PDA

View Full Version : NASA finds evidence of alien life on meteorite.



LWW
03-06-2011, 03:35 AM
http://a57.foxnews.com/static/managed/img/Scitech/604/341/actual%20bacterium.jpg

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">We are not alone in the universe -- and alien life forms may have a lot more in common with life on Earth than we had previously thought.
That's the stunning conclusion one NASA scientist has come to, releasing his groundbreaking revelations in a new study in the March edition of the Journal of Cosmology.

Dr. Richard B. Hoover, an astrobiologist with NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center, has traveled to remote areas in Antarctica, Siberia, and Alaska, amongst others, for over ten years now, collecting and studying meteorites. He gave FoxNews.com early access to the out-of-this-world research, published late Friday evening in the March edition of the Journal of Cosmology. In it, Hoover describes the latest findings in his study of an extremely rare class of meteorites, called CI1 carbonaceous chondrites -- only nine such meteorites are known to exist on Earth.

Though it may be hard to swallow, Hoover is convinced that his findings reveal fossil evidence of bacterial life within such meteorites, the remains of living organisms from their parent bodies -- comets, moons and other astral bodies. By extension, the findings suggest we are not alone in the universe, he said.
“I interpret it as indicating that life is more broadly distributed than restricted strictly to the planet earth,” Hoover told FoxNews.com. “This field of study has just barely been touched -- because quite frankly, a great many scientist would say that this is impossible.”

In what he calls “a very simple process,” Dr. Hoover fractured the meteorite stones under a sterile environment before examining the freshly broken surface with the standard tools of the scientist: a scanning-electron microscope and a field emission electron-scanning microscope, which allowed him to search the stone’s surface for evidence of fossilized remains.

He found the fossilized remains of micro-organisms not so different from ordinary ones found underfoot -- here on earth, that is.

“The exciting thing is that they are in many cases recognizable and can be associated very closely with the generic species here on earth,” Hoover told FoxNews.com. But not all of them. “There are some that are just very strange and don’t look like anything that I’ve been able to identify, and I’ve shown them to many other experts that have also come up stumped.”

Other scientists tell FoxNews.com the implications of this research are shocking, describing the findings variously as profound, very important and extraordinary. But Dr. David Marais, an astrobiologist with NASA’s AMES Research Center, says he’s very cautious about jumping onto the bandwagon.

These kinds of claims have been made before, he noted -- and found to be false.

“It’s an extraordinary claim, and thus I’ll need extraordinary evidence,” Marais said.

Knowing that the study will be controversial, the journal invited members of the scientific community to analyze the results and to write critical commentaries ahead of time. Though none are online yet, those comments will be posted alongside the article, said Dr. Rudy Schild, a scientist with the Harvard-Smithsonian's Center for Astrophysics and the editor-in-chief of the Journal of Cosmology.

"Given the controversial nature of his discovery, we have invited 100 experts and have issued a general invitation to over 5,000 scientists from the scientific community to review the paper and to offer their critical analysis," Schild wrote in an editor's note along with the article. "No other paper in the history of science has undergone such a thorough vetting, and never before in the history of science has the scientific community been given the opportunity to critically analyze an important research paper before it is published, he wrote."
Dr. Seth Shostak, senior astronomer at the SETI Institute, said there is a lot of hesitancy to believe such proclamations. If true, the implications would be far-reaching throughout the fields of science and astronomy, the suggestions and possibilities stunning.

“Maybe life was seeded on earth -- it developed on comets for example, and just landed here when these things were hitting the very early Earth,” Shostak speculated. “It would suggest, well, life didn’t really begin on the Earth, it began as the solar system was forming.”

Hesitancy to believe new claims is something common and necessary to the field of science, Hoover said.

“A lot of times it takes a long time before scientists start changing their mind as to what is valid and what is not. I’m sure there will be many many scientists that will be very skeptical and that’s OK.”

Until Hoover’s research can be independently verified, Marais said, the findings should be considered “a potential signature of life.” Scientists, he said, will now take the research to the next level of scrutiny, which includes an independent confirmation of the results by another lab, before the findings can be classified “a confirmed signature of life.”

Hoover says he isn’t worried about the process and is open to any other explanations.

