intriguing possibilities

[Brian W (Brian)]

As the poster on another list said this claim needs to be seriously studied but if it is true it is remarkable.
Brian

http://journalofcosmology.com/Life100.html

[CraigS]

Hmm … very interesting.

Seems to be a legitimate study …

Seems we may be hearing more about this one shortly ..

Members of the Scientific community were invited to analyze the results and to write critical commentaries or to speculate about the implications. These commentaries will be published on March 7 through March 10, 2011.
…
Official Statement from Dr. Rudy Schild,
Center for Astrophysics, Harvard-Smithsonian,
Editor-in-Chief, Journal of Cosmology.

Dr. Richard Hoover is a highly respected scientist and astrobiologist with a prestigious record of accomplishment at NASA. Given the controversial nature of his discovery, we have invited 100 experts and have issued a general invitation to over 5000 scientists from the scientific community to review the paper and to offer their critical analysis. Our intention is to publish the commentaries, both pro and con, alongside Dr. Hoover's paper. In this way, the paper will have received a thorough vetting, and all points of view can be presented. No other paper in the history of science has undergone such a thorough analysis, and no other scientific journal in the history of science has made such a profoundly important paper available to the scientific community, for comment, before it is published. We believe the best way to advance science, is to promote debate and discussion.

Wow .. stay tuned, folks !!

Cheers

[mswhin63 (Malcolm)]

A scientist asking for other to evaluate his findings is a true scientist. I don't fully understand the findings but looks interesting.

[ngcles]

Hi Brian & All,

An interesting commentary on this finding:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2...ver_bacter.php

that explodes its veracity.


Best,

Les D

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by ngcles

Hi Brian & All,

An interesting commentary on this finding:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2...ver_bacter.php

that explodes its veracity.


Best,

Les D

Thank Les …… don't know what we'd do without you ..

I didn't get chance to look closely at the report yesterday.

I don't know anything about the "Journal of Cosmology".

Now I do.

Thanks again, Cheers

[mswhin63 (Malcolm)]

By the way he writes, his head is about to explode. Very quick to debunk, but believe there maybe some professional animosity there. I do not fully understand the writing but I do understand the way he has written it.

Is this the the way to respond/debunk to a scientific journal entry " No no no no no no no:

[Brian W (Brian)]

Indeed, thanks Les, Maybe next time...,

Brian

[CraigS]

The paper looks fairly legitimate, though ..

Cheers

[renormalised (Carl)]

The finding is most likely bogus (in this instance) however, there are some good points brought up in the paper. Though, the "journal" it supposedly was published in looks more like another "advert" for one particular person's ramblings than anything else.....much like the EU's websites and literature.

One thing....never take the word of anyone doing science at face value, even if they're right. P.Z. Meyers maybe a biologist and an associate professor but that doesn't make him right in everything he says. Doesn't even mean his opinion should be taken as gospel. Unfortunately, that blog is rife with the usual followers and hangers-on that just regurgitate the party line (whether some are actually scientists or not). Then when you get others coming on that try to argue/debate counter to the prevailing opinion, the whole lot descends into the usual sniping, knifing and name calling nonsense which makes me want to puke and why I normally don't frequent places like that. You could cut the ego and vanity there with a chainsaw, let alone a knife.

Ultimately, they only way a question like this can be answered is with doing the proper research and leave the opinion and diatribe to the pages of those tomes which deal with this, or to the mindless drivel which comes out of many TV "news" services these days.

[mswhin63 (Malcolm)]

The site only showing a scientific document to support their own reporting. The paper is most probably located somewhere else officially.

[renormalised (Carl)]

The paper doesn't appear in any of the other journals, nor does it appear in any of the archives (Google Scholar, arXiv.org etc)

I would've much preferred it to have appeared in Science, Nature or one of the more respected astronomical journals, as that may lend some weight to the contents of the article, even if it had've been refuted.

[ngcles]

Hi All,

Yes well I'd agree the blog entry is a conspicuously vitriolic attack on the site and the paper -- unusual but not unknown. One or few people here from time to time have been just as scathing on Electric Universe and Nibiru.

Maybe the blog writer has an agenda, maybe he is correct and making a forceful point. All by itself, that attack is not capable of rendering the original conclusion completely nugatory, but for me it does raise a very substantial quesion mark.

Certainly enough that it'd be irresponsible to treat any of its conclusions as fact unless further inquiry reveals more evidence to verify the claim. In the absence of any further independent confirming evidence over the next few months, I'd reckon it could be safely filed under "under-supported sensationalism".

We'll see ...


Best,

L.

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by Hoover

Many of the filaments shown in the figures are clearly embedded in the meteorite rock matrix. Consequently, it is concluded that the Orgueil filaments cannot logically be interpreted as representing filamentous cyanobacteria that invaded the meteorite after its arrival. They are therefore interpreted as the indigenous remains of microfossils that were present in the meteorite rock matrix when the meteorite entered the Earth’s atmosphere.

Whilst its his opinion that is driving the claims, (with only logic as the basis), Earthly contamination has not been dismissed at this stage.

