Return to the Cloudy Nights Telescope Reviews home pageAstronomics discounts for Cloudy Nights members
· Get a Cloudy Nights T-Shirt · Submit a Review / Article

Click here if you are having trouble logging into the forums

Privacy Policy | Please read our Terms of Service | Signup and Troubleshooting FAQ | Problems? PM a Red or a Green Gu… uh, User

Speciality Forums >> Science! Astronomy & Space Exploration, and Others

Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | (show all)
Kon Dealer
professor emeritus


Reged: 01/05/11

Loc: Cambridge UK
Fossil found in meteorite
      #5623895 - 01/15/13 07:14 AM

A very interesting paper has just been published in the
"Journal of Cosmology".
Can be downloaded at http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/polonnaruwa-meteorite.pdf

Quick reading gives me doubts- e.g. Fig 4.
They really need to show a profile of material from where the meteorite was collected. Is it different or similar?
i.e. I don't believe a proper control has been provided.
I would reject publication on this alone.

But what if this fossil IS extraterrestrial?


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Ravenous
professor emeritus


Reged: 11/14/09

Loc: UK
Re: Fossil found in meteorite new [Re: Kon Dealer]
      #5623967 - 01/15/13 08:20 AM

Initial reaction: too good to be true.

Wait a few weeks for more people to look at the OTHER bits. (Note that the sample was a fragment of the meteorite supplied by another party.)


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
D_talley
Carpal Tunnel
*****

Reged: 07/07/05

Loc: Richmond VA
Re: Fossil found in meteorite new [Re: Ravenous]
      #5623997 - 01/15/13 08:44 AM

What a poorly written paper! It is clear that they are jumping to conclusions.

1. Did they take a sample of the area were the meteorite fell to see if there are diatoms in the soil to contaminate the meteorite?

2 Have they taken other samples of the meteorite to see if there are other signs of the fossils?

3. Have samples been examined by a third party?

4. Where are the photos of the Red Rain that they claim are simular to the fossils?

5. I would like to see clearly detailed photos of the meteorite and the sites they chose to examine under the microscope. At the moment I have no point of reference to show what they are looking at. I can't tell if it is a piece of dirt picked up with the meteorite.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Ravenous
professor emeritus


Reged: 11/14/09

Loc: UK
Re: Fossil found in meteorite new [Re: D_talley]
      #5624008 - 01/15/13 08:52 AM

Having read the paper a bit more, I'll correct the comment I made about the supply of the sample. The paper DOES name the person who sent the sample.

Still looks too good to be true though. Also a quick web search for the name of the journal immediately revealed some other controversial items published in the past.

So I'm still very doubtful. Reminds me of the infamous worms in the ALH84001 (or whatever it was) meteorite.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Ravenous
professor emeritus


Reged: 11/14/09

Loc: UK
Re: Fossil found in meteorite new [Re: Ravenous]
      #5624022 - 01/15/13 09:01 AM

Also, can they prove a meteorite (if that's what this one is) did not originate from the surface of the Earth in the first place? (They seem sure it's from an old comet, but I have no idea how you'd prove or disprove either case.)

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Kon Dealer
professor emeritus


Reged: 01/05/11

Loc: Cambridge UK
Re: Fossil found in meteorite new [Re: Ravenous]
      #5624078 - 01/15/13 09:45 AM

Quote from the paper
"Diatom fossils of a wide range of types are found (sic) marine sediments dating back to the Cretaceous Tertiary boundary 65 million years ago"

There was a large marine impact event 65 million year ago. It was probably responsible for the extinction of the dinosaurs.
Who knows how much material was ejected into space?


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
dickbill
scholastic sledgehammer


Reged: 09/30/08

Re: Fossil found in meteorite new [Re: Kon Dealer]
      #5624409 - 01/15/13 01:26 PM

hmmm...the iss uses to trash everything in the stratosphere. What did the astronaut eat recently?

