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
Re above, my query was to indicate that no meteorite has ever been identified as definitely of earth origin, to my knowledge. I was aware that a few meteorites have been attributed to Mars, but none to earth.
I’ve found a meteorite from the Earth. Go here and download the full text:
http://www.solid-earth-discuss.net/4/363/2012/sed-4-363-2012.html
Then go to Sect. 11 and study Fig. 17
Perhaps they have been misidentified as being related to volcanism and therefore overlooked because they are identifiable as material with an origin on the Earth.
Also see:
Has Earth Brand(TM) Life Seeded the Galaxy?
Aug 22, 2011 // by Ian O’Neill
http://news.discovery.com/space/has-earth-brand-life-seeded-the-galaxy-110822.htm
Search for: Tardigrades and TARDIS (Tardigrades In Space)
GregK:
At January 16, 2013 at 7:48 pm you say
You raise an important point concerning possible sample contamination.
My post at January 15, 2013 at 2:48 am assessed the inadequate electron microscopy reported in the paper (incidentally, one of the typographical errors in that post was “~30e V” which should have been “~30 keV”.
The investigation reported in the paper should have included optical reflectance microscopy of a polished section of the sample to indicate the porosity of the material. Also, porosimetry would have indicated the open porosity.
If the sample contains open pores of adequate size to incorporate the putative diatoms then it is difficult to claim that the putative diatoms are not sample contamination from water following the meteorite reaching Earth.
As my earlier post said, peer review should have rejected the paper for publication because the reported work is not sufficient to provide the conclusion of the paper. My comments in this post add to that.
Richard
– – – – – – – – –
Leif,
The corollary to my above quote which directly followed my quote that you cited was:
So knowing the capability of nature through its natural processes to establish human beings verifies by observation a reasonable possibility that other intelligent life can exist. As of today we do not have evidence of other intelligent life so interested scientists do keep looking and I think science will not stop.
By your response to me quoted above, you seem to presume that because science has not found other forms of intelligent life then there is reason for disinterest by science. I think quite the contrary. Science is increasingly interested in the question of searches for other life. It is not diminished by the state of current science’s efforts . . . science is challenged by it.
John
Did you not view the photograph of the purported diatom in the matrix? It appears to have been fossilized in place.
Since this is a free-wheeling discussion, I’ll throw this in.
Prb’ly 99% of UFO “sightings” are explainable. There are a few, tho, w/multiple witnesses, that seem inexplicable. For arguments sake, let’s assume these could be “aliens”.
If so, they are very, very careful to stay mostly hidden. Why? Because it wouldn’t take any effort for them to expose themselves — just hover over the DC White House for a few hrs in the daylight until the press corps and military gather. Then just fly away.
So IF there were aliens, they are apparently following some kind of hands-off “ethics” of non-interference, a “prime directive” as someone mentioned. It would be simple to disrupt human civilization, but they don’t. So, IMO, either there are no visiting aliens (most likely), OR they follow very stringent ethical “non-interference” rules and are not a direct danger.
In addition, I doubt any useful communication would be possible w/them. We can’t communicate w/ants (all we can do is alarm them), and the “aliens” likewise would find our air-vibration language incomprehensible.
John Whitman says:
January 17, 2013 at 5:06 am
By your response to me quoted above, you seem to presume that because science has not found other forms of intelligent life then there is reason for disinterest by science
No, on the contrary, the search is important because of the ramifications.
D. Patterson:
Your post at January 17, 2013 at 5:38 am says in total
Please read my post at January 15, 2013 at 2:48 am.
The only evidence in the paper that any of the specimens is “fossilised” is the EDX which is not adequate to show whether the specimen is or is not “fossilised”. At very least, windowless EDX for carbon analyses should have been conducted.
In addition to the studies which my two posts say should have been conducted, I would have liked to see optical micrographs of the specimens viewed under UV illumination to observe any fluerescence.
Richard
– – – – – – – – –
Leif,
I concur that science has a high interest in the subject of extraterrestrial intelligent or non-intelligent life. I have great interest too.
¡VIVA!
John
Setting aside for the moment the need for more extensive testing of the composition and charateristics of the apparent diatoms and purported biological cells, I was skeptical about these structures being post-falling contamination because of their appearances within the meteorite. The diatoms appear to me to be too large in relation to the surrounding matrix to have been intorduced through alleged pores. Granted, I could be unaware of mechnisms explaining such circumstances, but for the present I must be highly dubious until I can see such explanations.
The paper troubles me in a number of ways, such as the claim for the potential ages of the diatoms. The paper says for one example, “Diatom fossils of a wide range of types are found marine sediments dating back to the Cretaceous Tertiary boundary 65 million years ago.” It has been my understanding that diatoms have been around since sometime around the Early Jurassic or somewhere around 200 million years ago. This makes me wonder why the authors said “Cretaceous Tertiary boundary 65 million years ago….”