That is, no-one has said that earthly contamination is not possible or, at least, within the realms of impossibility.

Cheers

[mswhin63 (Malcolm)]

There seems to be no claims if the life embed into the meteorite after entering earths atmosphere, but it is an "intriguing possibility". Maybe he did pursue it too early and maybe it is possible Journal or Cosmology may have been the only ones game enough to publish it.

I do not know enough yet about publishing journal until my education level reaches to that point.

Putting contamination aside for a bit would most educate agree though the finds are accurate. I believe this may stir a few government agencies to consider extra funding seeing there has been a lot of trips to asteroids already.

[CraigS]

What gets me about this kind of analysis is that, (fair enough), as he says, the samples contain both weak and strong biological markers.

Then he says:

These types of geochemical biomarkers comprise a standard tool for petroleum exploration as they are stable of geologically significant time periods (~ billions of years). On Earth they are undeniably biological in origin. Diagenesis and catagenesis processes that alter the original biochemicals is usually minimal and the basic carbon skeleton remains intact. For this reason, although functional groups (e.g., -OH, =O, etc.) may be lost, the chemical structure derived from biological origins of these stable fossil biomolecules remains recognizable.

So what about the possibility that outside of the earth, these geochemical markers originate in some chemical process, which was never destined to evolve into life ? Also what about the possibility that exo-processes may exist, which alter some chemicals to mimic earth geochemical markers, but were never destined to evolve into life, nor were ever indicative of it ?

No matter which way I look at this, one thing seems clear to me, Hoover's conclusions are strongly influenced by his Earth-centric research/background.

Also, I am reminded of our recent discussions in the 'Do we understand water?' thread and the forthcoming Mars 'Curiosity' rover TLS instrument design:

Originally Posted by CraigS

But even here on Earth, it seems that Prokaryote methane falls outside the accepted range of biogenic methane, and I don't think they've quite figured out exactly why, just yet (?). They still have to consider the environment in which the C-12 measurements are taken, in order to talk about the probability that the origins are from biological sources.

An interesting article which discusses recent scientific efforts to detect Prokaryote based bacteria, outlines that even this earth-bound bacteria, evades earth-bound detection as a life-form on the basis of the very strong methane bio-marker. So, if that kind of variability exists in life bio-markers right here, then how can analysis of fossil remains from a rather old meteorite (when discovered), be even in the same ball-park of accuracy ?

There's a long way to go (for me) to accept this one.
(Admittedly, largely due to my present ignorance of the specific scientific subject matter).

Cheers

[CraigS]

Ha !

And here comes the backlash …

Scientists skeptical of meteorite alien life claim

The alien life claim is made by Richard Hoover of NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Ala. Hoover's research focused on an unusual type of meteorite. Pieces of it were collected over many years in several locations.
Carl Pilcher, who heads NASA's Astrobiology Institute, said the rocks have been handled for more than 100 years. He said they are likely contaminated with Earth microbes. The space agency released a statement distancing itself from Hoover's study.

Whilst I'm sure there'll always be skeptics, this one heads NASA's Astrobiology Institute.

Looks like Hoover is going to have to tough this one out on his own.
(And rightly so, too … the burden of proof should always lie with those making the claims).

My view is that its going to take a lot more than analysis of geological meteorite structures, to prove the existence of exo-life.

Bring on space exploration (ie: first hand human-alien contact) !

I think first hand human-alien contact is about the only way the broader scientific community will ever accept such claims.

(Comments welcome).

Cheers

[mswhin63 (Malcolm)]

This must have been a private undertaking which complicates matters seeing he is a solar scientist. Maybe it keeps the topic noticed and starting to understand the need for proper scientific procedures.

I think though it forms evidence to continue to explore but no more from earth bound meteors, let the exploration continue out in space.

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by CraigS

Bring on space exploration (ie: first hand human-alien contact) !

I think first hand human-alien contact is about the only way the broader scientific community will ever accept such claims.

(Comments welcome).

Cheers

They might still deny it's existence....what if they don't find any alien nightclubs, casinos and pubs

"No life here, guys"....the astronauts will say

[jimmywrangles (James)]

Originally Posted by ngcles

Hi Brian & All,

An interesting commentary on this finding:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2...ver_bacter.php

that explodes its veracity.


Best,

Les D

Worth reading it just for the words Chupacabra coprolite.
I guarantee you'll never see those words in that order ever again.

[Karls48 (Karl)]

[COLOR="Cyan"]Quote
It doesn't exist in print, consists entirely of a crude and ugly website that looks like it was sucked through a wormhole from the 1990s, and publishes lots of empty noise with no substantial editorial restraint. For a while, it seemed to be entirely the domain of a crackpot named Rhawn Joseph who called himself the emeritus professor of something mysteriously called the Brain Research Laboratory, based in the general neighborhood of Northern California (seriously, that was the address: "Northern California"), and self-published all of his pseudo-scientific "publications" on this web site.
[/COLOR]
Really great scientific method to prove someone wrong.