Pragraph number one has been addressed as flawed logic over and over. Most recently here, here, ", and here, You never address those flaws just repeat the statement in you post above.

In short

1) Hoyle's flu from space data has been dismissed by the medical community for over two decades due no doubt in part to:

a) Their success in tracking actual terrestrial sources and limiting outbreaks.
b) Laboratory work clearly indicating flus natural mutability which eliminates any need for outside sources to explain new strains.

2) Intererstellar travel with no protection would be far more harmful to the DNA of viruses than interplanetary travel inside meteorites would be for bacteria.

3) There is plenty of data indicating Earth life (let alone life adapted to higher radiation levels and temperature extremes) could survive transport by meteorite.

4) The absence of evidence this has occurred in light of 3 is more indicative that there is no life on Mars or that it doesn't survive on arrival than that the transfer can't happen.

5) To use Hoyle's data as support, but reject the far better supported data in 3 is totally scientifically inconsistent.

Try and be scientific for a change Barry and address all 5 points rather than parroting a prewritten reply once again.

The pandemic disease theory is one its promoter states has no direct evidence. As such it has no scientific basis and is merely speculation. McPhee's work has no supportive data other than a few specific species (some very limited and isolated). This is no basis for a mass extinction theory when diseases quite dramatically show species preferences. His data is merely source for speculation while real data on extremophiles shows they are autotrophic not pathogenic. There are many explanations for mass extinctions which are based on observed data rather than speculation.

Hoyle's work has been rejected for good reason as noted above. Your lack of response on that issue has been noticed many times. Just like with the Big Bang, Hoyle was wrong and refused to admit it despite the majority of scientists moving far beyond that debate.

Your inconsistent logic is again evidenced by claiming there is no evidence for transport from Mars while claiming Mass extinctions support Hoyle's work. If these extinctions were caused by alien microbes they could more easily come from Mars than interestellar space. In that case it would be far better to study them under controlled conditions just as we do newly discovered microbes on Earth. The fact that you entertain this line of logic at all despite evidence for other causes of mass extinctions and data on extremophile strongly suggesting they are unlikely to be harmful is curious.

Read some of the numerous Mars Hab articles that have been presented to you many times and talk about the actual experiments done rather than the quality of the simulated suits if you want to talk about quality of science conducted. The suits are part of a sim to develope techniques for operating in spacesuits. The experiments themselves are simply meant to duplicate the types of experiments likely to be done on Mars. Somewhat surprisingly some of the research is original rather than duplicative, but you may not know that because you never talk about anything but the pictures and don't appear to actually read the details.

Regards,
Mark (yet another new post to an old line of Barry's)