Wells actually wrote about evolution on Mars prior to War of the Worlds, and Wells went on to get a Ph.D. in biology.  In addition to Crowe's book that Daniel Julich mentioned, you might look at my chapter in Dying Planet: Mars in Science and the Imagination (2005), which treats the so-called plurality of worlds debate going back to Huygens and Fontenelle in the 17th century.

You might investigate Michael J. Crowe's book The Extraterrestrial Life Debate, 1750-1900 for help with this question. In particular, the chapter entitled "The Whewell Debate: Pluralism Defended" is of interest for the second half of the 19th century. One quotation from Baden Powell (1796-1860) that Crowe mentions states:

"all astronomical presumption . . . seems to be in favour of progressive order, advancing form the inorganic to the organic, and from the insensible to the intellectual and moral in all parts of the material world alike, though not necessarily in all at the same time or with the same rapidity." (quoted in Crowe, 308-309).

This wasn't in the technical literature, but H.G. Wells (himself a student of T.H. Huxley) discusses the evolutionary heritage of the Martians in The War of the Worlds (1898).

Wells actually wrote about evolution on Mars prior to War of the Worlds, and Wells went on to get a Ph.D. in biology.  In addition to Crowe's book that Daniel Julich mentioned, you might look at my chapter in Dying Planet: Mars in Science and the Imagination (2005), which treats the so-called plurality of worlds debate going back to Huygens and Fontenelle in the 17th century.

To the present we know nothing definite re extra-terrestrial life. It has been argued that if it exists it is likely to only be prokaryote, as a rare (unique?) event of endosymbiosis established eukaryote life. But perhaps the seeds of life (viruses? prokaryotes?) do space travel and establish life on suitable planets, as per Hoyle. Who knows?  

Am not sure about specific works, but I do think searching for material on the history of pangenesis might help ?

Interesting question.  I've long wondered about this.  The closest I can come to answer is Richard Proctor in his ET book.  He takes a broad evolutionary approach but scarcely refers to Darwin.  John Fiske at Harvard may be a case.  I'd be interested in finding out what  you conclude.

This excellent book by NASA historian Steven J. Dick is also a good place to find answers to your question: http://www.amazon.com/The-Biological-Universe-Twentieth-Extraterrestrial/dp/0521343267

Believe Darwin has been disproved by Velikovsky in 1955 (see Earth in upheaval). Epigenetics show, that Lamarck and Velikovsky were right.

Astronomers are frequently wrong about life because of use a plain physical standard model which is not able to explain biological clock, and action of solar activity for example.

Evolution of Homo Sapiens is a pseudoscience. Looking with chemist's eyes, our large brains are not well adapted to astrogeophysical background.

Dear Edward,

it looks like Oparin made a "Miller & Urey's experiment" decades earlier...

"And the student hates to believe that Miller-Urey did not read Oparin's Chapter V: "Origin of Organic Substances Primary Proteins." In this chapter Oparin details experiments which dated from 1904 similar to the 1953 Miller-Urey experiment. 

Alexander Oparin's ORIGIN OF LIFE came out in Russian in 1936, translated and published in English by Macmillan in 1938. The questions Oparin raised way back when are debated in the pages of NATURE today". 

Edward, honestly, Your object looks too exotic for bacterial level of life.

By the way, here is another forgotten man:

Zander was born in Riga, Russian Empire, into a Baltic German family.[1][2] While studying engineering at the Riga Polytechnic Institute, he carried out trajectory calculations for a flight to Mars. Mars held a special fascination to Zander, and "Forward to Mars!" (Вперед, на Марс!) became his famous motto.

on October 4, 1924, Tsander was asked why he wanted to go to the Mars. He replied: "Because it has an atmosphere and ability to support life.

OK.  Core of my speculations is- interactions of spinning liquid celestial bodies makes special case, poorly described by physics. Effects are 1) errors in celestial mechanics calculations (case with underestimated mass of Pluto- we will see in a month), 2) intensive energy exchange, which we can see between Jupiter and Io (electromagnetic effects here are secondary, to my mind) as well as between Saturn and Enceladus (but not frozen Mimas).

So, when Titan was spinning faster, it may well perform like Io today. Question remain- can You prove this.

So- You can in principle experiment with liquids. Adenine synthesis in liquid was very easy, as I remember. Physics dogma do not like that "torsion" fields. You can speak and experiment with two spinning electromagnetic fields. Inspiration can be drawn from sonochemistry. Heavy turbulence of pressurised liquid can add some additional effects.

Good luck!

Actually, Whewell comes very close to a Darwinian idea in "The plurality of Worlds an Essay." If you think its important, i can look it up.

There is a great paper by Michael Crowe on Whewell for now, but it doesn't discuss biology yet: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/zygo.12265/full

The astronomer Camille Flammarion speculated on extraterrestrial life in La Pluralité des Mondes Habités (1862) .