gorczynski, {Reginald M.} and Brig Klyce and Godfrey Louis and Kithsiri Mahanama and Oliver, {Keith R.} and Julio Padron and Jiangwen Qu and Schuster, {John A.} and Smith, {W. E.} and Snyder, {Duane P.} and Steele, {Julian A.} and Stewart, {Brent J.} and Robert Temple and Gensuke Tokoro and Tout, {Christopher A.} and Alexander Unzicker and Milton Wainwright and Jamie Wallis and Wallis, {Daryl H.} and Wallis, {Max K.} and John Wetherall and Wickramasinghe, {D. T.} and Wickramasinghe, {J. T.} and Wickramasinghe, {N. Chandra} and Yongsheng Liu",

year = "2019",

month = jan,

doi = "10.1016/j.pbiomolbio.2018.11.002",

language = "English",

volume = "141",

pages = "74--78",

journal = "Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology",

issn = "0079-6107",

publisher = "Elsevier Ltd.",

}

Steele, EJ, Al-Mufti, S, Augustyn, KA, Chandrajith, R, Coghlan, JP, Coulson, SG, Ghosh, S, Gillman, M, Gorczynski, RM, Klyce, B, Louis, G, Mahanama, K, Oliver, KR, Padron, J, Qu, J, Schuster, JA, Smith, WE, Snyder, DP, Steele, JA, Stewart, BJ, Temple, R, Tokoro, G, Tout, CA, Unzicker, A, Wainwright, M, Wallis, J, Wallis, DH, Wallis, MK, Wetherall, J, Wickramasinghe, DT, Wickramasinghe, JT, Wickramasinghe, NC & Liu, Y 2019, 'Reply to commentary by R Duggleby (2019)', Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology, vol. 141, pp. 74-78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pbiomolbio.2018.11.002

TY - JOUR

T1 - Reply to commentary by R Duggleby (2019)

AU - Steele, Edward J.

AU - Al-Mufti, Shirwan

AU - Augustyn, Kenneth A.

AU - Chandrajith, Rohana

AU - Coghlan, John P.

AU - Coulson, S. G.

AU - Ghosh, Sudipto

AU - Gillman, Mark

AU - Gorczynski, Reginald M.

AU - Klyce, Brig

AU - Louis, Godfrey

AU - Mahanama, Kithsiri

AU - Oliver, Keith R.

AU - Padron, Julio

AU - Qu, Jiangwen

AU - Schuster, John A.

AU - Smith, W. E.

AU - Snyder, Duane P.

AU - Steele, Julian A.

AU - Stewart, Brent J.

AU - Temple, Robert

AU - Tokoro, Gensuke

AU - Tout, Christopher A.

AU - Unzicker, Alexander

AU - Wainwright, Milton

AU - Wallis, Jamie

AU - Wallis, Daryl H.

AU - Wallis, Max K.

AU - Wetherall, John

AU - Wickramasinghe, D. T.

AU - Wickramasinghe, J. T.

AU - Wickramasinghe, N. Chandra

AU - Liu, Yongsheng

PY - 2019/1

Y1 - 2019/1

N2 - 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."

AB - 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."

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85062910057&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.pbiomolbio.2018.11.002

DO - 10.1016/j.pbiomolbio.2018.11.002

M3 - Letter

SN - 0079-6107

VL - 141

SP - 74

EP - 78

JO - Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology

JF - Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology

ER -

Reply to commentary by R Duggleby (2019)

Abstract

Access to Document

Other files and links

Cite this