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
llanitedave
Humble Megalomaniac
*****

Reged: 09/26/05

Loc: Amargosa Valley, NV, USA
Re: Fossil found in meteorite new [Re: Kon Dealer]
      #5624413 - 01/15/13 01:27 PM

Diatoms predate the K-T event. They've been around since at least the Jurassic. They are planktonic, specialized sea creatures. They're photosynthetic eukaryotes, which means they're highly advanced biologically, and require abundant sunlight to survive. Even if one were to make the argument that life could be carried by comets, to assert that the life happened to consist of a highly evolved sun-dependant ocean specialist (living on primordial ice in the Kuiper belt?) is a bit ridiculous.

Kon's point seems a bit unlikely, but it's far more plausible that small chunks from some terrestrial impact were launched into solar orbit(or even high Earth orbit) and are occasionally returning, than that fossil diatoms would have been carried by a comet from the outer reaches of the solar system.

The most likely possibility in my view is that the rock is not a meteorite at all.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Kon Dealer
professor emeritus


Reged: 01/05/11

Loc: Cambridge UK
Re: Fossil found in meteorite new [Re: llanitedave]
      #5624460 - 01/15/13 01:50 PM

Quote:

Diatoms predate the K-T event. They've been around since at least the Jurassic. They are planktonic, specialized sea creatures. They're photosynthetic eukaryotes, which means they're highly advanced biologically, and require abundant sunlight to survive. Even if one were to make the argument that life could be carried by comets, to assert that the life happened to consist of a highly evolved sun-dependant ocean specialist (living on primordial ice in the Kuiper belt?) is a bit ridiculous.


Kon's point seems a bit unlikely, but it's far more plausible that small chunks from some terrestrial impact were launched into solar orbit(or even high Earth orbit) and are occasionally returning, than that fossil diatoms would have been carried by a comet from the outer reaches of the solar system.

The most likely possibility in my view is that the rock is not a meteorite at all.




I didn't say this.
What I said was who knows how much material was ejected into space at the KT event?
I believe this "meteorite" is not derived from a comet, rather ejecta from Earth, eventually finding its way back.

As a biochemist, who has published in the area of photosynthesis I agree absolutely with llantedave that photosynthetic eukaryotes are highly unlikely to survive/exist in/on comets.

Hence an earthly origin


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Rick Woods
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 01/27/05

Loc: Inner Solar System
Re: Fossil found in meteorite new [Re: Ravenous]
      #5625215 - 01/15/13 09:16 PM

Quote:

So I'm still very doubtful. Reminds me of the infamous worms in the ALH84001 (or whatever it was) meteorite.




Ravenous,

ALH84001 is still very much an open issue. There's nothing infamous about it; there are just a lot of people who aren't convinced by the evidence. But then, a lot of people are. We need more information.

I haven't read this paper yet; I'll download it tonight. But just the idea is exciting!


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
TVG
member


Reged: 05/03/12

Re: Fossil found in meteorite new [Re: Kon Dealer]
      #5625298 - 01/15/13 10:07 PM

Even if the meteorite contained lifeforms that were ejected from our planet 65 million years ago, would it still be classified as extraterrestrial? It has existed in space for 65 million years and succumbed to all sorts of evolutionary possibilities. Relatively speaking, everything we know of came from a planet or star or big bang or etc.... at some point, where do astrobiologist draw the line?

Todd


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
llanitedave
Humble Megalomaniac
*****

Reged: 09/26/05

Loc: Amargosa Valley, NV, USA
Re: Fossil found in meteorite new [Re: TVG]
      #5625560 - 01/16/13 01:46 AM

Well in this case, there are no evolutionary possibilities because the organisms in question are dead.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Glassthrower
Vendor - Galactic Stone & Ironworks
*****

Reged: 04/07/05

Loc: Oort Cloud 9
Re: Fossil found in meteorite new [Re: llanitedave]
      #5625573 - 01/16/13 02:08 AM

Journal of Cosmology is well known in the planetary science community....as being the National Enquirer in the world of science journals. It is not peer reviewed. It does not exist in print. It has a history of publishing poorly written papers by authors with dubious credentials.

