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
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
If this object fell on Sri Lanka on December 29th 2012, how come the University of Buckingham copy of the paper is filed under ” …content/uploads/2011/09/…”, presumably over a year earlier?
The meteorite fell on December 29th 2012
The paper was published on the 10 January 2013.
That gives us 13 days from the event to the publication of the paper. Is this correct? Is this normal?
This ‘find’ will be dismissed at best as being inconclusive.
This has been fun.
It always amazes me to see the breadth of knowledge possessed by folks hanging around here.
I always learn something. How about that word depauperate? Its always good to add to one’s vocabulary.
Leif, would you be so kind as to list a few of what you consider to be good journals?
I will wait to see how this discovery gets picked over by people knowing something about diatoms and contamination of samples. Not looking good so far for the alien life explanation. But, we’ll see.
Indeed, “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence“.
However, have you ever thought “Why am I alive and typing?” My point is that life is here and now and originated either here or from somewhere else and came to Earth. A bit like when NASA first claimed to have found life on a meteorite from Mars and a scientist speculated that IF indeed it was life it could have been ejected from Earth.
The last time extraterrestrial life was discovered it was announced by Bill Clinton.A definite maybe.
Could events represent themselves and this one be announced by the Obama administration around April first.
Could it still be a terrestrial ‘extraterrestrial’ diatom? Could it be that a large impactor on earth could have send terrestrial debris into space, which ultimately returned as this meteor? Maybe some specialists should try and identify it from the earth fossil record.
Friends:
I am not a biologist or a cosmologist but Have conducted much SEM. I therefore make comment on the provided images and interpretation of them in the paper by N. C. Wickramasinghe, et al..
1.
The paper states sample preparation as
The images appear to be secondary electron maps of Au-coated fracture samples.
2.
The paper says
EDX (i.e. energy dispersive analysis of X-rays) elemental mapping would have been useful. If the items are diatomous then they could be expected to have higher Si-concentration than their surroundings. But Figure 4 of the paper shows the Si concentration of the objects is similar to their surrounding material. It provides EDX spectra from points in and adjacent to the putatively ‘biological’ specimen in Figure 3 (i.e. the image reproduced in the above article).
This is the major evidence in the paper.
5.
The paper interprets the similar elemental composition of the apparent diatoms to their substrate as being evidence that the apparent diatoms being microfossils.
This interpretation requires much investigation.
5(a)
If the apparent diatoms do have the same elemental composition as their surrounding material then this indicates they are very probably not terrestrial biological contamination.
5(b)
If further examination of e.g. isolated apparent diatoms indicates the EDX has provided a misleading indication then the interpretation in the paper is wrong. This is a possibility because the beam eV is not stated so the excitation volume (and depth) is not reported in the paper and, therefdore, cannot be estimated from the provided information (the SEM images suggest ~30eV was used so it seems likely that the EDX used a similar eV). Again, EDX elemental mapping would have been useful.
It is interesting to note that the paper claims the EDX spectra of Figure 4 are “elemental maps” and it is surprising that peer review did not comment on this. If elemental maps were obtained then it would have been useful if they were presented or, alternatively, if the maps showed uniform elemental distribution then that was mentioned.
6.
The paper says
This interpretation is the main conclusion of the paper.
It assumes that such regular microstructure and surface morphology can only arise from biological processes. This assumption is not correct; e.g. buckminster fullerines can be similar and the samples are in a carbonaceous substrate.
The interpretation in the paper may be correct but requires MUCH more work before being considered to be conclusive.
Additionally, I can say with certain knowledge that – for the reasons I have here stated – peer review would have rejected the paper in its present form as being acceptable for publication in E&E.
Richard
I would like to believe this but as stated: “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence“ and that is not quite “that”. And then there is the huge question mark that I am surprised nobody raised: Diatoms are relatively advanced cells that date at most to the Jurassic period (about 200 million years ago) If such cells exist in space you would expect to find some on earth much earlier… Looking at the question from the other side, you would expect whatever arrives on earth to be extremely primitive, enabling the following 3.5+ billion years of evolution to take place. If advanced cells like diatoms which belong to the phytoplankton (plants often with Chlorophyll) were “falling from the sky”, evolution would probably have taken a different and shorter path.
