Fossilized diatoms in Sri Lankan meteor

[big_dav_2001 (Davin)]

Just read that Scientists have discovered fossilized Diatoms within a meteor which landed in Sri Lanka late last year... Hasn't been picked up by any of the major news sites yet, but might be interesting to watch the story progress...

http://www.lankaweb.com/news/items/2...-in-500-years/

http://www.buckingham.ac.uk/wp-conte...-meteorite.pdf

Davin

[big_dav_2001 (Davin)]

Just had another look, seems the source if the article is less than reliable, having claimed the same thing a few times... Might be best to take this one with a grain of salt

Davin

[allan gould]

Sorry this article has many faults and as above to be taken with fossil salt.

[AstralTraveller (David)]

Without at all endorsing the paper I can say that the SEM images are of diatoms. In fact the ones in the left hand image are very similar to the type I found in great abundance in lake sediments on Fraser Island (Aulacosiera sp.).

Ignoring for the moment the many apparent problems with the paper (eg the red rain story), the authors claim to have unequivocal evidence of extra-terrestrial life but can only publish it in an obscure on-line journal, a journal of which the lead author is an editor. Why isn't this in Nature or Science or at least the Journal of Astrobiology?

[allan gould]

Originally Posted by AstralTraveller

Without at all endorsing the paper I can say that the SEM images are of diatoms. In fact the ones in the left hand image are very similar to the type I found in great abundance in lake sediments on Fraser Island (Aulacosiera sp.).

Ignoring for the moment the many apparent problems with the paper (eg the red rain story), the authors claim to have unequivocal evidence of extra-terrestrial life but can only publish it in an obscure on-line journal, a journal of which the lead author is an editor. Why isn't this in Nature or Science or at least the Journal of Astrobiology?

Because it would never be accepted in a peer reviewed journal.

[joe_smith]

Because it would never be accepted in a peer reviewed journal

the PDF article is in the "Journal of Cosmology Vol,21, No,37 published, 10 January 2013" and the article is hosted at the University of Buckingham, wouldn't the "Journal of Cosmology" be peer reviewed?

Interesting article

some info on one of the authors Chandra Wickramasinghe

Chandra Wickramasinghe is acknowledged as a leading expert on interstellar material and the origins of life. He has made many important contributions in these fields, publishing over 350 papers in major scientific journals, over 75 in the journal Nature. In 1974 he first proposed the theory that dust in interstellar space and in comets was largely organic, a theory that has now been vindicated.

[Astrorish (Rishi)]

Hmmm

Colour me skeptical.

[andyc (Andy)]

Seems like this article is more full of holes than a Swiss cheese factory...

Bad Astronomy's take on this. Lots and lots and lots of problems with every part of the paper.

Just one of the issues is about the "meteorite", and that is particularly illuminating - neither does the rock look like a meteorite, nor is any verifiable provenance information supplied.

They found an ordinary rock on the ground containing modern Earthly, non-fossilised diatoms and published a paper claiming it's diatoms from space! Looks like a junk paper IMHO.

[AstralTraveller (David)]

The 'Journal of Cosmology' does not appear in the 'Excellence in Research Australia' database. The criteria for inclusion are:

The ERA 2012 Journal List includes journals that were included in the ERA 2010 journal list or suggested to the ARC for inclusion during the defined consultation period and found to meet the following criteria:

• Were active during the ERA 2012 reference period for research outputs (1 January 2005 – 31 December 2010)
• Are scholarly
• Have peer review policies acceptable to the discipline
• Have an ISSN

I briefly searched for Chandra Wickramasinghe in Nature and found he has published with Fred Hoyle. The first link I followed was a report of a meeting between these two and the RAS over their claims that they had found evidence of extraterrestrial life in IR spectroscopic data. The 'evidence' was laughable. One major piece was the presence of an absorption feature at 3.4 micrometers. The feature indicates the presence of a C-H bond, nothing more. The second link was a review of a book published by these two which claimed that the Archaeopteryx fossil is a fake. The reviewer was a curator and lecturer at Oxford. He entitled his review 'Feathered flights of fancy' and states that the authors show 'a staggering ignorance about the nature of fossils and the fossilization processes.' and compares their detective work more to Clouseau than Holmes.

[allan gould]

This nutter also claimed that viruses came from outer space to infect humans ie influenza. This flies directly in the face of all molecular biology and virology. The paper looks as if it were written by an undergraduate in French literature - total rubbish

[sjastro]

Originally Posted by joe_smith

the PDF article is in the "Journal of Cosmology Vol,21, No,37 published, 10 January 2013" and the article is hosted at the University of Buckingham, wouldn't the "Journal of Cosmology" be peer reviewed?

Interesting article

some info on one of the authors Chandra Wickramasinghe

A tactic used by cranks is to create "Journals" in order to create the impression of being peer reviewed.

One of the more infamous examples is this one.

I suggested to an internet colleague (and astrophysicist) that an article be written debunking some of the nonsense published. The intention was to see if the article was to be "peer reviewed" and published in this journal.

Regards

Steven

[joe_smith]

A tactic used by cranks is to create "Journals" in order to create the impression of being peer reviewed.

if you look at The Journal of Cosmology about page it has people from different university's involved in it as well. Some are head of their departments, its not just him. If he is a "crank" (Chandra Wickramasinghe) why/how dose he hold his position at the University of Buckingham, he must be doing something right? even if the journal is suspect (where is the proof it is) the man still has Published "over 350 papers in major scientific journals, over 75 in the journal Nature" he doesn't sound like a crank Plus people are reviewing the evidence he presented in his Journal, (even if it is negative to his findings) isn't it still being peer reviewed? as other scientists are reviewing it and saying its wrong.