FWIW, no fossils have ever been found in meteorites, ALH 84001 included.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Rick Woods
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 01/27/05

Loc: Inner Solar System
Re: Fossil found in meteorite new [Re: Glassthrower]
      #5625575 - 01/16/13 02:12 AM

Quote:

FWIW, no fossils have ever been found in meteorites, ALH 84001 included.




Ah, Mike, you seem so sure.
You have access to information that nobody else has?


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Kon Dealer
professor emeritus


Reged: 01/05/11

Loc: Cambridge UK
Re: Fossil found in meteorite new [Re: TVG]
      #5625643 - 01/16/13 04:49 AM

Quote:

Even if the meteorite contained lifeforms that were ejected from our planet 65 million years ago, would it still be classified as extraterrestrial? It has existed in space for 65 million years and succumbed to all sorts of evolutionary possibilities. Relatively speaking, everything we know of came from a planet or star or big bang or etc.... at some point, where do astrobiologist draw the line?

Todd




Todd, it is not living, rather a fossil.
Just how old will need to be determined by radioisotope dating and/or comparative studies of the cell wall (frustule) wih living and extinct species.
There will be no evolution for a eucaryotic cell, in space, that requires an environment with carbon dioxide, oxygen liquid water, plus an above zero degrees C environment to live.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Ravenous
professor emeritus


Reged: 11/14/09

Loc: UK
Re: Fossil found in meteorite new [Re: Kon Dealer]
      #5625695 - 01/16/13 06:40 AM

Quote:

comparative studies of the cell wall (frustule) wih living and extinct species



That's another thing I thought looked dodgy - they show pictures of the diatom and pictures of a known species and seem to imply (not directly state) that it's the same. They look very different in some structural details to me (shape of the ridges around the mid-length). I'm not claiming it is not a diatom, but I do think they seem to be rushing to identify it with a known species. I can't blame them for not being experts on these sorts of creatures (I would guess there are lots of species and a specialist would be needed to identify it) but I am concerned they seem to be jumping to conclusions.

Oh another thing: I think they are too assertive at the end where they seem to think comets carried life to Earth. (If that's what cometary panspermia means - I haven't read the four references they make at that statement.) If comets are carrying these (alive), we would expect to find similar diatoms like this much earlier in the fossil record.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Jarad
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 04/28/03

Loc: Atlanta, GA
Re: Fossil found in meteorite new [Re: Ravenous]
      #5625729 - 01/16/13 07:43 AM

If it was exactly like a diatom, that would strongly argue for it being from earth. Diatoms were not the first life forms on earth - if something did seed life on earth, the "seeds" weren't diatoms, they were something much simpler, similar to archaebacteria.

Jarad


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
deSitter
Still in Old School


Reged: 12/09/04

Re: Fossil found in meteorite new [Re: Kon Dealer]
      #5625846 - 01/16/13 09:28 AM

Quote:

Quote from the paper
"Diatom fossils of a wide range of types are found (sic) marine sediments dating back to the Cretaceous Tertiary boundary 65 million years ago"

There was a large marine impact event 65 million year ago. It was probably responsible for the extinction of the dinosaurs.
Who knows how much material was ejected into space?




I do - lots!

-drl


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Glassthrower
Vendor - Galactic Stone & Ironworks
*****

Reged: 04/07/05

Loc: Oort Cloud 9
Re: Fossil found in meteorite new [Re: Jarad]
      #5625864 - 01/16/13 09:36 AM

I have to agree that if any microbial lifeforms or fossils are found inside a meteorite, they will likely be a result of contamination.

The author is welcome to contact me and I will put him in touch with a reputable planetary scientist who will analyze his sample to verify the results. Personally, I have doubts whether the author's specimen is a meteorite. It has terrestrial characteristics and the first step would be to microprobe this rock and rule out a terrestrial origin.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
llanitedave
Humble Megalomaniac
*****

Reged: 09/26/05

Loc: Amargosa Valley, NV, USA
Re: Fossil found in meteorite new [Re: Glassthrower]
      #5625986 - 01/16/13 10:55 AM

Quote:

I have to agree that if any microbial lifeforms or fossils are found inside a meteorite, they will likely be a result of contamination.

