Polonnaruwa meteorite shows life in outer space

Master Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 10260
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 3:24 pm

PostSun Jan 27, 2013 11:20 pm » by *WillEase*


Apparently, this discovery did make the news...
Here is RT's article.

Rock solid proof of alien life? Scientists claim fossilized algae inside meteorite!
The site owner Lukas said I could show you how to makes hundreds of dollars in your spare time like I do.
If you would like to get yours too, PM me and I WILL hook you up.

Super Moderator
User avatar
Posts: 6271
Joined: Sat May 02, 2009 8:03 am
Location: FEMA SECTOR V

PostMon Feb 04, 2013 8:39 pm » by Seahawk



No, Diatoms Have Not Been Found in a Meteorite

By Phil Plait
Posted Tuesday, Jan. 15, 2013, at 2:46 PM ET




If there’s a story practically guaranteed to go viral, it’s about evidence of life in space. And if you have pictures, why, that’s going to spread like, well, like a virus.
alien_bacteria_balok

Image
If only it were this easy...

So the moment I heard that a paper had been published saying that diatoms—a type of algae, microscopic plant life, that have hard outer shells made of silica and come in a variety of shapes and forms—had been found in a meteorite, I knew I’d get flooded with emails and tweets and Facebook messages because LIFE IN SPACE!

And so I did. People are really curious about this!

But then I read the actual paper, and guess what? Let me be delicate: It’s wrong. Really, really wrong. Way, way, way ridiculously oh-holy-wow-how-could-anyone-publish-this wrong.

[deep breath]

OK, let’s dive in, shall we?

That’s the JoC

The paper was published online on a site called The Journal of Cosmology. I’ll get back to that august publication in just a moment. The lead author is N. C. Wickramasinghe, and as soon as I saw his name alarm bells exploded in my head. Wickramasinghe is a proponent of the idea of panspermia: the notion that life originated in space and was brought to Earth via meteorites. It’s an interesting idea and not without some merits.

However, Wickramasinghe is fervent proponent of it. Like, really fervent. So much so that he attributes everything to life in space. He’s said that the flu comes from space. He’s said SARS comes from space. He’s claimed living cells found in the stratosphere come from space. (There is no evidence at all they do, and it’s far more likely they are terrestrial.) He’s said a weird red rain in India was from space (when it’s been shown conclusively that it isn’t). The list goes on and on. Wickramasinghe jumps on everything, with little or no evidence, and says it’s from outer space, so I think there's a case to be made for a bias on his part.

Now, you might accuse me of using an ad hominem, an argument that cast aspersions on the person making the claim, and not attacking the claim itself. I’ll get to the claim in a moment, but sometimes an ad hominem is warranted! If Sylvia Brown claims she can predict someone’s future, you would be right to doubt her based on her past, since she has continually failed in every attempt to do so. If Jenny McCarthy claimed botox cures autism, again, you might be forgiven for doubting it based on her previous anti-vaccine and other false claims. You still need to examine the claims on their own merits, of course, but: Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.

So, to be polite about it, Wickramasinghe is something of a fringe scientist. Who would publish a paper by him?

The Journal of Cosmology is an online site that claims to be peer reviewed. However, the papers it publishes are not always of the highest quality. One paper they published a few years back claimed to have found fossils in meteorites, and it was roundly ridiculed by biologists familiar with the field—one even used the word “pathetic.” Ouch.

The journal also supports other fringe claims that have very little or no evidence to back them up. For an example in my own field, when some astronomers said they found circumstantial evidence for a previously unknown planet in the outer solar system, the JoC published a page with the headline, “Tyche: Rogue Planet Discovered in Oort Cloud,” which was dead wrong. And because I wrote an article on my blog saying the planet idea is interesting but not convincing, the editors of the JoC expressed their opinion of me:

The torches and pitchforks crowd, led by astronomer-wannabe Phil Plait claims its [sic] not so. But then, Plait's most famous discovery was finding one of his old socks when it went missing after a spin in his dryer.

Yeah. That’s professional.

So right away, I was not inclined to give a lot of weight to the idea that scientists found diatoms in a meteorite. But to be fair, we need to look at the evidence. So let’s take a look.

Diatomaceous Earth

The claim is as follows: A brilliant meteor was seen over Sri Lanka in December 2012. Meteorites from the fall were found and sent to a lab for analysis. When examined under a microscope, clear evidence of diatoms was found. They are fossilized, which means they aren’t ones from Earth that somehow got into the meteorite after it fell. Therefore, this is evidence of life in space.

Image
One of the diatoms found in the speciman. The scale bar is 30 microns, about one-third the width of a human hair.

Image credit: N. C. Wickramasinghe et al.




The microphotographs in the paper are pretty interesting, I’ll admit. As you can see from the one above, there really is something that appears to be biological in the picture, and to my untrained eye it really does look like a diatom.

But I’m no expert! So I did what any good scientist should do. I contacted someone who is an expert. I sent an email with a link to the paper to Patrick Kociolek, a professor of ecology and evolutionary biology at the University of Colorado at Boulder, and director of the University of Colorado Museum of Natural History. He kindly replied, saying,

I should say up front, that most (not all) of the forms pointed out in the paper are indeed diatoms. While the authors may have not referred to some of the images correctly (labeling one as “filamentous” when it is just a fragment of a cell), they are indeed diatoms.

