Post by Ryan Maue
You may have seen the breathless coverage on Fox News of the alien life discovery from NASA’s Dr. Hoover — in some fancy meteorite. The “exclusive” nature of the discovery was hailed as evidence that we are not alone. Last week, we discovered that tangentially with the self-professed origination of Charlie Sheen from Mars. Anyhow, Adrian Chen at Gawker has found that this research is hardly new, and simply an update or recycling of claims made since 2004 by Dr. Hoover:
So, we’re calling bull$h%t on Richard Hoover’s discovery, and Fox News’ ‘exclusive’. Maybe Hoover really has found life (probably not). But it’s not news, and it’s far, far from certain.
However, in his zeal to dismiss Fox News as a propaganda outlet for NASA, or engaging in tabloid journalism, I guess Chen missed Andrew Revkin’s piece over at the NY Times:
The buzz is building over a paper by Richard Hoover, an award-winning astrobiologist at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center, concluding that filaments and other features found in the interior of three specimens of a rare class of meteorite appear to be fossils of a life form strongly resembling cyanobacteria.
While this so-called discovery may be entirely correct, perhaps Hoover should have called up the Union of Concerned Scientists instead of Fox News in order to peddle his wares. Revkin publishes first then promises to follow up later:
Rudy Schild, the journal’s editor in chief, said in a note accompanying the paper that reactions to the research, “both pro and con,” will be published on the journal’s Web site between March 7 and 10. I’ll check back in then of course, and I’m reaching out to Hoover and others working in this field now.
Is this a legitimate press release by a scientist with a profound new discovery or another example of “science by press release”? We report, you decide — or you follow up on your own, as in the case of the Ole Gray Lady. Alternatively, just use Google and find a very similar press release from 2004:
Evidence for Indigenous Microfossils in a Carbonaceous Meteorite
Also, don’t forget the discovery and undiscovery of new planets in our galaxy (October 12, 2010). Supposed new planet 20-light years away has been undiscovered
I wonder if they’re based on arsenic…
Nothing more than a Congressional funding press release …
“Life! Don’t talk to me about life!”
Marvin, the Paranoid Android
I used to wonder why scientists were so determined to look in such unlikely places for life. Once life is present many things are possible, but that transition from non-life to life is so enormous.
That is the answer to why they look so hard. They are trying to prove that there is nothing special about life. Regardless of ones beliefs it should be easy to recognize the incredible potential that life has. It is sad that some of these scientists are working so hard to make it meaningless.
Here is the paper, and here are the pics. This is certainly legit science – in the end it could be right or wrong but it certainly not by CoasttoCoastAM quality folks, instead real scientists..
http://journalofcosmology.com/Life100.html
Pics: http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/03/05/6198177-life-in-meteorites-study-stirs-debate?GT1=43001
John Kehr-
I think you are actually arguing the opposite, the beauty of life travelling in meteorites to seed new planets would be the most beautiful form of life, just as a cocnut evolved to float so it could move between disparate islands, why coiuldn’t cyanobacteria evolve to move from planet to planet in meteorites – that would be pretty cool evolution, and perfectly reasonable and selected for under the theory.
It seems this “story” pops up every couple of years, but with a different journalist going ape over it. Makes for a great click magnet. Heck, I even posted it at my site! 8-]
Cheers!
Tre truenorthist, but at some point all the diferent types of evidence showing this become compelling evidence for extraterrestrial life:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V66-48CN1TD-C&_user=10&_coverDate=05%2F01%2F2003&_rdoc=11&_fmt=high&_orig=browse&_origin=browse&_zone=rslt_list_item&_srch=doc-info(%23toc%235806%232003%23999329990%23419930%23FLA%23display%23Volume)&_cdi=5806&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_ct=15&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=721bdd54f2f54882aa2183b9927b1698&searchtype=a
Hardly recycleing research, in fact he cites to most of his papers and discussed the implication of each in the current paper. READ IT
Yeah sure, NASA needs an other load of money from congress after their miserable failures.
Alien life yeah beep beeep beep …uh it’s a code.. oh no just a pulsar, but who cares about our DNA that’s just evolved out of mud no sign of intelligence there. Idiots.
