http://journalofcosmology.com/Life100.html

[SIZE=+1]

[SIZE=+1]Dr. Hoover has discovered evidence of microfossils similar to Cyanobacteria, in freshly fractured slices of the interior surfaces of the Alais, Ivuna, and Orgueil CI1 carbonaceous meteorites. Based on Field Emission Scanning Electron Microscopy (FESEM) and other measures, Dr. Hoover has concluded they are indigenous to these meteors and are similar to trichomic cyanobacteria and other trichomic prokaryotes such as filamentous sulfur bacteria. He concludes these fossilized bacteria are not Earthly contaminants but are the fossilized remains of living organisms which lived in the parent bodies of these meteors, e.g. comets, moons, and other astral bodies. The implications are that life is everywhere, and that life on Earth may have come from other planets[/SIZE]

.
[/SIZE]

 

I don't understand the big deal about seed theory, life still had to originate from somewhere.
More on topic, <insert skeptical comment showing conflicting values of hope>.

 

There was similar excitement a couple of decades ago about something seen in a meteorite from Mars. Although you can't prove a negative, the final consensus was an abiotic artifact.

The recent finding is exciting, but a lot more analysis needs to be done as the publisher freely admits.

John

 

I like Dr. Schild's assertion that "no other paper in the history of science has undergone such a thorough analysis." Now I am not questioning the report at all (especially since I haven't read it yet), but when you make rediculous claims you come off as a car salesman rather than an objective expert. I had to take a class on this recently (technical writing), and that may be why I noticed

 

Human authory,because you are a member of a respected group
that agrees with what you publish,what makes it true. Who,what when,
and where. A reaction that can produce a result in real time proven facts.
Like a disease and a cure with chemical drug that keeps people from
death.

 

@Loosewire
It seems you are proposing that Dr. Hoover satisfy Koch's postulates. That's unlikely to happen this year.

On the other hand, the article is quite interesting. It is written in a style that is a bit more flamboyant than the style I am used to, but that seems to be common today. At a minimum, it is a nice review. I particularly appreciated the update on the Murchison meteorite.

As for credibility based on associations, that has existed for a very long time. It is not always an accurate gauge of character, but it is the best measure we have until the work can be repeated in independent laboratories.

John

 

What about "Watson and his likes,will make these calulations be
quicker and more accurate still depending the human element.
What is the missing link with more computing power. John you
know you stuff.

 

I just read it, and whatever else it might accomplish, this paper reveals my ignorance of the subject I am not sure if that should be exciting or overwhelming. Possibly both?

 

If you saw the bacteria under microscope would it be alive,active.
What is follis bacteria,do they have something to compare it with.
There a lot questions that be asks about it to give better under
standing. What conditions was it found in dry or moist,would that
make a differents.One step questions.

 

http://journalofcosmology.com/Life100.html

[SIZE=+1]. [/SIZE]

Is it just me or does that site look somewhat alternative?

 

Is it just me or does that site look somewhat alternative?

Dude, that's the best laugh I have had in a while...somewhat alternative.

 

Is it just me or does that site look somewhat alternative?

I agree, but Carl Sagan was a bit alternative too with his billionssss and billionssss of stars thing. That did not diminish his legitimacy nor did Einstein's, Newton's, and Feynman's public profiles. It does raise a yellow flag, but let's see what the nerds come up with in the next year.

I don't think anyone seriously doubts extraterrestrial life; what we are looking for the is the first proof of it.

John

 

Is it just me or does that site look somewhat alternative?

I don't think that's a bad thing if they are doing real science and pushing the limits of what's possible. It's doesn’t mean the conclusions are correct but I can see how it's one way to explain the finding.

A search of the editor turns up lots of papers.
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-abs_connect?author=schild,r&nr_to_return=all

 

I agree, but Carl Sagan was a bit alternative too with his billionssss and billionssss of stars thing.

People say this often, but I've had trouble actually finding any place where he says "billions and billions". Can you find any citations in books, articles, interviews or videos where he says this? I'm really curious, and I think that this just may be something falsely attributed to him from the Johnny Carson impersonation skits.

 

People say this often, but I've had trouble actually finding any place where he says "billions and billions". Can you find any citations in books, articles, interviews or videos where he says this? I'm really curious, and I think that this just may be something falsely attributed to him from the Johnny Carson impersonation skits.

Correct, but he did say.

http://hermiene.net/essays-trans/mr_x.html

His scientific analysis is pure Sagan.

 

I have a question on how scientists recognize a fossil from something as tiny as bacteria.

Is there a pattern of organisms? How are they so sure it is bacteria and not just some anomaly in the rock?

 

I wonder if the present welter of over you-know-what and other similar crank material will make genuine new science more difficult to be recognised in future?

That said, I do not feel qualified to say much about the article that started this, except to say that perhaps other workers will be able to derive independent results which will lend support to it or otherwise - time will tell.

 

Can you find any citations in books, articles, interviews or videos where he says this?

He may not actually have said "billions and billions" in the strictest sense. I don't remember every word, and it is not important enough to try to look up. I did watch his shows on public television religiously, and he certainly referred to billions of galaxies, billions of stars in each, and untold billions of planets in various sequences and with various conjunctions and other connecting words. I find it less implausible than the existence of extraterrestrial life that at least once in his life, he said "billions and billions," perhaps while he was showering and the recorders were turned off. The term and his pronunciation of "billions" is certainly associated with him.

John

 

I have a question on how scientists recognize a fossil from something as tiny as bacteria.

Is there a pattern of organisms? How are they so sure it is bacteria and not just some anomaly in the rock?

That is a good point. You are in Pittsburgh and the science museum in Oakland has (or used to have) a wonderful exhibit in the children's section that challenged you to decide whether something was a fossil or a natural formation. That was quite difficult to do.

More on point, chemicals can self assemble into geometric forms. DNA and peptides are just two examples. Such forms could form the nidus or framework for inorganic precipitates that would then take the same shape and be mistaken as arising from a biologic origin. In the case of such fossils as described in this report, the theories are based on finding various elements, elemental ratios, and complex chemicals that we associate with life on Earth.

John

 

I don't think anyone seriously doubts extraterrestrial life; what we are looking for the is the first proof of it.
John

Oh, I know a few.
I really want to see how they react to it when it IS found.