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
Lonnie E. Schubert says:
“If they are out there, why are they not here?”
Because there are 100,000 million stars in our galaxy? One would have thought that the chances of one civilization encountering our star pretty remote – unless they knew we were here.
Of course, they may not be in our galaxy but in some other. In which case, forget about them ever coming here. Oh, and your assumption that they could have had 12 billion year start is incorrect. It would take 2nd or 3rd generation stars to evolve before life becomes possible, due to a number of factors, including a) the need for heavy elements to form via super novae and b) the fact that the early galaxy was not a hospitable place for life due to a propensity of super massive short lived stars and the frequent bombardments from these super novae.
D. Patterson: “Based upon numbers and probabilities, it can be reasonably argued that lt is virtually a 100 percent certainty that life has developed from inorganic matter innumerable times throughout this and other galaxies in the Universe.”
With all due respect, I’m not sure what numbers you would be referring to. The probabilities in fact suggest that the likelihood of life developing from inorganic matter in the time and availiable space of the known universe is virtually nil. We do of course know of at least one instance of life having taken hold, so it is a very interesting question what we should make of that fact. But to suggest that life would almost certainly arise an innumerable number of times from inorganic matter, even given billions of galaxies and hundreds of billions of planets in each, appears to be a faith-based statement, without support. We can add billions more galaxies and hundreds of billions more planets and it would just be a rounding error in comparison to the probabilistic hurdles that have to be overcome to get life off the ground.
————–
John McDonald and others:
The question of origins and the ID/evolution discussion is exceedingly interesting and important. However, I appreciate the mods’ decision to not let WUWT threads get into the discussion, notwithstanding the relative merits of the concepts. There are lots of other sites where those issues can be debated in detail. I find it refreshing that we can participate in WUWT topics with relatively little deviation into ID/evolution discussions. Even if folks’ personal views sometimes shine through, and even if there is an occasional jab here or there, I haven’t seen any overtly ID-bashing or Creationism-bashing at WUWT — do let the mods know offline if you have seen any egregious behavior and I am sure they will take care of it fairly. Based on the tone of many other posters I’ve seen here, you can probably take comfort that there are lots of folks who share your viewpoint, and I would hope no-one feels like their ideas are being unfairly singled out, but I do support the mods’ decision to stay out of that particular debate at WUWT.
Lonnie E. Schubert (March 6, 2011 at 12:20 pm) poses an intriguing connundrum: If humans have the potential to colonize much of the Milky Way Galaxy over the next few tens of millenia (and we clearly do, even at modest velocities), then why haven’t similarly-capable denizens of other systems reached us first? After all, they have had billions of years to do so. Is this an argument that they don’t exist?
I would guess probably not. It is simple enough exercise to postulate that since old Sol occupies a remote arm of our galaxy, it’s just a backwater that our competitors in the galactic mainstream have not yet bothered with (unless, of course, they did, and we are them!).
But then, should we assume that other life forms share our biochemistry and would necessarily find Earth appealing?
Well, this is why we invented science fiction. At this point we can only speculate, but speculation is great fun, and will inspire the next generation of astronauts and earthbound scientists, especially the X-T (extra-terrestrial) biologists.
/Mr Lynn
Eric Anderson says:
March 6, 2011 at 1:40 pm
“In the case of life being seeded from another planet”
From another planet (accidently) outside the solar system is close enough to impossible to safely discount it. Crick and Orgel calculated the odds in the 1970’s which is why they came up with Directed Panspermia where the “seeds” are targeted by an intelligent agency for planets with suitable characteristics. Panspermia is generally restricted to organic building blocks (amino acids) spontaneously forming on comets in our own solar system.
Sheldon and Hoover’s hypothesis is that prokaryotes and bacteriophages underwent chemical evolution on comets around stars older than ours and that these are transmitted from solar system to solar system when stars approach each other close enough (1-2 light years) for their Oort clouds to mingle and exchange material which then rains down onto inner planets from the gravitational perturbation caused by the close approach of the two stars.
