This looks to be a huge story, the first evidence of extraterrestrial life, if it holds up. I would remind readers that “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence“. This needs to be confirmed by others in the science community before it can be taken seriously.
This is from a recent meteorite find in December 2012. A large fire ball was seen by a large number of people in Sri Lanka on December 29th 2012, during that episode a large meteorite disintegrated and fell to Earth in the village of Araganwila which is few miles away from the city of Polonnaruwa.
Look at what the electron microscope shows of a sample purported to be from the meteorite:
It looks convincing, and the paper says: “Contamination is excluded by the circumstance that the elemental abundances within the structures match closely with those of the surrounding matrix.“, but I remain skeptical of the claim.
At first I thought this was somebody mistaking a Tektite (Earthly origin ejecta from impact that makes it into space briefly) but this meteorite found in Sri Lanka does not appear to fit that category, being a chondrite. Further, this is a (supposedly) peer reviewed paper in the Journal of Cosmology, just published, but looking at the Journal of Cosmology, I have some doubts about its veracity.
I asked our resident solar expert Dr. Leif Svalgaard what he thought of it:
Credible? Yes and No. Several good scientists that I know personally have published in the Journal. There is also a good deal of junk. The kind of stuff that gets trotted out at WUWT by our resident [commenters] asking us to ‘open our minds’. So, there is both. It is difficult for a layman to sort the wheat from the abundant chaff.
Wickramasinghe is a credible scientist, student and long-time collaborator of Fred Hoyle. I assume you know Hoyle’s theory of continuous creation of matter at just the right rate to make the Universe expand as we observe it in order to keep the density constant. Hoyle coined the ‘derogatory’ [from his point of view] term The Big Bang. Hoyle’s greatest achievement was to co-author the epoch-making paper that explained in quantitative detail how all elements heavier than Lithium are formed in our universe [in supernovae explosions].
So, the jury is still out on the journal, though the scientist gets a +1.
According to the paper:
…the parent body of the Polonnaruwa meteorite would have had most of its interior porous volume filled with water, volatile organics and possibly viable living cells. A remarkable coincidence that should be noted is that within several days of the meteorite fall, an extensive region around the site of the fall experienced an episode of red rain. The red rain analysed at the MRI in Colombo has been shown to contain red biological cells that show viability as well as motility. Preliminary studies from EDX analysis show that these cells are similar to the cells found in the red rain of Kerala that fell in 2001, cells that have not yet been identified with any known terrestrial organism (Louis and Kumar, 2006; Gangappa et al, 2010). Abnormally high abundances of As and Ag in the Sri Lankan red rain cells have been provisionally reported, thus favouring a non-terrestrial habitat, possibly connected with a cometary/asteroidal body, the fragmentation of which led to the Polonnaruwa meteorite fall (Samaranayake and Wickramasinghe, 2012).
The paper is (h/t to Willis Eschenbach):
FOSSIL DIATOMS IN A NEW CARBONACEOUS METEORITE
N. C. Wickramasinghe*1, J. Wallis2, D.H. Wallis1 and Anil Samaranayake+3
1Buckingham Centre for Astrobiology, University of Buckingham, Buckingham, UK
2School of Mathematics, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK
3Medical Research Institute, Colombo, Sri Lanka
ABSTRACT
We report the discovery for the first time of diatom frustules in a carbonaceous meteorite that fell in the North Central Province of Sri Lanka on 29 December 2012. Contamination is excluded by the circumstance that the elemental abundances within the structures match closely with those of the surrounding matrix. There is also evidence of structures morphologically similar to red rain cells that may have contributed to the episode of red rain that followed within days of the meteorite fall. The new data on “fossil” diatoms provide strong evidence to support the theory of cometary panspermia.
The full paper is here:
Source from the University of Buckingham website: http://www.buckingham.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Polonnaruwa-meteorite.pdf
Here is a news story on the paper, including an interview with Wickramasinghe
Gary Pearse:
Thankyou for your post addressed to me at January 19, 2013 at 9:54 am.
As I previously said (repeatedly) I am not a biologist so I have constrained my comments to the inadequacies of the study in the paper.
Your point does seem important to me but my knowledge of biology is not sufficient for me to assess it: I leave it to others to do that.