What is a "peer reviewed journal" anyway?
If the meaning of peer review is - Peer review is the evaluation of creative work or performance by other people in the same field in order to maintain or enhance the quality of the work or performance in that field

Do the articles in it, have to be reviewed by peers, as being true before they are accepted in it? or can they put an article (like the one in "his" journal) into a "peer review journal" and then its reviewed by peers. I fail to see how the The Journal of Cosmology is not a valid peer reviewed Journal? Its being put out by major academics in major academic institutions, it must have some creditability even if some of the theories are out there.

[sjastro]

Originally Posted by joe_smith

if you look at The Journal of Cosmology about page it has people from different university's involved in it as well. Some are head of their departments, its not just him. If he is a "crank" (Chandra Wickramasinghe) why/how dose he hold his position at the University of Buckingham, he must be doing something right? even if the journal is suspect (where is the proof it is) the man still has Published "over 350 papers in major scientific journals, over 75 in the journal Nature" he doesn't sound like a crank Plus people are reviewing the evidence he presented in his Journal, (even if it is negative to his findings) isn't it still being peer reviewed? as other scientists are reviewing it and saying its wrong.

Wickramasinghe's publications in Nature have their origins to his PhD activities in Applied Mathematics. Academics and scientists are not immune to being cranks, particularly when they stray outside their area of expertise. We see this in the climate debate where certain individuals from the Earth and Life sciences suddenly become armchair experts on atmospheric physics, only to end up looking like novices (which they are). Wickramasinghe seems to have ended up in the same boat over exobiology.

What is a "peer reviewed journal" anyway?
If the meaning of peer review is - Peer review is the evaluation of creative work or performance by other people in the same field in order to maintain or enhance the quality of the work or performance in that field

Do the articles in it, have to be reviewed by peers, as being true before they are accepted in it? or can they put an article (like the one in "his" journal) into a "peer review journal" and then its reviewed by peers. I fail to see how the The Journal of Cosmology is not a valid peer reviewed Journal? Its being put out by major academics in major academic institutions, it must have some creditability even if some of the theories are out there.

According to the journal the articles are reviewed for publication. In fact the journal also quotes statistics of the rejection rate.

"Invitation" to publish does not guarantee acceptance. All articles are peer reviewed.
Approximately 30% of invited articles have been rejected.
Approximately 50% of invited articles have been rejected then revised and then resubmitted following peer review, and then accepted.
Approximately 20% of invited articles have been accepted without suggested revisions following peer review.
Approximately 80% of all articles submitted without invitation, have been rejected.

While this suggests a peer review system is in operation when one reads articles like this
http://journalofcosmology.com/BigBang101.html, the suspicion is that peer review is non existent and the journal is a clearing house for fringe ideas.
Many of the ideas presented have been rebutted by cosmologists. Its description of the large scale structures in the Universe as an example of the Big Bang being in trouble is built around by conveniently ignoring that a Big Bang Universe is not static (it was smaller in the past than it is now) and the temperature variations as detected in the CMB indicate "seeding points" for matter to form. These conditions do not require structures to be formed over times that are older than the Big Bang as suggested by the authors.

Regards

Steven

[AstralTraveller (David)]

Originally Posted by joe_smith

if you look at The Journal of Cosmology about page it has people from different university's involved in it as well. Some are head of their departments, its not just him. If he is a "crank" (Chandra Wickramasinghe) why/how dose he hold his position at the University of Buckingham, he must be doing something right? even if the journal is suspect (where is the proof it is) the man still has Published "over 350 papers in major scientific journals, over 75 in the journal Nature" he doesn't sound like a crank Plus people are reviewing the evidence he presented in his Journal, (even if it is negative to his findings) isn't it still being peer reviewed? as other scientists are reviewing it and saying its wrong.

What is a "peer reviewed journal" anyway?
If the meaning of peer review is - Peer review is the evaluation of creative work or performance by other people in the same field in order to maintain or enhance the quality of the work or performance in that field

Do the articles in it, have to be reviewed by peers, as being true before they are accepted in it? or can they put an article (like the one in "his" journal) into a "peer review journal" and then its reviewed by peers. I fail to see how the The Journal of Cosmology is not a valid peer reviewed Journal? Its being put out by major academics in major academic institutions, it must have some creditability even if some of the theories are out there.

The Uni of Buckingham is a tiny 'independent' uni. As such I don't know to whom it is answerable for its academic standards. I've asked around and no one here has heard of it. It has no undergraduate science program and the only science research is the Centre for Astrobiology. How does such a centre function without the support of chemists, biologists, physicists or even geologists (ie someone who can identify a meteor)? It looks to me that the Centre is not a UoB because it fits in with their strong science research culture but because they are the only one's willing to host this 'research'.

The Journal of Cosmology web page looks like an adolescent's blog. Real journals look like this. They don't shout about how good they are and they don't need to point out that all their editors have PhDs. I admit that the qualifications of some of the editors appears impressive, but so does Wickramasinghe's and he talks bollocks. The background of these editors may be an interesting research topic.

[joe_smith]

The Uni of Buckingham is a tiny 'independent' uni

Ok now it makes sense to me I could not understand how there could be a problem, as I thought it was mainstream type university's working together as stated in their about page. Man I know you cant trust politicians, and now it seems you cant trust scientists even with PhDs

Wickramasinghe seems to have ended up in the same boat over exobiology.

but so does Wickramasinghe's and he talks bollocks

well at least the guy got 1 theory correct, maybe he should of quit while he was ahead.

[AstralTraveller (David)]

Originally Posted by joe_smith

well at least the guy got 1 theory correct, maybe he should of quit while he was ahead.

There's a few around who should have done that.