The author is welcome to contact me and I will put him in touch with a reputable planetary scientist who will analyze his sample to verify the results. Personally, I have doubts whether the author's specimen is a meteorite. It has terrestrial characteristics and the first step would be to microprobe this rock and rule out a terrestrial origin.




Just from the picture alone the texture looked more like travertine to me. The publication said that there was olivine in the sample, and if so it wasn't travertine, but at this point I'm not really inclined to accept any of their so-called analysis.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Glassthrower
Vendor - Galactic Stone & Ironworks
*****

Reged: 04/07/05

Loc: Oort Cloud 9
Re: Fossil found in meteorite new [Re: llanitedave]
      #5626025 - 01/16/13 11:19 AM

Every so often, somebody will claim to find evidence of extraterrestrial life in a meteorite. In every case, the findings were ruled out because the "proof" turned out to be terrestrial contamination.

Keep in mind, up until very recently, most museums and institutions did not observe any clean protocols in regards to storing and handling meteorites. Ideally, for research purposes, meteorite samples should be stored in an atmosphere of inert gas and should not be exposed or handled without using full protective protocols to avoid contamination. NASA's JSC does a fine job of this.

All old meteorites, including Orgueil and other meteorites from the 19th century or earlier, are hopelessly contaminated. They are essentially useless for research of the type being discussed here.

Times are changing, for the better though. The recent Sutter's Mill carbonaceous fall resulted in the recovery of fresh specimens by NASA-affiliated teams - many of these were recovered before rains and oxidation, and were handled and stored using clean protocols. These specimens have only minimal contamination and would be useful for studies involving the search for extra-terrestrial life.

At least one respected and experienced meteorite hunter recently visited Sri Lanka to investigate this alleged new fall. He was unable to locate a single genuine specimen of the meteorite, despite being offered hundreds of terrestrial rocks, slags, and imposters by locals. He has expertise in working with locals and coordinating searches. He also has an experienced eye. It was his determination that no meteorites have been recovered in Sri Lanka from this new fall (if a fall actually happened). And if a meteorite did fall in Sri Lanka during December 2012, any specimens recovered there would be hopelessly contaminated for research purposes.

Until the author's specimen is officially recognized by the Meteoritical Society, it is not a meteorite. It cannot be published in any reputable peer-reviewed journal until it has been approved by NonCom and published in the Meteoritical Bulletin. This would require that a type sample of the specimen be submitted to a reputable institution for analysis. Until this happens, the author has a common Earth rock and nothing more.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
TVG
member


Reged: 05/03/12

Re: Fossil found in meteorite new [Re: Kon Dealer]
      #5626078 - 01/16/13 12:03 PM

So comets are not able to sustain life on a small scale, even with close passes/orbits to stars like our sun, no matter how brief the pass? Or are you saying this particular life form can be dated to have been fossilized here on Earth before ejection, how can one tell the difference? This is all very fascinating and I am obviously new to this, so please try not to make my head explode.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Jarad
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 04/28/03

Loc: Atlanta, GA
Re: Fossil found in meteorite new [Re: TVG]
      #5626246 - 01/16/13 01:54 PM

Comets are frozen, so they cannot support life as we know it. Life as we know it here on earth (which includes diatoms) requires liquid water, gaseous or aqueous O2 or CO2 (depending on whether it burns sugars or uses photosynthesis to make sugars), and for photosynthesis a decent amount of sunlight (more than is available out where comets spend their time).

If some form of life evolved on a comet that could live in frozen ice and gasses at temperatures near absolute zero, it would not be able to live on earth.