The pictures do look convincingly organic. Dr. Hoover’s theories look promising and deserve serious consideration. I think the biggest reason for caution is that we all really, really want this to be true. Realistically though, we’ll probably need more meteors, or asteroids, like these samples before we’ll know for sure.
John Kehr:
I am as skeptical as anybody — I regularly see scientists and popular treatments vastly underestimating what is required to get life off the ground. Further, you are no doubt correct that there is a strong desire to find extraterrestrial life for philosophical reasons.
That said, I fear some may also be opposed to the idea of extraterrestrial life for philosophical reasons (I’m not suggesting you are).
I think both views are misguided, and I don’t think finding extraterrestrial life will provide much in the way of philosophical support for either viewpoint, as surprising as that will ultimately prove to be to some people. I am exceedingly interested in the quest from a purely scientific and exploratory perspective. It would truly be one of the most important discoveries in a very long time. I’d be pretty surprised, however, if the current story holds up . . .
Is Fox News latching onto this new paper by Dr. Hoover the reason for scoffing here?
As with the Martian rocks a few years ago, the big questions are whether the pictures are of micro-geological formations mimicking biological fossils, or if of biological origin, might they represent invasive terrestrial organisms?
At first glance the actual paper (as opposed to the press release) looks pretty convincing. What do the biologists and chemists here think?
/Mr Lynn
[ryanmaue: more like amusement that Fox and the NY Times are reporting the same things…we are all waiting for rest of the story, as they say, when the “critical reviews” are rolled out by the Journal of Cosmology editor, next week. It would be preferable that everything is published online all at once, but I guess I’m asking for too much.]
Brad wrote:
“. . . just as a cocnut evolved to float so it could move between disparate islands . . .”
Well, I don’t suppose it evolved to float *for that purpose* unless we are suggesting some kind of foresight or planning. I guess what you mean is that at some point the coconut predecessor, by pure happenstance and luck of the mutational draw, accidentially ended up being able to float, while its less fortunate siblings failed to do so. Then I presume the lucky floater, again by chance, was carried abroad and populated the isles to give us the current coconut population we enjoy today. It’s a nice story.
Even if true, however, it seems that with life traveling the cosmos in meteorites we would be dealing with a massively different situation, at least quantitatively, and potentially (I’ll have to think about it a bit more) qualitatively as well.
BTW, where’s Amino Acids in Meteorites — he should be weighing in on this!
@Brad says: March 5, 2011 at 5:38 pm; Here is the paper, and here are the pics. This is certainly legit science – in the end it could be right or wrong but it certainly not by CoasttoCoastAM quality folks, instead real scientists..
http://journalofcosmology.com/Life100.html
————————
The Journal of Climatology does not look like a legit peer reviewed science journal.
“Authors should submit the names, affiliations, and email addresses of 5 scientists qualified to review their paper. Do not submit the names of friends or colleagues. The Editor may use these to guide the selection of referees. All papers are reviewed anonymously by at least two referees who are experts in the field in question. Editors may serve as referees.”
I have never heard of a journal asking the author for list of potential referees nor use editors as referees.
There is a guy named Moller who has been regularly “announcing” the advent of the personal flying car since I was in college (about 40 years ago…).
He was headquartered in the same town as the school I attended and gave regular “demonstrations” that were mostly his gismo on a rope so it couldn’t get away from him and actually fly.
Over the years, I’ve seen repeated “Real Soon Now” claims from him (that mostly seemed to coinside with his desire for more funding…).
He now has a glossy web site that says it’s all in the FAA’s hands now, pending various licensing and certification things… and that will be done Real Soon Now:
http://www.moller.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=53&Itemid=61
So maybe this bug guy is like Mr. Moller. He needs to clang the bell every so often so more feed is delivered down the chute so he can get back to playing with his perpetual toys…
Then again, Mr. Moller has to be about at retirement now, so maybe he will actually fly one of these things (just in time to prove it completely economically a horrid idea) just so he can dodge being called various names….