“If someone can explain how it is possible to have a biological remain that has no nitrogen, or nitrogen below the detect ability limits that I have, in a time period as short as 150 years, then I would be very interested in hearing that."
"I’ve talked with many scientists about this and no one has been able to explain,” he said.</div></div>

KLAATU BARADA NICTO (http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/03/05/exclusive-nasa-scientists-claims-evidence-alien-life-meteorite/)

LWW

Sev
03-07-2011, 08:22 AM
Funny I was going to post this last night. It was in the paper.

The seeding theory has been around for quite a while. However the interesting point would be that the seeding has never ended.

It is also theorized that there was a planet between Earth and Mars once. The seeding could have occurred after its destruction. Or perhaps changed the direction or evolution if life already existed on earth.

LWW
03-07-2011, 04:23 PM
Panspermia.

It answers a lot of questions.

LWW

Soflasnapper
03-08-2011, 12:42 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Panspermia.

It answers a lot of questions.

LWW </div></div>

But kicks the can down the road, also.

Specifically, the origin of the life that came here to seed life here.

Sev
03-08-2011, 12:58 PM
It also means that something some where is ahead of us.

LWW
03-08-2011, 01:17 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Panspermia.

It answers a lot of questions.

LWW </div></div>

But kicks the can down the road, also.

Specifically, the origin of the life that came here to seed life here. </div></div>

How so?

One, it doesn't mean there was no life here before one or more species was seeded.

Two, it points to a Creator's hand.

LWW

Soflasnapper
03-08-2011, 01:49 PM
There are several challenges to the life from not-life, mechanistic random origin of life theory that tries to show life could originate without a creator's hand.

One is that life forms all have the same chirality, although there are perfectly good stereo isomers of amino acids with a corresponding parallel though mirror image biochemistry available, and if life came about through purely random processes, one might expect to find one variation using the left-handed proteins and sugars and another using the right-handed variations. We do not see this-- all known life is one-handed in this respect.

If all life here came from elsewhere originally, then there is no issue with the chirality, since it would NOT have come from random processes, but from the life forms that got here to seed this world.

Another objection to life from inert lifeless matter was that it appeared far too soon in the fossil record, at about the earth age of 1 billion years, both too short for much of an evolutionary time, and most importantly, when the earth was essentially void and without form, molten and way too hot for the coherence and endurance of lipo-protein cell walls, if we're talking proto-life, concatenated replicating chains, turning into actual life.

This again is answered by panspermia, that more fully formed bacterial forms of life, or virii, whatever, got here already formed, so the very beginnings of that formation wouldn't have been subjected to the destabilizing and denaturing heat of earth.

So, panspermia answers some objections to the theory that life came forth here via random accident of chemical mixtures, but only by denying that was the origin, AND by simply asking the same question of origin, not of life here (which is answered), but of the life that came here. With the added bonus that we can probably never know anything about the origins of such off-earth life forms.

LWW
03-08-2011, 01:53 PM
Do you believe in the big bang?

wolfdancer
03-08-2011, 02:19 PM
what, nothing cognitive, nor even negative in an attempt to discredit his well written, well thought out, post?
Not even JohnnyD could come up with something to add, nor subtract from his post.
I enjoyed "Sof's) input,as my own vocabulary is somewhat limited, and to see someone's ideas expressed so well...it's a treat, a rare treat, especially, for this site....
I can't explain life...in the beginning there was just Ozzie and Harriet, David and Ricky. Then Ricky killed David, and received an exit visa, for his act....and in the very next chapter,the earth is overrun with peoples

Soflasnapper
03-08-2011, 03:47 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Do you believe in the big bang? </div></div>

I'm agnostic on the issue. It provides some answers to facts such as the isotropy of matter and the Hubble red shift and the background microwave radiation, of course.

But I've always had a soft spot for the underdog theories, and Hoyle's steady state theory is intriguing to me, so I hold out hope for it, and have decided to not entirely believe in the big bang version of cosmology, pending additional evidence.

LWW
03-09-2011, 03:44 AM
Einstein clung to Hoyle before Hubble's discovery. He didn't like the big bang because it required a miracle.

LWW