Moontanman Posted March 7, 2011 Posted March 7, 2011 Fossils of Cyanobacteria in CI1 Carbonaceous Meteorites: 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. http://journalofcosmology.com/Life100.html
CharonY Posted March 7, 2011 Posted March 7, 2011 This journal does not appear to be peer-reviewed and half of the paper does not support its main points. To call the presented evidence weak would be flattering.
Mr Skeptic Posted March 7, 2011 Posted March 7, 2011 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. To be honest, I wouldn't have accepted a single paper in a peer reviewed journal as sufficient evidence for the claim anyhow. Let's wait and see what these scientists conclude, or if this just fades into nothingness.
Ophiolite Posted March 7, 2011 Posted March 7, 2011 I have long favoured pan spermia as an explanation of the appearance of life on Earth. The research is interesting, but something this important requires some very critical analysis and certainly comparable evidence and conclusions from other, wholly independent studies.
Moontanman Posted March 7, 2011 Author Posted March 7, 2011 My problem with this has to do with the chirality of the molecules, if they are 50/50 between left and right then it would appear that no life forms were involved, the fossil pics are somewhat less than overwhelmingly convincing either.
Athena Posted March 7, 2011 Posted March 7, 2011 It seems to me this paper questioning if life on earth evolved from bacteria, needs to be considered, along with the consideration of if meteorites transport life around the universe. How would a bacteria that uses sulfur as life energy, evolve into organisms that use the sun's light or protein for energy? http://www.actionbioscience.org/newfrontiers/jeffares_poole.html This explanation of the flexibility of RNA and a RNA world seems to explain why life began with so much variety and is reduced to so little variety.
Moontanman Posted March 8, 2011 Author Posted March 8, 2011 It seems to me this paper questioning if life on earth evolved from bacteria, needs to be considered, along with the consideration of if meteorites transport life around the universe. How would a bacteria that uses sulfur as life energy, evolve into organisms that use the sun's light or protein for energy? Very easily, chemo-synthesis is related to photosynthesis and the two probably evolved together.. This explanation of the flexibility of RNA and a RNA world seems to explain why life began with so much variety and is reduced to so little variety. I'm not sure if this is relevant but life on earth is extremely flexible, bacteria and Archaea, use everything from hydrogen to uranium for chemical energy, the idea of "so little variety" is puzzling. Life on earth is extremely variable and sulfur utilizing bacteria are very common, purple sulfur bacteria are a good example. some bacteria life off nothing but hydrogen and carbon releasing methane as a waste gas, other bacteria use the methane to produce energy. Life on earth has so much variety I can't see how this guy can say that it has little variety. As much as I would love to see this be confirmed i have some real problems with the pics, they look like crystals, vaguely organic crystals but not life. i have often wondered if crystals and life were related in some way. The cores of comets and small ice moons might be life factories after all but these pics look more like crystals than life.
Airbrush Posted March 8, 2011 Posted March 8, 2011 Has the evidence for life inside Mars rocks finally been confirmed? If not, maybe this will also take a long time to produce similar non-conclusive results.
Syntho-sis Posted March 8, 2011 Posted March 8, 2011 No this paper wasn't legit at all. Did you happen to notice that most of the images used are from various species of micro-organisms right here on Earth? Why hasn't 'Science' or 'Nature' came out with anything? Are they out of the loop? Yea right. Don't feed me bologna and call it filet Mignon. Cheers,
Recommended Posts