There are only nine of this type of meteorite. He cracked one open and examined the newly-created surface. He saw something that looked like a tube, and some other things that looked like several parallel tubes. Chemical testing shows, indeed, amino acids and other bio-chemicals in this meteorite. The chemical testing shows some bio-compounds we do not know how to synthesize. To me this is more interesting than the little tubes. Fossilized bacteria are not like fossilized dinosaurs, no bones, no feathers, nothing recognizable as formerly alive. Suspiciously, the photo of the little tube is compared to a cyanobacter which is five times larger, but a similar shape.
The contention is that this type of meteorite is leftover raw material of our Sun from the outer asteroid belt, or a comet. The meteorite is soft carbonaceous black goop with a “fusion coat” from the re-entry heat , apparently quite similar to the composition of the Sun minus the hydrogen and helium.
Interesting work, he has asked for comments about the validity from 5,000 scientists. I wonder how many will respond.
New post update to this one …
Link…
“The question for this thread is whether or not some meteorites plausibly contain fossil evidence of microscopic living things, and not whether such life originated as an act of Nature or one of God.”
Why are the two assumed to be mutually exclusive?
[ryanm: tsk, tsk, rules are rules]
[snip ~ctm]
If NASA has so much time on it’s hands, I propose that we establish a base on the moon. While they are there they can build a nice telescope at the pole.
If they want to look for extraterrestrial dna there in their spare time, that would be fine. it might be a less contaminated location.
If they want to use the telescope during their off hours to watch for returning aliens, that would be fine too.
Lonnie E. Schubert says: March 6, 2011 at 12:20 pm:
Mr Schubert, thank you very much, sir, for your detailed and considered comments. I actually agree with every word that you say (especially adhering to Einstein’s limits), apart from your conclusion, which is, perhaps, more a matter of philosophy. (BTW, I think that my figure of 70kyr was wrong – should have been 700kyr -however this adds nothing to the discussion and it is late, and I can’t find my calculator).
My calculation of communications limits was based upon our most powerful signals into space – since 1960 ballistic missile early warning systems (BMEWS) radars. I assumed our most sensitive receiver to be Arecebo (perfectly aligned with a perfectly matched narrow band filter). However, any more moderately advanced civilisation would surely use high frequency lasers for communication, which we have never looked for.
But perhaps I can explain my thoughts better thus: If I walk through a forest and I see an anthill, what do I do – attempt to communicate? destroy it? No, I marvel at the industry of the inhabitants, who do me no harm, and pass on.
“Dave Springer says:
You’re conflating genotype with phenotype. The two aren’t joined at the hip, so to speak. The thing found in the meteorite was a fossil with a shape similar to a modern bacteria. Nothing about its genotype can be determined from just the shape of it”
Why do you think rod shaped bacteria are rod shaped? What biochemical mechanisms have they that allow a sophisticated elongation and invagination/decoupling at rod center, without suffering from osmotic shock?
Rods are much more sophisticated than spheres.
Communication infers two way conversation.
We don’t live long enough for that to occur over such a vast abyss.
We’re only 12,000 years or so thawing out of the last ice age.
6000 years of relatively stable climate coinciding with the rapid ascent of civilization.
Most likely we will have to be satisfied with communicating with one another. Hopefully we can learn that art before the next ice age sends us back from whence we came.
This is a good example of slipping in a rhetorical landmine that will explode into a verbal war. CAGW may be an ideology with overtones of religion, but Creationism is religion pure and simple. My response: It is hard to believe that Dave Springer would resort to that old shibboleth, “random recombination [of] mud that turns into mind”; the obvious answer is that natural selection ain’t random. But I will refrain from elaborating, as it will surely get snipped.