Jarad


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
TVG
member


Reged: 05/03/12

Re: Fossil found in meteorite new [Re: Jarad]
      #5626268 - 01/16/13 02:07 PM

So a comet's mass is not sufficient enough to store the required heat for life or liquid water even if it has a short periodic orbit around our sun. Could life not exist within these constraints, even if it meant a period of hibernation? Perhaps when the comet's orbit increases or decreases its' distance from the sun, freezing and thawing would cause periods of thriving life or hibernation?

Todd


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Jarad
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 04/28/03

Loc: Atlanta, GA
Re: Fossil found in meteorite new [Re: TVG]
      #5626363 - 01/16/13 03:09 PM

The problem is that it doesn't thaw, it sublimates. Frozen water in a vacuum goes straight from ice to gas. The part of the comet that survives the close pass is the part that is made of rock and the ice that stayed frozen. There is never a point where there is liquid water environment on it for life as we know it (like diatoms) to live in.

Jarad


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
llanitedave
Humble Megalomaniac
*****

Reged: 09/26/05

Loc: Amargosa Valley, NV, USA
Re: Fossil found in meteorite new [Re: TVG]
      #5626472 - 01/16/13 04:04 PM

Quote:

So a comet's mass is not sufficient enough to store the required heat for life or liquid water even if it has a short periodic orbit around our sun. Could life not exist within these constraints, even if it meant a period of hibernation? Perhaps when the comet's orbit increases or decreases its' distance from the sun, freezing and thawing would cause periods of thriving life or hibernation?

Todd




There are two questions here:

1. "Could life exist under these conditions?"
2. "Could diatoms exist under these conditions?"

We don't even have to find a perfect answer to #1 in order to give a firm "NO" to #2.

And #2 is what the claim is consisting of. It's clearly bogus.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Mike Casey

*****

Reged: 11/11/04

Loc: El Pueblo de Nuestra SeƱora l...
Re: Fossil found in meteorite new [Re: llanitedave]
      #5626772 - 01/16/13 06:42 PM

Red Rain of Kerala in 2001

More grist for the mill.

"The red rain analysed at the MRI in Colombo has been shown to contain red biological cells that show viability as well as motility. Preliminary studies from EDX analysis show that these cells are similar to the cells found in the red rain of Kerala that fell in 2001, cells that have not yet been identified with any known terrestrial organism (Louis and Kumar, 2006; Gangappa et al, 2010)." ~ FOSSIL DIATOMS IN A NEW CARBONACEOUS METEORITE

"In November 2001, commissioned by the Government of India's Department of Science & Technology, the Center for Earth Science Studies (CESS) and the Tropical Botanical Garden and Research Institute (TBGRI) issued a joint report which concluded that:[5][18] The color was found to be due to the presence of a large amount of spores of a lichen-forming alga belonging to the genus Trentepohlia. Field verification showed that the region had plenty of such lichens. Samples of lichen taken from Changanacherry area, when cultured in an algal growth medium, also showed the presence of the same species of algae. Both samples (from rainwater and from trees) produced the same kind of algae, indicating that the spores seen in the rainwater most probably came from local sources." ~ Wikipedia


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
TVG
member


Reged: 05/03/12

Re: Fossil found in meteorite new [Re: llanitedave]
      #5626875 - 01/16/13 07:51 PM

Okay, thanks for the explanations everybody, but you sure know how to ruin a weekend. Here I was planning to go out with my rock hammer and metal detector to find fossils in meteorites.

Todd


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Glassthrower
Vendor - Galactic Stone & Ironworks
*****

Reged: 04/07/05

Loc: Oort Cloud 9
Re: Fossil found in meteorite new [Re: TVG]
      #5627189 - 01/16/13 10:46 PM

Well, there is always the possibility, albeit remote, that a fossil could be found in a meteorite. But it hasn't happened yet, or if it has, it has not been proven yet.

Meteorites hold a lot of secrets and they can teach us much about the conditions present during early solar system history. They also helped seed the infant Earth with water, amino acids, and volatile organic compounds. The Murchison meteorite is a good example that touches on this.