Oh dear.
When the name Wickramasinghe pops up in scientific stories I can only be reminded of the risible claims of Archaeopteryx being a faked fossil made in the book he co-authored with Sir Fred Hoyle.
Hoyle, Fred and Wickramasinghe, Chandra, 1987. Archaeopteryx, The Primordial Bird, Christopher Davis, London.
They claimed the fossil was actually a specimen of Compsognathus to which feather impressions had been added.
A slight problem with this claim is that Compsognathus whilst roughly similar in general appearance has very short forelimbs and very short fingers.
Archaeopteryx on the other hand has very long forelimbs with extremely long fingers and so one thing it cannot possibly be is a Compsognathus.
Bizarrely on one of the early pages of that book they had a picture with an overlay of the two species which graphically illustrated their assertion that they were one and the same species was utterly groundless, not to say ridiculous.
The dragging in of an extraterrestrial origin of the red rains, despite previous episodes of these events in that region having been demonstrated to be caused by large quantities of spores from the Trentepohlia genus of algae, is equally bizarre.
Goodness me Doug, you’re a treasure. We can use you – i.e., your unsupported opinion, to distinguish good and bad science at a stroke. At least take the trouble to say why you have that view.
Wayne Job: ‘Carbonacious say’s it all really’. What is the purpose of the apostrophe?
What if a meteor knoked an earth rock to mars, and then another meteor knocked that rock back to earth? Then that worm, or whatever it is, would have been the first biological lifeform to visit Mars and come back to fool us it developed on mars?
There must be an abundance of rocks on mars, the moon etc that originated from the earth, judging from the size of some of earth craters. How on Earth or Mars do we know from where that life first came? Say a Mars vehicle finds a ock with a fossil in, first suspicion must be that it once came from Earth?
This is all very confusing for me.
“Commentary on puzzling things in life, nature, science, …” it what the WUWT masthead proclaims.
With Wickramasinghe being a prominent collaborator of Fred Hoyle, giving the paper an airing is fair enough; steeped in scepticism we may be, but not, I trust, closed to all esoteric musings. Let’s always find room for Wickramasinghe on astrobiology, as well as Willis’s adventures in Manila.
It is more of a language issue, but I have always hated the “extraordinary claims” statement. It’s mundane claims for which we modify our standards, we accept them because they are mundane.
Extraordinary claims simply require the evidence that is required to prove them.
I believe the statement is used as often to dismiss what people don’t want to consider as anything else, kind of like skeptical science doesn’t exist to those comfortably ensconced in the “consensus.”
It sounds less dramatic, but “extraordinary claims are not accepted like mundane claims, they must be proven” is more accurate, but makes one’s standards look a little silly.
Doug says:
January 14, 2013 at 7:29 pm
I would pull this post in a flash. It will be used to ridicule all the good science on this blog.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Disagree.
It shows a skeptical open mind. The paper is in a journal and not the National Inquirer. Anthony is very up front in the first paragraph:
The conjecture has been tossed out there now others can do what science is supposed to do, verify and validate these first results.
My first thoughts are earth material that has been ejected by a major impact in the past has returned home.
Keith DeHavelle says:
January 14, 2013 at 8:01 pm
…. The paper’s bogus science is just what this group deplores
We’ve known for ten years plus that these red rains are algae spores.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Nice poem and thanks for the info on the red rain being algae spores. Another link
This is why Anthony includes puzzling things. Crowd Source debunking!
scarletmacaw says:
January 14, 2013 at 8:29 pm
….Science only? Isn’t presenting and debunking pseudoscience one of the main reasons this site exists?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Yes and the site has done a great job of it in less than an hour and a half.
(Leif Svalgaard says @ur momisugly January 14, 2013 at 7:15 pm was the first comment)
Rud Istvan says:
January 14, 2013 at 8:38 pm
This site should stick to climatology.
…. Red rains have been definitively shown ( including from Sri Lanka) to comprise spores of the lichen like fungi genus Trentepilon. Most definitely terrestrial.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
And you just proved why Anthony commenting on puzzling things at this site works so well.