/Mr Lynn
Lonnie Schubert said:
“Mr. Longstaff, you indicate your calculations indicate a rock randomly ejected from earth at little more than escape velocity would reach 100 light-years distance in 70ky. (I’ve interpolated and added my own assumptions. Please correct me if I misunderstand or mistake you.)”
This demonstrates Mr. Longstaff fails to understand the nature of interplanetary ballistics.
Firstly, the Voyager 1 probe was actively propelled on escape trajectory from Earth at velocities significantly in excess of Earth escape velocity, with a velocity of about40,000 km/hr even AFTER the gravity losses of escaping Earth’s gravity well (25,000 mph) were deducted from it. It then travelled to Jupiter, which gave it a rather large boost to its velocity, with a smaller boost when it flew past Saturn, etc.
Its maximum velocity it ever attained was 125,000 km/hr, which is five times more than Earth escape velocity. It is currently going 38,400 mph, or 61,600 kmph and has achieved a velocity that allows it to not only escape the Sun’s gravity well (which is MUCH deeper and larger than Earth’s, solar system escape velocity is 42.1kmph while Earth escape velocity is a mere 12.1 kmph, to escape both you need to have enough deltaV to reach a velocity of 54.2 kmph, either via rocket fuel or gravity assists or both.
Voyager 1 is estimated that it will reach a distance of 4.2 light years (distance to Proxima Centauri) in 73,000 years or more, although it isnt going in the direction of that star.
So no, there is absolutely no way that a rock ejected from Earth at “slightly over escape velocity” will travel 100 light years in a mere 70,000 years. If a rock is ejected at slightly over escape velocity, then the escape velocity is subtracted from its velocity by the time it escapes Earth’s gravity well, so if it is going 26,000 mph when it is ejected, when it reaches interplanetary space, it will only be going 1,000 mph.
The missing aliens question has a formal name, The Fermi Paradox. Fermi just asked, “Where are they?” Even loafing, and taking time to build up an industrial and social base on each colony, any space-faring race can colonize the galaxy in a million years or few. Side to side, end to end, top to bottom.
Either they’re very discreet, or …
The Pellegrino-Asimov Rules for Alien Contact, posited in Flying to Valhalla, make it clear. It’s probable/possible that some/most dominant species are predators in origin. They, or at least one of them, will want to dominate or eliminate competition. Other species, even if not so aggressive, must assume someone is out there intending to get them.
So… the only rational policy is to wipe out all current and possible competition. The preferred method is a solar-orbiting automatic factory facility turning out kinetic missiles, powered by anti-matter and boosted on their way with super-long rail guns.
They travel at ~.92C, and on arrival punch a 100-mile wide vacuum column in the atmosphere before smashing through the crust. The rebound ejection of molten material swathes the planet in a soot shield, and rains hot rock everywhere. Tectonic disruption finishes the job of wiping out all life larger than a beetle.
It must be done ASAP, as during transit time, there is a good chance your target will also spot you and launch, resulting in mutual extinction.
The only safe option is sort of a paranoid Hawkings dispersal, and then hiding very silently and unobtrusively on apparently barren planets.
At 0.92C, btw, you see incoming about 12X as far away as they actually are. So detecting gamma bow wakes from missiles at one l.y. away means the missiles are actually about a month out. When you see them at 2 light-weeks, they’re just over a day away. When they seem to be a day away, you’ve got 2 hours. When they’re a light minute or two away, you have just time to bend over and kiss your bippy good-bye.
So the sooner we get our near-solar planet-blaster factories set up, and start dispersing to nondescript near and far solar systems, the better.
Am I the only poster on here who read his paper? Apparently I am, no other comments refer to his text.
Don’t get them wet, and don’t feed them after midnight.
Seriously – life of this kind would exist for what purpose? Spending eternity waiting for orbital mechanics to interfere and divert your sorry self to a nourishing planet must be the result of divine creation because it sure as hell can’t happen in the laboratory of evolution. There is no possibility for such life to know what to prepare for, genetically. It has no mission, and not having a mission is not a mission. Why would a collection of molecules assemble for the specific task of drifting perhaps forever in orbit around a star that will blink out some day? Real life has far greater ambition, hence the iPhone and Facebook.
This thing belongs in the nutter archives with the Mother Tree story – and perhaps Ayla, the world’s original horse whisperer.
[snip ~ ctm]
Mike Lorrey says: March 6, 2011 at 6:00 pm: This demonstrates Mr. Longstaff fails to understand the nature of interplanetary ballistics.
Look again – I did not state a velocity. Indeed, my 70 kyr estimate was based (from memory) on Voyager 1. Just add more time or speed to get to 100 light years.
[response, snipped ~ ctm]
[snip ~ ctm]
Roger Longstaff says:
March 7, 2011 at 2:45 am
Mike Lorrey says: March 6, 2011 at 6:00 pm: This demonstrates Mr. Longstaff fails to understand the nature of interplanetary ballistics.
“Look again – I did not state a velocity. Indeed, my 70 kyr estimate was based (from memory) on Voyager 1. Just add more time or speed to get to 100 light years.”
4.2 light years is less than 1/20th of 100 light years, so to reach 100 light years in the same time frame, Voyager 1 would need to be travelling 20+ times its present velocity, hardly “slightly more than escape velocity” as you first claimed, even tho Voyager 1 is going significantly more than escape velocity already. So, suck it up, admit your error, and move forward.
Mike Lorrey says: March 7, 2011 at 6:30 am: So, suck it up, admit your error, and move forward.
I grow weary of your grandstanding – look at my post (7.56 am, March 6th) which does not say “slightly more than escape velocity”. Also, buy a book on maths!
Amino acids are common throughout interstellar space. Their further organization into organic structures common to Earth’s biological lifeforms have already been obtained in early deep space like experimental conditions. “In their deep-space simulator, the Astrochemistry Lab team has previously produced cell-membrane-like structures and other organic compounds basic to life.” You are going to have a very difficult time making a convincing argument why these pervasive precursors to reproductive lifeforms are not a natural and common extension of such organic chemistry as found in astrobiology.
D. Patterson,
Well, the faith of the believers sometimes knows no bounds. Pardon me if I’m not too impressed with some amino acids in space. I’ll do you one better.
I’m willing to grant you all the amino acids you want; heck, I’ll even give them all to you in a non-racemic mixture. I’m willing to give you the most benign and hospitable environment you can possibly imagine for your fledgling structures to form (take your pick of the popular ideas: tide pools, volcanic vents, undersea hydrothermal vents, mud globules, cometary clouds in space . . .). I’ll even throw in the energy you need in Goldilocks fashion: just the right amount to facilitate the chemical reactions, not too much to destroy the nascent formations. I’ll grant you the exact relative mixture of the specific amino acids you want and will give you just the right concentration needed for optimum reaction. I’ll further spot you that all these critical conditions occur in the same location at the same time. Shoot, as a bonus I’ll even prevent contaminating cross reactions and will step in to keep the fledgling structures from their natural rate of breakdown. Every one of the foregoing items are huge challenges and significant open questions to the formation of life, but I’m willing to grant them all.
You still won’t have anything even closely resembling life. If anyone thinks otherwise, please let Harvard know immediately, before they spend the $100 million they recently committed to study these very issues to try to determine how in the world (pun intended) life could possibly have come about.
So yes, if one is convinced that it is easy for life to form — a few amino acids here, a bit of energy there, mix in a few millennia, and viola — then the occasional discoveries about amino acids in space or natural structures that kind of resemble biological ones (cock your head to the left and squint just right — there, you can see the resemblence, can’t you?) may seem like confirmation. For those who have looked into the issue in more detail and have a firmer grasp on what is needed, such discoveries simply underscore how utterly distant the elusive explanation lies.