It also bothers me in how the authors seem to assume there must have been a non-Earth sorce for the purported biological inclusions. They assume the material to have necessarily originated from cometary and/or asteroidal sources. It seems highly probable to me that the ejecta from a major impact on the Earth would form carbonaceous meteors in space from the vapors, dust, and fragments in the ejecta, including microfossils from Earth’s biosphere. It needs to be explained to me how such a meteor composed from impact ejecta on Earth would be notably different than other Solar meteors, aside from silica-rish biological fossils.
However, this meteorite may become moot to such a question if further testing of the composition demonstrates a post-fall contamination by biological organisms.
D. Patterson:
Thankyou for your reply to me at January 17, 2013 at 1:01 pm.
I stress a point I made in my post at January 15, 2013 at 2:48 am ;i.e.
“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”.
Hence, I am not competent to discuss the history of diatoms. Sorry.
In my post at January 17, 2013 at 2:04 am, I addressed the failure of the study to make any assessment of open porosity in the sample. As you say, this failure is a severe flaw in the study. If it were shown that the sample contained no open porosity capable of delivering the putative diatoms to the interior of the material then that would be important evidence concerning possibility of sample contamination.
At the moment, the standard of the work and the limitations of the reported investigation do not enable the conclusion reported in the paper. Therefore, and as I said, in my opinion peer review should have rejected the paper for publication. That it was not rejected is a pity because the conclusion in the paper may possibly be correct and – if so – the publication of this study will provide doubt to any additional studies which support that conclusion.
Richard
The sole basis of the paper is the meteorite fragment that still exists and that can still be inspected by numerous independent scientists. So the paper stands or is reduced by independent observation. Feynman would have been happy with that process.
I look forward to numerous independent inspections of the meteorite fragment.
John
In addition to my most recent previous comment I think a critical factor is full documentation of the chain of custody from the moment someone found the impact crater to the current location of the meteorite fragment. Just seems like that would be part of sound scientific practice. N’est ce pas?
John
John Whitman says:
January 17, 2013 at 3:52 pm
I think a critical factor is full documentation of the chain of custody from the moment someone found the impact crater to the current location of the meteorite fragment.
Probably too late. And I think it doesn’t matter. Analysis of the isotopes in the ‘fossils’ [no matter how poorly handled] would establish if they are extraterrestrial. This is almost impossible to fake and would convince me if the analysis showed the isotope ratios to be significantly different from those found on Earth.
I’m a believer in the philosophy: “Anything not forbidden is required.”
Life exists hundreds of feet straight down, in solid rock. Life exists in 500ºC undersea vents. Life exists at both poles. Anywhere there is energy and raw materials, life forms, grows, and evolves into more complex living organisms.
There may not be any proof yet of extraterrestrial life, but I have no doubt that it’s out there. I guess that makes me a True Believer that we are not the only living organisms in the universe. And I suspect that once life is found, then, just like discovering the first planet around another star, we will shortly be discovering evidence of life in numerous places.
If I’m wrong, the universe would be a pretty boring place. ☹
Chris R
Re Titain/Titan.
“I would love to see a meteorite created by the famed Italian painter!
However, I think you meant “Titan”, the moon of Saturn, known to
have an atmosphere of nitrogen, methane, and other constituents.”
Thanks Chris R, I’ve been loaded with the flu this past week, and you have caused me to have a painful convulsion of laughter and coughing. No harm done, I think most of my sight has returned. 🙂
Leif Svalgaard:
In your post at January 17, 2013 at 4:06 pm you say to John Whitman:
Hmmmm. Isitope analysis would probably but not certainly determine if the origen of the putative diatoms is extraterrestrial.
But there is a serious objection to conduct of any existing method for isotope analysis. The possibility that the putative diatoms are extraterrestrial makes then very valuable specimens. Indeed, if they are extraterrestrial biological material then they are uniquely valuable.
Hence, the putative diatoms are too valuable for them to be subjected to destructive testing such as the mass spec. for isotope analysis which has been repeatedly suggested in this thread. Indeed, unless the meteor is packed with very many of the putative diatoms, it would be a scientific outrage to destroy any of them.
As my posts in this thread show, I am dubious of the study reported in the paper. It may still be possible to obtain a proper examination of the putative diatoms and how they came to be in the meteor, but that proper examination has been hindered by publication of the severely flawed paper.
Richard
richardscourtney says:
January 19, 2013 at 4:03 am
Hence, the putative diatoms are too valuable for them to be subjected to destructive testing such as the mass spec. for isotope analysis
If there are more than one, it would be OK to destroy one.
Leif Svalgaard:
re your reply to me at January 19, 2013 at 4:32 am
Sorry, but no. You are wrong when you say,
“If there are more than one, it would be OK to destroy one.”
As I said, if there were many then destroying some for analysis would be acceptable, but if there are a few it would not.
A single measurement which destroys the only specimen is not replicable.
And we would be looking for possibly small differences in isotope ratios.
Also, the initial problem would be isolation of the putative diatoms from the matrix. The advantage of non-destructive in situ analyses is that no separation of the microscopic objects is required.