Please note that your point does seem to be reasonable to me.
Richard
Leif Svalgaard:
I am responding to your post at January 19, 2013 at 10:13 am.
Not content with having attributed a fallacious motivation to me, you now accuse me of “appeal to authority”.
NO!
I said I bow to your knowledge of Solar science but your posts make it clear you don’t have a clue about microanalysis which I have decades of experience conducting. Therefore, I trust my knowledge of microanalysis above your ignorance of it. That is not appealing to anything: it is relying on my experience. As anyone can see, you do the same when challenged abot matters on which you have significant expertise.
Others can assess our comments for themselves, but I reject your assertions concerning the capabilities of microanalysis. And I said why I reject them: simply, if I cannot see how I would do it with confidence in the result then I don’t think it can be done easilly unless somebody tells me how. You have merely asserted it can be done.
The problems are several, but the first is to isolate the putative diatoms from the meteorite.
Before trying anything so difficult it would be sensible to have completed the study reported in the paper in the manners I suggested and for the reasons I stated.
Richard
richardscourtney says:
January 19, 2013 at 10:30 am
you now accuse me of “appeal to authority”.[…]
As anyone can see, you do the same when challenged abot matters on which you have significant expertise.
The difference is that I would try to explain the matter, even with links if necessary to give some background information, while you do not.
You have merely asserted it can be done.
When confronted with issues outside of one’s field of expertise, one ordinarily consults the scientific literature on the subject. I did that and showed you a link that to me indicates that analysis is possible on very small ‘spot’ size [less than 3 microns]. Instead of explaining to me how I have [if I have] gotten that paper wrong, you simply assert that you can’t see [don’t know?] how it can be done.
The problems are several, but the first is to isolate the putative diatoms from the meteorite
Why is that necessary? The paper I linked to does not suggest such separation is needed.
Before trying anything so difficult it would be sensible to have completed the study reported in the paper in the manners I suggested and for the reasons I stated.
Those things can be done easily [as you state] but would not be compelling to everybody, isotope analysis would and so must be done if we want to take the claim seriously. I don’t know how many ‘diatoms’ there are, but the paper uses the word in plural [“diatom frustules”] so I assume there are several. If so, the loss of one is not serious. Your main criticism seems to be that even one of the several is too precious to be sacrificed to gain compelling evidence. I disagree with that. If professor W. would have made your argument I would smell a rat.
Leif Svalgaard:
I have made several posts in this thread which explain that the paper under discussion is rubbish.
For a variety of reasons which I have explained it is not possible to draw the conclusions stated in the paper from the work reported in the paper. And I stated that the paper should have been rejected for publication by peer review.
In addition, I have explained how the work should have been – and should be – completed. And I have stated what that additional work would reveal. I also said that if subsequent work is warranted then it should be considered. Initially, such additional work should be non-destructive because if the putative diatoms are extraterrestrial then they are the only existing specimens of extraterrestrial life in human possession.
But in your post at January 19, 2013 at 11:02 am you say to me
Well, I don’t know how many there are, either. But the illustrations in the paper show three and I (also Gary Pearse) infer there are few. Unless there are many then it would be reckless to destroy any unless that is essential (they are possibly the only examples of extraterrestrial life in human possession).
I also don’t know why you choose to infer there is any reason to suppose my “argument” provides any reason to “smell a rat”. That is a gratuitous, defamatory and unwarranted assertion.
Please note that I suggested EDX elemental mapping and optical reflectance microscopy of polished sections including observation under UV light with a view to determining
(a) porosity of the matrix
and
(b) if the putative diatoms are fosillised or are organic.
If there are few putative diatoms then such a section may not contain any. If there are many then the quantatative mass spectrometry (QMS) such as described in your link could also be conducted on the polished section: please note that the analysis needs to be conducted on polished sections as does QEDX for elemental analysis.
If there are only a few specimens of the putative diatoms then QMS and QEDX would require isolation of at least one of the putative diatoms, mounting it in e.g. resin then grinding and polishing the mounted specimen for analysis. QMS provides isotope analysis but ablates the analysed volume so harms the specimen but QEDX is non destructive.
I repeat, the existing study needs to be completed and then additional studies may be warranted. The completion may reveal that the putative diatoms are sample contamination by organic material. In that case I think it would be unreasonable to conduct any additional studies although that could be done.
