Microfossils in Meteorites

[LunaSea]

Specifically, Fossils of Cyanobacteria in CI1 Carbonaceous Meteorites:
Implications to Life on Comets, Europa, and Enceladus

(to say nothing of exploding heads down here on earth..
The reviews on this should be quite interesting)

Synopsis

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.

Cable TV synopsis

GIANT BACTERIA FROM OUTER SPACE!

(and yes, there are pictures at the link)


http://journalofcosmology.com/Life100.html

[cliffordu]

1. I KNEW we were the result of a space alien holiday gone bad.

Kind of like Gilligans Island with handguns.

[progressoid]

2. Andromeda Strain!!!11!

[MineralMan]

3. We may all be descendants of alien lifeforms, it seems.

I can't see that it matters much, though, except as a bit of information.

[Demstud]

4. I was excited, but journalofcosmology doesn't seem to be a credible source

The Journal of Cosmology doesn't seem to be a serious scientific journal. It's actually seems to be a lower quality journal specifically dedicated to pushing the idea that life began on other planets. It's the kind of place people would send these kind of pet theories if they were rejected by more prestigious journals and were desperate for somewhere to publish. Also, I read that they're shutting down in May this year? Anyway, lots of reasons for me to feel suspicious until it's backed up by more credible sources.

[didact]

5. Ah really?

I was hyped with the story too. I'll have to look into this Journal of Cosmology...sure picked a serious, credible name.

[LongTomH]

6. NASA is skeptical of these claims.

Quoting from a News.com.au story: NASA skeptical of life in meteorite claim:

TOP NASA scientists say there is no scientific evidence to support a colleague's claim that fossils of alien microbes born in outer space had been found in meteorites on Earth.

The US space agency formally distanced itself from the paper by NASA scientist Richard Hoover, whose findings were published on Friday in the peer-reviewed Journal of Cosmology, which is available free online.

"That is a claim that Mr Hoover has been making for some years," said Carl Pilcher, director of NASA's Astrobiology Institute.

"The science community who analyses meteorites has been aware of these claims for many years," he said.

"I am not aware of any support from other meteorite researchers for this rather extraordinary claim that this evidence of microbes was present in the meteorite before the meteorite arrived on Earth and and was not the result of contamination after the meteorite arrived on Earth."

Aparently, Hoover had submitted his paper to the International Journal of Astrobiology in 2007; but, the "peer review process was not completed for that submission." That leaves open the question: did the paper actually fail the peer review process?

Edited to add: Astronomer Phil Plait has weighed in on this controversy with two posts on his Bad Astronomy blog. First: Has life been found in a meteorite? on March 5, and Followup thoughts on the meteorite fossils claim today. Dr. Plait quotes a number of scientists who have examined the microphotographs of the supposed fossils including astrobiologist Dr. Penelope Boston, microbiologist Rosie Redfield and Rocco Mancinelli at Bay Area Environmental Research Institute.

Here are Phil's conclusions:

1. When I read the paper, my first reaction was pretty strongly of the "Not buyin’ it" variety. The science seemed shaky, and Hoover’s techniques doubtful, but my lack of expertise prevented me from drawing strong conclusions. However, experts in the field of micro- and astrobiology are starting to weigh in, and clearly think the claims of ET life are bogus.
   
   
2. The method of publication is decidedly odd, avoiding the big, reputable journals and instead going with a journal that has published clearly inaccurate articles in the past. I consider this very suspicious but not necessarily evidence the research is wrong.
   
   
3. The method of publicizing is also decidedly odd, avoiding going through NASA channels to issue a press release and instead approaching one news venue directly. Again, as in (2), this is suspicious but not conclusive for or against the results.
   
   
4. Publicly asking for other scientists’ opinions was shrewd, but given the opinions I’m seeing from them so far it’s likely to backfire. Hard. But the media won’t cover that as much as the original announcement — it’s not as sexy, frankly — so it’s unlikely to make much of a difference there. It’s up to blogs and other venues to make sure people get the actual, scientific, and skeptical viewpoint out.
   
   
5. Bottom line: given what scientists are saying now, together with my initial reactions and further thought, it’s my personal opinion that Hoover’s claims are wrong. There are way, way too many red flags here. As a scientist and a skeptic I have to leave some room, no matter how small, for the idea that this might be correct. But that room is tiny indeed, and it looks to me that the search for life beyond Earth will continue, and in time will eventually produce scientifically rigorous results.

[dimbear]

7. Sounds pretty persuasive to me. Unless it's a flat out fraud, there's something there.

Read as much of the paper as you can. It's tough sledding for the non-chemist, but it's worth the struggle. And try to come up with an alternate explanation.........I know I couldn't.

[gtar100]

8. I have my doubts about meteorites being the source of life on earth.

If a small space rock can contain microbes, how much more could the large body of a planet contain that had coalesced from so much more material? A little meteor holds life but a huge conglomeration of star dust doesn't? I'd say it's more likely the stuff that made life here was part of the package deal when the earth was formed from its mother nebula. It seems so much more likely than the story of a barren wasteland getting pelted by bacteria-laden meteors that took root. Isn't it more likely that the space rocks flying about us are all part of the same neighborhood from which we sprang anyway and they are reflecting the same rich heritage that the earth itself has?

We seem so hell-bent on finding a way to prove that we're not from earth. Maybe it's because we are afraid to embrace the inevitable fate of our planet - you, me, our beloved pets, and everyone and everything we hold dear, all to be blended back into the Sun.

[DetlefK]

9. Those primordial organisms would have to survive the birth of earth.

- earthquakes, lava
- dropping meteorites causing explosions as strong as nuclear bombs
- engaging changing temperatures: from fucking cold space to molten rocks

And even if they surive this, they would need a matching chemical environment to survive.

I think it's much more likely that they travel from life-supporting environment to life-supporting environment.