But this journal and paper are overly optimistic and a classic case of very intelligent people making fundamental errors in judgement. Just because something looks like fossil, doesn't make it fossil. What's more, just because something looks like a meteorite, doesn't mean it is.

Best regards,

MikeG

PS - we may have just had a new and legitimate meteorite fall in Colombia.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Ian Robinson
Post Laureate


Reged: 01/29/09

Loc: 33S , 151E
Re: Fossil found in meteorite new [Re: llanitedave]
      #5627344 - 01/17/13 01:48 AM

Not having read the paper, is there an isotope profile done to confirm non-terrestrial origin ?

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
GlennLeDrew
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 06/18/08

Loc: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Re: Fossil found in meteorite new [Re: Ian Robinson]
      #5627411 - 01/17/13 03:39 AM

Immediately upon reading that this 'paper' appeared in the Journal of Cosmology, my first thought was, "What is this journal I'd never heard of?" My second question; "Why is a matter for planetary scientists published in a 'cosmology' journal?" This took all of two seconds, and my skepticism ruled out clicking the link.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Ravenous
professor emeritus


Reged: 11/14/09

Loc: UK
Re: Fossil found in meteorite new [Re: GlennLeDrew]
      #5627427 - 01/17/13 04:31 AM

And third, the lead author of the paper itself is also one of the journal's senior staff. So I wonder which of his peers reviewed his paper first.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Ravenous
professor emeritus


Reged: 11/14/09

Loc: UK
Re: Fossil found in meteorite new [Re: Ian Robinson]
      #5627430 - 01/17/13 04:38 AM

No, no isotope ratio analysis that I could find.

Also they seem to think it's from a comet simply because it fell (or something in the area was observed to fall) on around the same day of the year as an earlier fall...


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
dickbill
scholastic sledgehammer


Reged: 09/30/08

Re: Fossil found in meteorite new [Re: Ravenous]
      #5627706 - 01/17/13 09:41 AM

I may be possible to have airborne water particles that carry microorganisms, after a tropical huricane for example, and when they meet a dust storm they aggregate until a big chunk form and falls back on the ground.
And we get plenty of these hurricanes and dust storms, they mentioned the possible reoccurence of the infamous dust bowl forming storm, not far from the tropical hurricanes from the Mexico golf. In asia, that's be the dust storm from australia maybe. Just an idea.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Reflector
newbie


Reged: 11/03/09

Re: Fossil found in meteorite new [Re: dickbill]
      #5627899 - 01/17/13 11:34 AM

I have a problem with the concept of "fossilized diatoms".

One of the researchers' defenses against possible accusations of contamination is that the diatom structures had a chemical composition similar to the meteorite matrix. This would imply that the diatoms were associated with the piece of rock for ages and ages, and is therefore not a recent accidental contamination. Fair enough, but ...

As mentioned earlier in this thread, diatoms are microscopic algae encased in a pill-box shaped silica shell (the frustule). Now, silica (glass) is pretty darn stable. So much so, that it is a classic example of a material (calcite being another) that gives rise to "unaltered fossils". In contrast, materials like wood and bone frequently fossilize through a chemical replacement mechanism whereby the specimen basically turns into rock. This does not happen to diatoms, and so recently deceased diatoms will be chemically indistinguishable from long-dead or so-called "fossilized" diatoms. But this does not quite gel with the finding in the article:

Quote:

EDX studies on all the larger putative biological structures showed only minor differentials in elemental abundances between the structures themselves and the surrounding material, implying that the larger objects represent microfossils rather than living or recently living cells.




Just a thought.

Edited by Reflector (01/17/13 11:35 AM)


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Ira
Carpal Tunnel
*****

Reged: 08/22/10

Loc: Mitzpe Ramon, Israel
Re: Fossil found in meteorite new [Re: Reflector]
      #5628852 - 01/17/13 08:42 PM

Considering the probability alone (even if life did exist on every planet in our solar system), the chances are about the same as finding "Hamlet" written by a bunch of monkeys at typewriters, i.e., essentially zero.