The variety of talent on this site is truly astonishing for Dennis, a plant ecologist to jbird a professional psychologist to engineers, geologists, economists, chemists, physicists and who knows what else, many with Phds. Why ever shouldn’t Anthony toss a bit of different meat to the viewers of this blog. He knows darn well someone with a lot more knowledge than he has will spring out of the ether, savage and debunk any bad science within a day.
I smell a Fortean obsession with the “red rain.”
Given that air masses are hardly ever motionless for days (typically moving steadily at 20-40 mph), the air from which the ‘red rain’ fell would have been thousands of km away from the impact when the meteor fell, rendering the rain irrelevant to the meteorite.
IMO, the diatom is almost certainly terrestrial.
However, some meteorites are loaded with complex organic compounds, the precursors of life. The jury is still out on the alleged nanobes in the Martian meteorite found on Antarctica.
One hypothesis for abiogenesis gaining support relies on the formation of RNA in pockets of water within ice, which needn’t be on earth, but could exist on or in other planets, moons, comets or asteroids.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22660387
Well, I’m from the “show me” camp. Nice bit of rock. Nothing impossible about it. But…. how about they take those ones they claim are alive and do a DNA sequence on them. Once shown to have about a half billion years of ‘drift’ compared to anything terrestrial, then we can talk.
For those saying “pull it, hide it, can it, oh the horrors”: Saying “This got published” is not endorsement. How many times has Anthony said “This AGW paper got published” and it was complete schlock? Frankly, I think this posting can serve as a very good “bad example” just like those others. Yet more evidence that really sloppy junk passes as high class science.
Now, with that said: I’m quite happy with folks having “wacky” speculation and “odd” hypothesis. The whole point of that stage is to brainstorm and try to find something novel that might be explanatory. THEN you shove it into the crucible and watch 99% of it go POOF! Great fun especially if you like pyrotechnics!
Eventually, a few thousand dozen further on, some things start to get some folk saying “maybe we ought to call it a thesis now?” Yet further on, it might even make it there.
But if you demand that 100% of stuff, when first observed, meet the requirements of “polished law” or “accepted and acclaimed theory”, well, you miss all the fun and adventure of actually learning surprising new things as nothing ever meets those standards. They come only after the crucible is shoved onto the coals and the billows pumped a few years…
Short form: It’s fun, and can serve as a good example of what not to do… 😉
Sidebar: There really isn’t any reason that bacteria and other things can not live in space. Bacteria from inside one of the Apollo Cameras were brought back to earth, cultured, and had stayed alive in space. We know lots of things live deep inside rocks. Looks like a natural to expect some of the same in space. Loads of living things just go into stasis when frozen. It’s not at all out of the question for that to be the norm in space. So what we really need to do is get out there and collect some sample from the asteroid belts and such and look them over…Anything else is just too likely to be a contaminant.
Jack Simmons says:
January 15, 2013 at 2:15 am
“This has been fun.
It always amazes me to see the breadth of knowledge possessed by folks hanging around here.
I always learn something. ”
Exactly. Where else could someone like myself, sitting at a desk early in the morning in a small house in a small community a mile from the beach on the southwest coast of Florida, be exposed to so much commentary from such a wide range of people from all corners of the Earth. I am even allowed to put in my two cents.(or if I scaled it correctly, my .000000000000000000000002 cents)
Remember the purpose of this site: “Commentary on puzzling things in life, nature, science, weather, climate change, technology and recent news…”
I think we should scrutinize the article and not the journal or authors.
It is a little suspicious how little attention this story has gotten…. compared to reports of fires in NJ etc.
Ok, this is either a hoax or a mistaken conclusion. As someone who trained as a phycologist (one who studies algae) I’ve examined many specimens and this clearly is a pennate diatom of earthly origin. From the photo there are enough features to identify it to genus level and possibly species. The fact that the substrate is limestone is further evidence of Earth origin. Stoney meteorites are not made of limestone. I would be suspicious of Wickramasinghe’s motives as well. He and Hoyle advocate the panspermia hypothesis and this “discovery” reeks with confirmation bias.
If we really are going to give scientists + or – grades then it might be worth considering:
Quote from Wiki but I have seen a lot of the Archaeopteryx arguments which involves the British Natural History Museum specimen and the quote is reliable.
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.