intriguing possibilities

[Brian W]

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 ..



Wow .. stay tuned, folks !!

Cheers

[mswhin63]

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/2011/03/did_scientists_discover_bacter.php

that explodes its veracity.


Best,

Les D

[CraigS]

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]

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]

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

Brian

[CraigS]

The paper looks fairly legitimate, though ..

Cheers

[renormalised]

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]

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

[renormalised]

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]

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]

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:



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?' (http://www.iceinspace.com.au/forum/showthread.php?p=687628&highlight=MArs#post687628)thread and the forthcoming Mars 'Curiosity' rover TLS instrument design:



An interesting article (http://www.astrobio.net/exclusive/2765/making-sense-of-mars-methane) 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 (http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-03-scientists-skeptical-meteorite-alien-life.html)



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]

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]

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

"No life here, guys"....the astronauts will say:):P

[jimmywrangles]

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

[Karls48]

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.

Really great scientific method to prove someone wrong.

[CraigS]

It seems that Richard Hoover's conclusions are basically being rejected by the scientific community.

Rosie Redfield (http://rrresearch.blogspot.com/2011/03/is-this-claim-of-bacteria-in-meteorite.html), a microbiologist in British Columbia, concludes saying:


MSNBC’s Cosmic Log (http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/03/05/6198177-life-in-meteorites-study-stirs-debate), science journalist Alan Boyle consulted some scientists, and they are clear as well. Rocco Mancinelli at Bay Area Environmental Research Institute said:

Penny Boston, astrobiologist at New Mexico Tech says:


Phil Plait says:


The James Randi Educational Foundation (JREF) awarded Hoover one of JREF's 'Pigasus Awards', … a 'Dubious Honor for Dubious Claims'.

Interestingly, Richard Hoover also appeared on the very last episode of 'Brian Cox's Wonders of the Solar System: Aliens', to add 'weight' to the possibility that exo-extremophiles could actually live in solid water ice.

Sorry Richard ...
Looks like no one of repute accepts your latest work.

Better luck next time.

Cheers