Additionally, I saw no reason to link to papers on measurement techniques and equipment. Similarly, you don’t link to papers about telescopes when discussing Solar behaviour.
Richard
richardscourtney says:
January 19, 2013 at 12:00 pm
I have made several posts in this thread which explain that the paper under discussion is rubbish.
We do not disagree on this. Unfortunately Anthony [for his own reasons] chose to omit the last sentence in my email to him on this: “I would be skeptical of the claim”. I think it is important that this be established beyond doubt as only the isotope analysis could do [as all the other indications will be disputed].
Well, I don’t know how many there are, either.
In addition to the three large ones there are many smaller ones: of which the authors say:
“One of the many slender cylinders seen in Fig.2 is examined under higher magnification in Fig.5. The intricacy of the regular patterns of “holes”, ridges and indentations are again unquestionably biological, and this is impossible to interpret rationally as arising from an inorganic crystallisation process.”
Destroying one of those would not be problematic, and even sacrificing one of the three large ones would be OK if that is what it takes to remove the doubt.
I saw no reason to link to papers on measurement techniques and equipment.
Especially not when such papers show that one does not need to remove the sample from the matrix first, so you reluctance is understandable.
Leif Svalgaard:
I fail to understand why you continue with your obnoxious behaviour in your post at January 19, 2013 at 12:20 pm.
You say
Your quote from the paper is part of a quote in my post at January 15, 2013 at 2:48 am where I said of it
Importantly, the “Filamentous diatom” of Figure 5 in the paper has a diameter of less than 4 microns. So one can reasonably suppose that the smaller ones are typically half that diameter; i.e. ~2 microns diameter.
You quote my having said
and you comment saying
Well, if you had bothered to read “such papers” then you would have known you are spouting nonsense.
For example, the paper you linked says
lf the beam is 2 microns then it will ablate more than the diameter of a typical filament and few filaments will align in a polished section to provide a suitable section for analysis.
Simply, it is extremely unlikely that in situ specimens of the filaments could be analysed in a polished section from the meteor by use of spot analysis in a scanning image mass spectrometer. However, if the analyses of polished sections which I suggested were conducted then those analyses could reveal if it is possible in this case.
Lief, seriously, you know a lot about the Sun but you are embarrassing yourself in this discussion.
Richard
richardscourtney says:
January 19, 2013 at 9:35 am
Fourthly, yes, I am fully conversant with mass spectroscopy.
Fifthly, it is clear from your posts that you don’t have even the foggiest notion of the capabilities and limitations of the various methods of microanalysis.
In my own field we use methods that are many orders of magnitude more sensitive than ordinary mass spectroscopy; the technique is called Accelerator Mass Spectroscopy [AMS] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerator_mass_spectrometry with which I’m quite familiar.
So, I would assume that you are an expert in AMS as well, right?
Leif Svalgaard:
re your post at January 19, 2013 at 1:09 pm.
I fail to understand what you are trying to do in this discussion but it seems to be unpleasant.
If you have a valid dispute with anything I have written in this thread then I am willing to discuss it or – if shown to be wrong – admit my error. If all you want to do is to show your opinions are more important than evidence and information then talk to a mirror because you will then be addressing the only person who is interested.
Richard
richardscourtney says:
January 19, 2013 at 1:04 pm
Simply, it is extremely unlikely that in situ specimens of the filaments could be analysed in a polished section from the meteor by use of spot analysis in a scanning image mass spectrometer
We have much better methods, namely AMS [see my comment above] which are up to a million times more sensitive on sample sizes 1000 smaller. I’m not sure who is embarrassing himself here, as well as using inappropriate language.
But, the issue was whether it is worth sacrificing a specimen to gain knowledge about its origin. I take it that you don’t think so, while I certainly do. But your replies are beginning to deteriorate into non-science and emotions [‘ obnoxious behaviour’ etc], so perhaps it is time for you to call it a day…
How useful may it be to take an intermediate step by testing the surrounding matrix material for its extraterrestrial and terrestrial origins before risking the samples of the putative lifeforms? Assuming the following scenarios for the origins of the meteorite and its putative diatoms and cells, what tests can be used to discriminate between the scenarios without risking damage to the putative diatoms? In the event Scenario 3 represents the origins of the meteorite, will the tests of the meteorite be capable of discriminating between Scenario 3 and Scenario 2, and how?