/Ira


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
llanitedave
Humble Megalomaniac
*****

Reged: 09/26/05

Loc: Amargosa Valley, NV, USA
Re: Fossil found in meteorite new [Re: Reflector]
      #5629872 - 01/18/13 12:24 PM

Quote:

I have a problem with the concept of "fossilized diatoms".

One of the researchers' defenses against possible accusations of contamination is that the diatom structures had a chemical composition similar to the meteorite matrix. This would imply that the diatoms were associated with the piece of rock for ages and ages, and is therefore not a recent accidental contamination. Fair enough, but ...

As mentioned earlier in this thread, diatoms are microscopic algae encased in a pill-box shaped silica shell (the frustule). Now, silica (glass) is pretty darn stable. So much so, that it is a classic example of a material (calcite being another) that gives rise to "unaltered fossils". In contrast, materials like wood and bone frequently fossilize through a chemical replacement mechanism whereby the specimen basically turns into rock. This does not happen to diatoms, and so recently deceased diatoms will be chemically indistinguishable from long-dead or so-called "fossilized" diatoms. But this does not quite gel with the finding in the article:

Quote:

EDX studies on all the larger putative biological structures showed only minor differentials in elemental abundances between the structures themselves and the surrounding material, implying that the larger objects represent microfossils rather than living or recently living cells.




Just a thought.




It's a pretty poor comparison anyway, since the most likely fate for a dead diatom is to for its empty shell to be filled with material from its immediate surroundings. Most rock is mostly silica, so a silica shell isn't going to cause a blip in elemental abundances. And since the shell is hollow, and fills with local material, having similar elemental abundances is what you'd expect, just as much for recently dead as for fossilized diatoms -- which is just what you said!

Edited by llanitedave (01/18/13 12:27 PM)


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Joad
Wordsmith
*****

Reged: 03/22/05

Re: Fossil found in meteorite new [Re: llanitedave]
      #5630478 - 01/18/13 07:36 PM

What puzzles me is why reputable scientists should choose to publish their findings in this way, rather than submitting their paper to an impeccable journal. They should know perfectly well that the credibility of their claim can get obscured by the source of their publication, and that if what they have is the real deal the solid journals will publish it. All it takes is a little patience. I can only conclude that scientists have succumbed to the same publicity mania that everyone else has.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
llanitedave
Humble Megalomaniac
*****

Reged: 09/26/05

Loc: Amargosa Valley, NV, USA
Re: Fossil found in meteorite new [Re: Joad]
      #5630737 - 01/18/13 10:40 PM

Not everyone else. But there's always that 10%.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Jason H.
Pooh-Bah


Reged: 11/23/07

Loc: Central Florida
Re: Fossil found in meteorite new [Re: Kon Dealer]
      #5642720 - 01/25/13 02:34 PM

Link to wikpedia article on Polonnaruwa Meteorite

See criticism too.

Jason H.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
jkaiser
member


Reged: 01/07/13

Loc: Wood River Junction, Rhode Isl...
Re: Fossil found in meteorite new [Re: llanitedave]
      #5651675 - 01/30/13 06:48 AM

I am very skeptical about this.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
SteveMushynsky
member


Reged: 02/21/13

Loc: Syracuse, NY area (Central NY)
Re: Fossil found in meteorite new [Re: llanitedave]
      #5734666 - 03/15/13 06:39 PM

Quote:

Journal of Cosmology is well known in the planetary science community....as being the National Enquirer in the world of science journals. It is not peer reviewed. It does not exist in print. It has a history of publishing poorly written papers by authors with dubious credentials.



A number of such 'journals' exist online. Pseudoscience fringists, outraged that the established real scientific journals rejected their theories, created their own 'journals' so that their work can be legitimized by 'publishing' and review by their own questionable peers.

You too can be a published, peer reviewed authority...