Huh! So they are diatoms! So does this mean life has been found in space?

Not so fast. Kociolek continues:

What is amazing about the forms illustrated is that 1) they are, for the most part, in great shape. There certainly is not any sign of this being fossilized material.

A diatom
An example of a known terrestrial diatom, called Rossithidium pusillum. The vertical line represent a size of 10 microns, one-tenth the diameter of a human hair.

Image credit: Marina Potapova via Diatoms of the United States

Uh oh. That’s a strike against Wickramasinghe, since a big part of his claim is that the diatoms are fossilized and therefore must be native to the rock they found. But it gets worse:

In fact on page 8 of the journal, the authors indicate, “fossils [sic] diatoms were not present near the surface of the Earth to contaminate a new fall of meteorites.” What must have been near, however, was water, since the forms are all freshwater species…

In other words, all the diatoms shown in the paper are from known species on Earth. That makes it somewhat less likely they are native to space. And by somewhat, I mean completely. Like, zero chance they are from space.

Image
An example of a known terrestrial diatom, called Rossithidium pusillum. The vertical line represent a size of 10 microns, one-tenth the diameter of a human hair.

Image credit: Marina Potapova via Diatoms of the United States


Kociolek makes this even more clear:

2) the diversity present in the images represent a wide range of evolutionary history, such that the “source” of the diatoms from outer space, must have gone through the same evolutionary events as here on earth. There are no extinct taxa found, only ones we would find living today…for me it is a clear case of contamination with freshwater.

I find it curious indeed that Wickramasinghe and his co-authors didn’t talk to diatom experts outisde their group about this. I can’t say anything about their own expertise on diatoms, except to note that, as Kociolek points out, they made some really basic errors in identification and didn’t recognize these specimens as Earth diatoms (they compare them to known species, but they should have gone out of their way to try to identify them specifically against known Earth species). That doesn’t speak very well for their scholarship here.

So, there you go. These aren’t evidence of life from space, they’re evidence of life on Earth. I hate to break it to you, but we already knew about that.

Meteorwrong

So much for the diatoms. But it turns out I was pretty sure the claim of life in space was wrong even before I heard back from Kociolek, though. And that’s because of the meteorite itself.

Or, I should say, “meteorite.” The evidence presented for that is pretty fishy as well.

First, the claim of a bright shooting star over Sri Lanka in December, 2012 is fine. And we do sometimes find meteorites—the actual solid bits of space rock and/or metal—after such a sighting. I love meteorites, and I’m fascinated by them. I own several myself.

But the story presented in Wickramasinghe’s paper gets a little sketchy at this point. They claim that one of the authors found a meteorite from the event and sent it to Wickramasinghe for analysis. However, there are no details whatsoever of the find itself. Where did they find it, exactly? What kind of environment did it fall in? Was it on a street, in a riverbed, on the roof of a building, or what? And how did they handle it? What precautions were taken to prevent contamination? Why are there no photographs of it in situ? The fact that none of this information is in the paper is irregular, to say the least.

And here’s the million dollar question: How do they know it was from that meteor sighting? There is not a single shred of evidence to back up this claim. Nothing. It could simply be a bit of black rock they found somewhere. They do present a chemical analysis and claim it’s a carbonaceous chondrite meteorite, a specific type of space rock with clear structures and composition. However, the analysis they present doesn’t prove it’s a carbonaceous chondrite, let alone a meteorite. For example, the chemicals (carbon, olivine, and so on) they found are also readily found in Earth rocks. Olivine is everywhere, like in beach sand. So right from the start, there’s no reason to trust that what they have is a meteorite.

Read more:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/01/15/life_in_a_meteorite_claims_by_n_c_wickramasinghe_of_diatoms_in_a_meteorite.html


Upload to Disclose.tv



We gather knowledge faster than we gather wisdom. - William Bell

Master Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 10609
Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2009 11:11 pm

PostMon Feb 04, 2013 8:51 pm » by Cornbread714


Good find, Hawk.
Where's the beer and when do I get paid?
- Jimmy Carl Black (the Indian of the group)

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 2224
Joined: Sun Sep 02, 2007 9:06 pm
Location: Just About Everywhere

PostMon Feb 04, 2013 8:55 pm » by Rizze


Rizze wrote:
Fatdogmendoza wrote:I think that this site is the origin of the article...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journal_of_Cosmology

:think:


The quality of peer review at the journal has been questioned several times. The journal has also been accused of promoting fringe viewpoints


Says it all


Just like i said here it isn't a real science journal at all, but is the... website of a small group... obsessed with the idea of Hoyle and Wickramasinghe that life originated in outer space and simply rained down on Earth.
Image

http://ufomaniacs.blogspot.com/
http://tiny.cc/Rizzesearch
"The greatest things on earth are us,supposedly.
Why don't we act accordingly, with humanity" Rizze


Previous

  • Related topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post
Visit Disclose.tv on Facebook