Scenario 1
The meteorite is composed of material with extraterrestrial origins, and the apparent diatoms are composed of material with extraterrestrial origins.
Scenario 2
The meteor is composed of material with extraterrestrial origins, and the apparent diatoms are composed of material with terrestrial origins. The meteorite has a composition typical of an extraterrestrial meteorite, but the apparent lifeforms and and other material are embedded contaminants with terrestrial origins.
Scenario 3
The meteor is composed of material with extraterrestrial and terrestrial origins, and the apparent diatoms are composed of material with terrestrial origins. The meteorite is composed of a mixture of material with extraterrestrial and terrestrial origins, and the apparent lifeforms are biological inclusions with terrestrial origins. The meteorite originated in space by the formation of the meteorite from the cloud of ejecta into space from a major asteroidal impact on the Earth. The cloud of ejecta from which the meteorite was formed includes material from the impacting asteroid having an extraterrestrial origin and material from the Earth having a terrestrial origin, including apparent terrestrial lifeforms.
D. Patterson:
Thankyou for your considerations in your post at January 19, 2013 at 2:32 pm.
I agree. And your Scenario 3 would probably be revealed by the EDX elemental mapping which I say should have been conducted as part of the published study.
Richard
D. Patterson says:
January 19, 2013 at 2:32 pm
Scenario 3
The meteor is composed of material with extraterrestrial and terrestrial origins, and the apparent diatoms are composed of material with terrestrial origins. The meteorite is composed of a mixture of material with extraterrestrial and terrestrial origins, and the apparent lifeforms are biological inclusions with terrestrial origins. The meteorite originated in space by the formation of the meteorite from the cloud of ejecta into space from a major asteroidal impact on the Earth. The cloud of ejecta from which the meteorite was formed includes material from the impacting asteroid having an extraterrestrial origin and material from the Earth having a terrestrial origin, including apparent terrestrial lifeforms.
It seems we are converging on a common view as a possibility, like I suggested in the very first comment on this topic:
Leif Svalgaard says:
January 14, 2013 at 7:15 pm
“Not that I would propound the theory, but it is possible that meteor impacts on the Earth drives pieces of terrestrial rocks [limestone with fossils?] into space [we have observed how that process works on Mars by collecting meteorites on Earth that definitely came from Mars] where they are scooped up by a passing comet or other meteorite parent.”
The proof of the terrestrial origin of the diatoms will, however only come from isotopic analysis of one of them [or of one the many ‘frustules’]. Only then will the claims of extraterrestrial life [in this meteorite] be stilled.
Leif Svalgaard says:
January 19, 2013 at 1:09 pm
” In my own field we use methods that are many orders of magnitude more sensitive than ordinary mass spectroscopy; the technique is called Accelerator Mass Spectroscopy [AMS] ”
============
Throw us a bone, Leif.
What have you seen ?
u.k.(us) says:
January 19, 2013 at 4:53 pm
Re AMS: Throw us a bone, Leif. What have you seen ?
Nothing about meteorites, but we use AMS to count atoms of 10Be in ice cores. The total global production of 10Be is 55 gram per year. You can imaging how little of that ends up a yearly section [~10 cm x 15 cm] of an ice core. Slide 17 [upper left] of http://www.leif.org/research/On-Becoming-a-Scientist.pdf shows the AMS machine that is used to measure that incredibly small concentration [note the man in the oval].
Allen Bates (Jan 15, 2013 5:52am) says:
“I would suggest this gives him a -. Respectfully, I would have my doubts about expert scientists in one field being given a pass in others.”
Careful with that type of thinking Allen. It hurts the credibility of the Oregon Petition that Watts has so gallantly fought for in the past. It also discredits some of our champions. Obviously, Watts, in adding this to his blog, was showcasing a modern day Galileo – someone not afraid to go against the sociopolitical grain to seek out what is real.
What we need to do, before the warmists start giving us heck about this post is:
1) Show that modern chemical analysis cannot be 100% certain that the so called ‘diatoms’ are of limestone origin. At any rate, it is probable that wherever they came from, the same physics here applies there, so limestone fossils could be a universal occurrence.