Examinations of polished sections of meteor samples using optical reflectance microscopy, SEM, EDX elemental mapping, and QEDX is required. Porosimetry of a meteor sample is also needed. (That these studies were not done provides doubt to the quality of work which is reported in the paper). Only after that would other investigations possibly be needed.
Richard
richardscourtney says:
January 19, 2013 at 5:12 am
A single measurement which destroys the only specimen is not replicable.
If the are several specimens I would not hesitate to ‘destroy’ one [e.g. cutting it in four pieces for three independent measurements by different labs – keeping the fourth for later]. More precious than the specimen itself is the knowledge of its origin. But I can see your argument for keeping the case unsolved for as long as possible [forever?].
Leif Svalgaard:
I take severe exception to your post at January 19, 2013 at 5:27 am which says to me
Say what!?
I have NOT made an “argument for keeping the case unsolved for as long as possible”.
I have provided clear explanations of needed investigations of the samples to determine if the putative diatoms
(a) are fossilised
(b) are possible terrestrial contamination
and
(c) are crystalised matrix.
Using equipment for which I was once responsible I could conduct those investigations within an afternoon.
On the other hand, you have made assertions which demonstrate you don’t have a clue what you are talking about. For example, how do you propose to conduct “cutting it in four pieces” when its size is approximately 30 microns by 10 microns and it is integral with the matrix?
Richard
richardscourtney says:
January 19, 2013 at 6:22 am
I have NOT made an “argument for keeping the case unsolved for as long as possible”.
You make an argument for NOT making the really crucial test, namely isotopic analysis. The other tests you mention are also important, but the results can be disputed and argued about. The isotope analysis is much clearer.
Using equipment for which I was once responsible I could conduct those investigations within an afternoon.
Are you familiar with isotopic analysis [and if so, how long would that take?]
how do you propose to conduct “cutting it in four pieces” when its size is approximately 30 microns by 10 microns and it is integral with the matrix?
Obviously the ‘cutting’ is virtual only, i.e. allocating a section to a given lab for analysis. The assumption I’m making is that isotopic analysis can be made on a 10 by 10 micron section. If that is not possible the discussion is moot anyway. My point is that the knowledge of origin is more important that the specimen. You might disagree, but that will only delay the outcome.
Leif Svalgaard:
I am replying to your post addressed to me at January 19, 2013 at 7:57 am.
Firstly, the thread is about the paper. All my posts have been about the inadequacies of the study reported in the paper.
Secondly, if those investigations had been completed in the manners I described then they may have resolved the issue by showing the putative fossilised diatoms are
(a) organic material which is not fossilised which
(b) could have entered the meteor through open porosity
or are
(c) fossilised material which
(d) could not have entered the meteor through open porosity.
Thus, the investigations would have shown the putative diatoms could or could not have been contamination of the meteor following its deposition on Earth..
Thirdly, you attributed to me a false and unjustifiable motive for my criticisms of the work reported in the paper.
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. Your knowledge of the Sun is profound and I bow to it, but your posts in this thread demonstrate that my knowledge of microanalysis is much, much greater than yours.
Finally, in the event that studies are warranted following the required completions of the studies reported in the paper (which I have stated), then decisions on what – if any – those studies should be. Initially, any such further studies should be non-destructive in so far as is possible. (Mass spec. destroys the analysed material.)
Richard
richardscourtney says:
January 19, 2013 at 9:35 am
Re your list of criteria for assessing the provenance of the creature, I add my post from earlier on:
Gary Pearse says:
January 14, 2013 at 8:28 pm
This is highly unlikely. Diatomite is a rock type or formation (100s of thousands of tonnes) made up almost entirely of the remains of diatomes. These little critters are gregarious as hell. I have never seen a rock sample with only on lonely diatome in it. It would be like finding a shale sample with one pollen grain. They should have chosen a different species.
richardscourtney says:
January 19, 2013 at 9:35 am
Thirdly, you attributed to me a false and unjustifiable motive for my criticisms of the work reported in the paper.
No, just of your reluctance to do the isotope analysis which was not something reported in the paper.
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.
This is false and unjustified. Instead of a dismissive comment you could have responded to my assumption: “The assumption I’m making is that isotopic analysis can be made on a 10 by 10 micron section” as fitting somebody claiming to be an expert in the subject. This link http://www.geology.wisc.edu/~wiscsims/pdfs/Kita_ChemGe2009.pdf suggests that analysis can be done on samples smaller than 3 micron.
my knowledge of microanalysis is much, much greater than yours
Appeal to authority is not a good argument [especially at WUWT]
any such further studies should be non-destructive in so far as is possible. (Mass spec. destroys the analysed material.)
If it is not possible to be non-destructive I submit that it is acceptable to destroy one specimen [if there are several] as the knowledge gained would be more valuable than the specimen as such. The other analyses you mentioned have their place, but will be disputed and will not convince everybody. Isotope analysis has a much better chance of deciding the matter.