After the first 20 years or so, you stop paying attention to the hype and look for the truth…
My mind is open to the possibility of anything being plausible. However, I tend to be more than a little suspicious when there is such a furious effort to hype an incomplete story. I’ll also await “the rest of the story”, when the paper has been subjected to thorough review, before considering Dr Hoover’s veracity. Until then I will remain skeptical. Still, it can be fascinating to speculate! I’m game for that.
Cheers!
I feel a storm brewing in the distance. While evolutionary mechanisms are 100% on topic for this discussion, evolution is normally a prohibited topic, so as long as we stay on topic in reference to the Post, it will be allowed.
So anyone who wants to bring in Intelligent Design or Creationism, DON’T.
If you feel like a persecuted minority, sorry, we usually deal with this by avoiding the topic, but this Post is all about material mechanisms for life and its spread, and that’s where it’s going to stay.
All mods, delete ID and Creationism comments at will.
ctm has spoken.
P.S. Brad and Eric, I suggest you look up the concept of preadaption. No it doesn’t mean anticipating future conditions, but it applies to your coconut discussion above (Eric is on track).
[“All mods, delete ID and Creationism comments at will.”
ctm da man. Will do. ~dbs, mod.]
Looks like it was already suggested in 1997:
“July 29, 1997: Fossilized Life Forms in the Murchison Meteorite ”
On July 29, 1997, in San Diego, Richard B. Hoover of NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center announced an important finding. He had seen and photographed in the Murchison meteorite microfossils that resemble microorganisms.”
So for me the odds are for extraterrestrial life as the number of potential solar systems and life bearing planets is simply huge across our galaxy and others. Now the detection or proof is another matter. Now regarding this particular claim, it might very well be fossils of extra terrestrial bacteria; if so then why is this regularly peddled as a new discovered in 1997, then 2004 then 2011?
The odds of life existing on other worlds are surely good.
The odds of a meteorite carrying a sample of it to our little speck, and someone finding it, are not so good.
John Kehr says:
March 5, 2011 at 5:23 pm
John, I don’t understand why the notion of life not being “unique” would make life any less “special” or “amazing”. Does 9 billion people make human life any less special? I personally think not.
I for one believe that life is dense throughout our universe, and I don’t find anything less special about that, in fact, I find that evermore “special”. I don’t think of life as being any less valuable either. That little “spark” that is life is quite remarkable no matter the uniqueness, or non-uniqueness of it.
I believe that some day we will find that life is everywhere, and for me, that will take no magic from it.
“What goes up, must (eventually) come down” ?
regarDS
When I saw this article linked at another website and read through the press release information my first thought was to head to WUWT for the real story and analysis. I can’t think of a better topic to show why the best science blog award is deserved than this.
It would seem the general mood so far is one of cynicism that this was fabricated to build support or hype or secure more grants, but the optimist in me sees a little ray of light that at least the information and methods are being released for independent verification and reproduction of the results. After years of science by committee (IPCC) and a whitewashing of historical records comingled with statistical abuses it is refreshing that a controversial paper would provide this information up front.
It will be very interesting to follow this in the coming days as the dissenting and confirming views are presented.
Just for fun try searching for the following Top 10 terms when you read the paper: “robust” “model” “averaged” “statistically significant” “PCA” “Steig” “Mann” “Hansen” “greenhouse gases” and the number one term … “CO2”
JM
Countless tons of the Earth’s crustal matter has been ejected into interplanetary space during the past billions of years by major impacts. The unvaporized and unmelted portions of the ejecta should have carried along with it the lifeforms resident in it when the impacts occurred. NASA has long speculated on the possibilities of cross-contamination of lifeforms between the Earth and Mars as a consequence of the impacts. The question then must be why anyone should be surprised to eventually find some of the Earth’s lifeforms with the ejecta among the Solar System’s meteorites and asteroids?
Since some small meteorites reaching Earth have been shown to have been blasted off the surface of Mars by large meteors or asteroids, would it not be reasonable to assume that similar fragments have been blasted off the Earth’s surface — and that they would be very likely to assume orbits that eventually return them to the Earth’s surface? This would explain the resemblance of these meteorites’ micro-fossils to known types of Earthly bacteria without assuming that the meteorites have been contaminated after landing.