2) Show that there is a significant probability that the physical structures of diatoms are archetypal in nature. That is to say, that if 3 sets of unrelated systems developing life in the universe were at the stage of the birth of microorganisms, that it is probable that the diatomatic structure would be a natural form that is evolutionarily hardy, so that it would occur in all 3 of the said sets.
3) Showcase the caveats of radio-dating. That way it cannot be said for certain these things are of modern origin.
I’d hate to see the credibility of this blog questioned, so any other suggestions are welcome 🙂
On the contrary, physics appears to indicate that the limestone found in fossils here on Earth is highly unlikey to have the same isotopic composition anywhere else in the Solar system. A near eexception may be found on Mars, but even a Martian limestone can be expected to have some rather obvious differences if it did exist. The Earth’s limestone deposits were created by life and geological processes taking an atmosphere of carbon dioxide up to about one hundred times more massive than today’s atmosphere and removing 99 percent of it in the form of carbon dioxide to deposit in the Earth’s lithospheere. A like geochemical and biochemical pprocess elsewhere in the Solar System should result in an atmosphere stripped of all but trace amounts of carbon dioxide to leavee behind an atmosphere of other formerly trace elements such as Nitrogen and Oxygen.
It remains to be seen how it would be possible to produce greater than trace amounts of limestone in extraterrestrial environments in the absence of a formerly Carbon dioxide dominated planetary There are some trans-Jovian moons suspected of having an ocean beneath their crustal ices, but water does not supply a substitute for the Carbon dioxide atmosphere which servees as a source for the limestone production.
These are only some of the many reasons why it cannot bee assumed that limestone would be formed els elsewhere in the Solar System.
Jack Ball:
re your post at January 19, 2013 at 7:53 pm.
You are ignoring the most important initial consideration of whether or not the putative diatoms are contamination by terrestrial material. As D. Patterson points out at January 19, 2013 at 2:32 pm, such contamination could have occurred prior to or after the meteor fell to Earth.
If, for example, the meteor contains inclusions of material from the Earth and all the putative diatoms are within the inclusions, then the only reasonable deduction is that the putative diatoms are from the Earth. The work reported in the paper should have reported the homogeneity of the meteor material, and would have reported it if the work had been completed prior to its publication. Hence, this possibility would have been confirmed or rejected by the published study.
Importantly, it has been suggested that only isotope analysis would resolve the issue of whether the putative diatoms are – or are not – of extraterrestrial origin. As my previous paragraph shows, this is not so.
However, those with strong bias will never accept any evidence. For example consider the following hypothetical scenario.
It is observed that the putative diatoms are all enclosed within inclusions of Earth-derived material within the meteor. This is accepted as being evidence that the putative fossil diatoms were in the Earth-derived material that was ejected from the Earth (e.g. by ancient meteor impact) and later accreted to become part of the examined meteor. However, others say the putative diatoms may be extraterrestrial biota which contaminated the meteor while in space. So, isotope analyses are conducted in attempt to resolve this issue.
The results of those isotope analyses will fail to resolve the matter because if the isotopes have Earthly ratios then
(a) ‘believers’ in an terrestrial origin will say, “See, we told you they came from Earth”
but
(b) ‘believers’ in an extraterrestrial origin will say, “So what? Earthly biota fractionate isotopes so extraterrestrial biota would, too.”
Alternatively, if the isotopes have extraterrestrial ratios then
(c) believers’ in an terrestrial origin will say, “So what? Isotope ratios are altered by radiations in space”
but
(d) ‘believers’ in an extraterrestrial origin will say, “See, we told you they came from space”.
Simply, no result can give conclusive proof.
Richard
When it spoke, did it sound like Zsa Zsa Gabor? This IS a very strange find.
Howard T. Lewis III:
At January 21, 2013 at 6:15 pm you say
Perhaps, but not if the putative fossilised diatoms are sample contamination. And it is sad that this possibility was not properly evaluated as part of the published study.
As I said in an earlier post, the publication of the flawed study will provide doubt to any additional studies of the meteor. This is very sad because it is possible that the meteor may contain evidence of extraterrestrial biota.
Richard