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
ianfromoz
professor emeritus


Reged: 12/21/13

Re: Fossil found in meteorite new [Re: llanitedave]
      #6278643 - 12/29/13 08:15 AM

If true it would clearly suggest that life is indeed elsewhere in the universe, but then again could it not be possible that life on Earth is the start of life within the universe, i.e first life?
After all life had to start somewhere, so why not here?


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
llanitedave
Humble Megalomaniac
*****

Reged: 09/26/05

Loc: Amargosa Valley, NV, USA
Re: Fossil found in meteorite new [Re: ianfromoz]
      #6279029 - 12/29/13 12:02 PM

Why not? It's an intriguing question for science fiction, but there's no way to express it as a testable scientific hypothesis at the moment.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Ravenous
professor emeritus


Reged: 11/14/09

Loc: UK
Re: Fossil found in meteorite new [Re: ianfromoz]
      #6280428 - 12/30/13 03:39 AM

Quote:

could it not be possible that life on Earth is the start of life within the universe, i.e first life?



Sure. In fact that's a reasonable guess - after all it's taken this long for metals and other heavy elements to increase in quantity, through stellar nucleosynthesis and so on.

It always struck me as odd that various science fiction writers seem to just assume that there are ten-billion-year old civilisations out there, which would have originated when there was very little else in the universe but Hydrogen and Helium.

Then again, what I just wrote has more than just a few assumptions too!


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
llanitedave
Humble Megalomaniac
*****

Reged: 09/26/05

Loc: Amargosa Valley, NV, USA
Re: Fossil found in meteorite new [Re: Ravenous]
      #6280971 - 12/30/13 12:06 PM

Ten billion would be kind of old, but there's no logical reason why civilization-supporting star systems can't be as much as two or three billion years older than ours.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
rdandrea
Carpal Tunnel
*****

Reged: 06/13/10

Loc: Colorado, USA DM59ra
Re: Fossil found in meteorite new [Re: Glassthrower]
      #6296484 - 01/06/14 05:24 PM

Quote:

Journal of Cosmology is well known in the planetary science community....as being the National Enquirer in the world of science journals.




That's giving the Journal of Cosmology too much credit. At least the Enquirer gets one right once in a while. I'd say more like the "Weekly World News" of "science" journals.

"Space aliens ate my dog" etc...


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Rick Woods
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 01/27/05

Loc: Inner Solar System
Re: Fossil found in meteorite new [Re: rdandrea]
      #6296576 - 01/06/14 06:11 PM

The "Mad Magazine" of journals...?

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Glassthrower
Vendor - Galactic Stone & Ironworks
*****

Reged: 04/07/05

Loc: Oort Cloud 9
Re: Fossil found in meteorite new [Re: Rick Woods]
      #6296671 - 01/06/14 06:51 PM

Journals like this one do play a valuable role in science - by showing us how science can go wrong. Very educated people can make fundamental mistakes. The key mistake in this story is that the original specimen was never verified as a meteorite and is not a meteorite. The rest of the paper is moot.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Pess
(Title)
*****

Reged: 09/12/07

Loc: Toledo, Ohio
Re: Fossil found in meteorite new [Re: Kon Dealer]
      #6307926 - 01/12/14 11:22 AM

1) Is it a meteorite? YES NO

2) If a meteorite, is it extra-terrestrial origin? YES NO

3) IF extra-Terrestrial, Mars? Venus? Seti Alpha 6? YES NO

Pesse (Why make it more complicated?) Mist


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Glassthrower
Vendor - Galactic Stone & Ironworks
*****

Reged: 04/07/05

Loc: Oort Cloud 9
Re: Fossil found in meteorite new [Re: Pess]
      #6310675 - 01/13/14 05:01 PM

1) NO.

2) N/A (see #1 above)

3) Cygnus X-1



Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | (show all)


Extra information
4 registered and 6 anonymous users are browsing this forum.

Moderator:  LivingNDixie, FirstSight, JayinUT 

Print Thread

Forum Permissions
      You cannot start new topics
      You cannot reply to topics
      HTML is disabled
      UBBCode is enabled


Thread views: 3717

Jump to

CN Forums Home


Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics