opinions by Ryan Maue
While we breathlessly await the publication of “critical reviews” from the soon to be defunct Journal of Cosmology, experts from a variety of fields are crawling over each other to denounce the claims of Dr. Hoover, who claimed to found definitive proof of alien life from extraterrestrial meteorites (Meteorite Alien Life). It would be an interesting exercise to compare the immediate broad-spectrum skepticism of this study to, let’s say, the Nature flood papers or the contrived Union of Concerned Scientists snowjob conference call. But, one could describe the reception of pro-global warming literature, whether peer-reviewed or not, as quite partisan in nature. So what has triggered this inherent skepticism of Dr. Hoover’s research, which is grandiose and ground-breaking, or something?
As mentioned in the Gawker blog post by Adrien Chen yesterday, Fox News apparently had the “exclusive” first crack at breaking Hoover’s research paper. You can set your watch by this — whenever Fox News is mentioned in the first few sentences of an article or blog posting, expect biased and vitriolic language to follow — even in this new era of civility. Dr. PZ Myers, a University of Minnesota biologist, accurately and more than adequately disassembles the claims of Dr. Hoover with humor and wit. I’ll snip and encourage you to read his own blog.
Fox News broke the story, which ought to make one immediately suspicious — it’s not an organization noted for scientific acumen. But even worse, the paper claiming the discovery of bacteria fossils in carbonaceous chondrites was published in … the Journal of Cosmology. I’ve mentioned Cosmology before — it isn’t a real science journal at all, but is the ginned-up website of a small group of crank academics obsessed with the idea of Hoyle and Wickramasinghe that life originated in outer space and simply rained down on Earth. It doesn’t exist in print, consists entirely of a crude and ugly website that looks like it was sucked through a wormhole from the 1990s, and publishes lots of empty noise with no substantial editorial restraint. For a while, it seemed to be entirely the domain of a crackpot named Rhawn Joseph who called himself the emeritus professor of something mysteriously called the Brain Research Laboratory, based in the general neighborhood of Northern California (seriously, that was the address: “Northern California”), and self-published all of his pseudo-scientific “publications” on this web site.
In this instance, the gratuitous reference to Fox News in the first sentence immediately soils the otherwise readable post. Obviously, Dr. Myers does not have the ability to separate the hard news and opinion shows on Fox News, since there is little evidence of how this NASA discovery exclusive is evidence of any bias. It simply detracts from a very good article, and turns off readers who do not watch MSNBC or wrap their dead fish with the NY Times editorial pages.
He brings up near the end a very cogent argument on how science matriculates, and ideas are vetted:
While they’re at it, maybe they should try publishing it in a journal with some reputation for rigorous peer review and expectation that the data will meet certain minimal standards of evidence and professionalism.
I agree completely. And, whenever the Union of Concerned Scientists or World Wildlife Fund marches to the podium with some obvious politically tinged research, I’ll expect the same level of skepticism from both sides of the proverbial aisle. The hair trigger response to a “Fox News exclusive” has brought out the armchair experts, who have unloaded a salvo of rhetorical firepower at the listing Journal of Cosmology. Unfortunately, in their zeal to score a partisan political point, most neglected to see the rest of the media reported the same exclusive story. This is called “science by press release”, and it has to stop.
/sarc alert
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
*****
Dave Springer says:
March 7, 2011 at 8:38 am
The stock answer is that they would no longer have biologically-vulnerable bodies. Why would they? Bodies are just machines unless one subscribes to some kind of mysticism that the mind isn’t an emergent property of the brain but rather has some magical component to it specially created for you by your own personal deity. Are you a mystic?
*****
No, not a mystic, just an old engineer.
I don’t disagree w/you. Just substitute “Aliens in their constructed machine-bodies….” If they’re sufficiently advanced, they’d prb’ly have done that anyway. I would. 🙂
Well, Dave. You have some decent thoughts, but I’m not sure I can respond to the wholesale comandeering of the thread. I will just point out that many of the ideas, including the cometary cloud, are little more than speculation. In addition, a couple of statements are not clear cut:
“For the anti-evolutionists it’s the idea that life is not just 3.5 billion years old but many billions of years older than that and comes from comets rather than being created by God 6,000 years ago. For them it’s like “it’s worse than we thought”.”
Unclear use of terms here. I presume you are thinking of the Biblical literalists, which is not the same as anti-evolutionists. And BTW, having 10 billion or 13 billion years as opposed to 3.5 billion years is just a rounding error if we are calculating probabilities. For everyone but the Biblical literalist — meaning for most people, including most creationists — I don’t suppose it would make much difference to their viewpoint.
Also, I’ve got to agree with Matt that you are not being careful with terminology in discussing “evolution.” Abiogenesis, by definition, takes place before evolution of life can begin. There is, of course, the very sloppy term “chemical evolution,” but that is really a misnomer which adds more confusion than clarification.
You have some interesting ideas and I am absolutely in agreement that finding life in comets that originated in another system would be exceedingly fascinating and important. Maybe we could just take a slow breath with the postings and be a bit more skeptical of the speculations and a bit more careful with the terminology . . .
R Lawrence says:
March 6, 2011 at 11:49 pm
“Strange how offensive these two mild insults appear. Must be the contrast with the surroundings.”
It is extraordinarily rude for this joint. I half expected at least a couple of [snip]s to appear.
“Hope it doesn’t catch on.”
I also.
If you really want to see some contrast go read the comments at
http://www.scienceblogs.com/pharyngula
Keep in mind that snake pit was the runner-up for the 2011 Bloggies award for science blogs. Undoubtedly Myers rallied the troops to vote for Pharyngula and vote often as he does with so many other online polls and surveys. I’m surprised it didn’t win. Coming in second place is bad enough as that blog’s participants are a terrible reflection on science. The language is enough to make a sailor blush.
Well I am really mystified by all the comments here. Personally I subscribe to looking at evidence, and trying to avoid put-down remarks. Now the quality of evidence Dave Springer adduces eg “The chiral amino acids found on the meteorite were racemic i.e. a mixture of both left and right handed varieties. Terrestrial amino acids are not racemic” and the high proven abilities of scientists involved, says to me that here is something to take seriously.
Sorry if my usual understanding and attempts to pay due attention to detail accuracy is somewhat lacking tonight. My phone and internet have been accidentally cut off and it will take a month to reinstate.
My Tesla-related studies are showing me acutely that there is far more out in the universe, as well as under our noses, than is generally accepted, and that, sadly, most people find it easier to mock than to study, and that although people may see the light in one field, they may be unperceptive in other fields. I hope that a big lesson of the CAGW disaster is to help people to learn to move beyond facile remarks, and to be willing to re-examine cherished beliefs – applying the excellent principles of Scientific Method, if necessary to the inner factors and the mysteries as much as to the external evidence.
I think we are at a great frontier. And I think that the crossings already exist in many, many different disciplines, often hidden in humble circumstances. Russian scientists already working with superluminal experiments. More. Lots more. Please can we too be humble and willing to “boldly go where none have gone before” taking just Scientific Method and courtesy with us?
Dave, rest assured that I am keeping my eyes on the “other” blogs where the warmists play. Expect future postings to highlight some of the vitriol from those sewers of science.
Dave said:
“There are only two examples of codes known to exist in nature. The universal genetic code is one of them.”
What is the other one?
Dave S,
I have an open mind on this discovery, but wouldn’t the presence of racemic (left & right geometry) amino acids negate biochemical synthesis? If the molecules were only all left or all right handed then there may be some form of biochemistry involved.
Eric Anderson says:
March 6, 2011 at 10:47 pm
non-starter
I think I laid out the general principal. A criticism of the specifics doesn’t address the main point. What we are talking about is the principal of an energy-driven process in which efficiency is acheived by cooperation and alteration of the components. That is the best explanation of a basis for spontaneous evolution I’ve ever heard. It is simply elegant. There is cryptic evidence for it in the genetic code and the ribosome itself. Of course there are huge gaps. What is your alternative? Fiat lux?
Dave Springer says:
March 7, 2011 at 2:56 am
It’s better evidence than we have that prokaryotes inhabited the earth 3.5bya.
_________________________
One little problem: It’s not from Earth. First you have to prove life is a possible answer to the observation and exclude the other possibilities.
Dave vs Hal: “. . . wouldn’t the presence of racemic (left & right geometry) amino acids negate biochemical synthesis?”
Hmmm. Very interesting question. Just thinking out loud here: I’m not sure that a racemic mixture would negate any particular biochemical synthesis. It seems it would, however, necessitate an additional layer of recognition and feedback systems, with all the coding that entails, in order to make sure the correct chirality were used in specific biochemical processes. As a result, such a system would almost certainly require additional structural components and additional energy to operate, reducing efficiency and increasing opportunities for error. Query whether the additional complexity and reduced efficiency would be offset by any potential gains in architectural flexibility. My guess is that it would not, and that the simplicity and efficiency benefits provided by using (primarily) non-racemic amino acids outweighs the architectural flexibility, if indeed there is any, of using a racemic mixture.
Dave Springer says:
March 7, 2011 at 3:29 am
So the packets of foreign DNA delivered by ERVs found in earthly genomes might not have been picked up and carried from one form of earth life to another but rather have come from another solar system thousands of light years distant and with many billions of years of reproductive isolation from its source there and life on the earth.
____________________
Whoa! Down big fella. Jumping the gun a little. We don’t even know this crap in a space rock, to use the technical term, is even a remnant of life at all.
Let’s say a chunk of alien crap (full of exobacteria) flies through space at 60,000 miles per hour, the orbital speed of Earth. Much higher than that and nothing will survive entry into our atmosphere. Thus, it will take about 100 million years for it to travel one light year. The radius of mixing hypothetical alien crap with Earth then is about 120 light years max: Start with a universe 13.7 billion years old, then wait for at least one star cycle to form heavy elements and explode. Then wait for life to arise. Figure up to 2 billion years for all of that. And this hypothentical alien DNA is supposed to survive billions of years floating about in a high-radiation environment?
It seems, therefore, the Springer Cosmic Arrival Theory doesn’t pass the smell test.
(Sorry, I just couldn’t resist.)
Dave Springer says:
March 7, 2011 at 4:56 am
Re: codons and amino acids
Pretty good discussion. Chaperonins may have a role in folding. Also, Eigen suggests the original basic codon consisted of just the central base of the triplet, e.g. _A_, _C_. The codons with common central bases are chemically related, hydrophobic, hydrophillic, small side chain, etc. In that way, early life would not have to develop very sophisticated machinery. Not much of a code. Chemically related amino acids could be substituted in sloppy enzymes because high specificity of charging tRNA would not need to have developed first.
Remember, this is Earth thinking. What about life on a planet with very little phosphorus? How do you make DNA? ATP? Not going to happen. So is there no life on such planets, ever? Maybe you substitute arsenic. What if carbon is limited? Must carbon be present in all life? Perhaps silicon or another element can substitute under certain conditions. The point is, life could find a way to develop if a cooperative energy-driven replication process can occur. We won’t begin to know how different life can be until we find some.
Dave Springer says:
March 7, 2011 at 2:56 am
I’m not “anti-evolution,” but I am quite comfortable with the idea that God used comets to create life, if that proves to be true. If God can play with dice (the debate between Einstein and Bohr), then God can play with comets, too. I just don’t generally like scientists coming to teleological conclusions from scientific data.
Eric Anderson says:
March 7, 2011 at 9:45 pm
Racemic mixture of amino acids.
Using a racemic amino acid mixture might be an advantage early on. Amino acids might have been made through a non-biological process, and could have been racemic to start with. If the original primitive genetic code were sloppy, then a racemic mixture of amino acids might be tolerated. As other synthetic steps became more optimized, there might have been a point at which formation of chiral amino acids (enzymatic biosynthesis) could have become reliable and could have provided a growth advantage to the population able to utilize the chiral set. Interestingly, all of the amino acids (except Gly) in Earth life have the same chirality (L-isomers). That observation might indicate a possible racemic-chiral aa transition occurred very early in the development of the genetic code (lacking any other selective pressure for uniformly L-isomers).
Dave Springer, 12.46 pm
Thanks, replying.
I quite agree (pharyngula). Impossible to read, just because of the abusive language. Same applies to sites that link to it, in the promotional sense. I don’t visit.
Which was what I was driving at. Reassured, I’ll go back through your stuff!
rl
Dave Springer, the argument that “civility equals truth” is a charlatan’s way of defending himself. The truth relies on evidence not mild words. Presented civilly or not, the truth is still the truth.
John Peters says:
March 8, 2011 at 3:25 am
“Dave Springer, the argument that “civility equals truth” is a charlatan’s way of defending himself. The truth relies on evidence not mild words. Presented civilly or not, the truth is still the truth.”
I never claimed uncivility had anything to do with truth. Lack of civility is a distraction and often a disinvitation to reasoned debate. Would you rather have a calm discussion with a civil person or listen to an asshat ranting at you?
Larry in Texas says:
March 7, 2011 at 10:44 pm
“I’m not “anti-evolution,” but I am quite comfortable with the idea that God used comets to create life, if that proves to be true. If God can play with dice (the debate between Einstein and Bohr), then God can play with comets, too. I just don’t generally like scientists coming to teleological conclusions from scientific data.”
That’s my take as well.
I’ve always considered ERV’s to be an ideal mechanism for use by an intelligent agent to alter the course of evolution. Just craft yourself a retrovirus, make it specific for a subspecies or generally infectious to an entire genera, add a DNA payload that will alter the target genome in the way you want, and let it loose. Humans already use that mechanism to deliver DNA payloads for many purposes even including medical use in correcting genetic disorders. A sufficiently advanced intelligent agent could in fact place various genetic payloads on comets many millions of years in advance for sequenced delivery to inner planets over the course of geologic epochs of time since orbital mechanics are predictable that far in advance. Not saying that actually happened but I’m not saying it didn’t happen either. All I know is the mechanism is there and there’s confirmation that comets are wet, warm, and have complex organic chemistry going on in them at least up to the point where there’s an assortment of amino acids on them that terrestrial life uses to build proteins and further than that there’s at least some arguable evidence of indigenous prokaryotic life on them. Where there are prokaryotes one might reasonably expect to find bacteriophages (viruses).
It’s too bad that the leadership at NASA is more interested in feeding at the CAGW trough than doing real space science. It appears that the rank and file in NASA exo-biology are rebelling. I don’t blame them.
Curious Bystander says:
March 7, 2011 at 3:04 pm
Dave said: “There are only two examples of codes known to exist in nature. The universal genetic code is one of them.”
Curious said: “What is the other?”
Those of human invention. I gave two examples: the Morse code and the Roman alphabet.
Dave said: “There are only two examples of codes known to exist in nature. The universal genetic code is one of them.”
Would you agree that the periodic table describes another example of code in nature?
The spectrum of light?
The patterns we see in galaxies?
One should twice before placing boundaries on nature.
Reply: Remember, there are two types of people. Those that place people into two categories and those that don’t. ~ ctm
ctm-chuckle….
Dave Worley, what kind of information-bearing algorithm can be generated, transmitted and understood based on the spectrum of light, patterns in galaxies or even the periodic table? One could use light to transit coded information; one could use elements from the periodic table to do so; one could potentially refer to the positions of galaxies to transmit information, but those things are only mediums.
It is critical to distinguish between a code and the medium used to transmit it.
“what kind of information-bearing algorithm can be generated, transmitted and understood based on the spectrum of light”
Basically, all of science is an attempt to crack the codes in nature.
We recognize consistent patterns and are able to determine the properties of things in nature.
The spectral property of light was decoded with a prism, for example.
In a similar manner we are attempting to decode the genome.
@Dave Worley
The periodic table is a human invention generally credited to Mendeleev in 1869.
All the other examples you give are either not codes or are human inventions.
Perhaps reviewing the definition of “code” will help you understand. We’re using it in the sense of communication. In the genome what is being communicated is instructions about how to construct different proteins. DNA is where the instructions are stored. RNA is the transmission media. The ribosome translates the instructions and builds the protein.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code
It’s not called the Genetic Code for no reason. The reason is precisely the same reason the Morse system is called the Morse Code.
The genetic code is the only known code not of human invention. That raises a legitimate question of how a code can come to exist without intent.
@Worley
“The spectral property of light was decoded with a prism, for example.”
Sure. And the granular property of gravel is “decoded” with a seive.
This isn’t communication. It’s the sorting of a mixture into categories of the same thing.