NASA scientist claims to have found evidence of extraterrestistial life.

[Nimthill]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/20...rrestrial-life


Thoughts? It's not the first time a NASA scientists claims to find aliens, but if this is real it's a massive discovery.

[Agent Miles]

Okay, so 100 scientists that Hoover invited to read his paper that was posted yesterday are supposed to comment today, and that is the “vetting” of his claim. What science courses did he fail?
Real scientists, not of his choice, are going to actually test these meteorites thoroughly and see if they get the same results he did, or not.
To really test uncontaminated meteors, we need to go out in space and see if they contain elementary life before they hook up with life on Earth.
P.S.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/digitaltrend...nceofalienlife

[Vizsla]

The Murchison Meteorite was more convincing. No one seems to care about that these days.

Nasa and Dr Hoover trying to get media coverage to help with their funding applications, much?

[Phalanx300]

Remains to be seen but wont suprise me. Already suspected that life came in that way to this planet.

[Gordon Freynman]

A known crackpot scientist publishing in a known crackpot journal. Amazing that any of the major news sources are even taking this seriously.

PZ Myer's review: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2...ver_bacter.php

[removeduser_4536284751384]

What this thread should have been titled:

"NASA" "scientist" "claims" "to" "have" "found" "evidence" "of" "extraterrestistial" "life".

[Gordon Freynman]

What this thread should have been titled:

"NASA" "scientist" "claims" "to" "have" "found" "evidence" "of" "extraterrestistial" "life".

I'd prefer the title, "Why the hell hasn't NASA fired this guy yet?"

[Plant]

I'd prefer the title, "Why the hell hasn't NASA fired this guy yet?"

Presumably because he does his real job (astronautics engineer I beleive) extremely well, and his hobbies in his free time are left to his own discretion.

[Sphere]

This wasn't published in in a peer reviewed science journal for a reason; because it would not pass the peer review process.

[Elfdude]

Almost all scientists already believe we have found extraterrestrial life. The Martian meteorite was confirmed via the scientific process that the best explanation for the structures seen was bacteria. Since then we have found that nearly any meteorite has the same structures meaning life should be relatively common throughout the solar system and the universe. NASA is just pulling a publicity stunt, any good scientist already accepts that there is extraterrestrial life.

[Dubh the dark]

Almost all scientists already believe we have found extraterrestrial life. The Martian meteorite was confirmed via the scientific process that the best explanation for the structures seen was bacteria. Since then we have found that nearly any meteorite has the same structures meaning life should be relatively common throughout the solar system and the universe. NASA is just pulling a publicity stunt, any good scientist already accepts that there is extraterrestrial life.

+1 and calling someone a crackpot doesn't change existing evidence.

[Helm]

They're a little bit less sure about the Martian metorite now. And besides there's even a theory that life began on Mars and came to Earth via metorites, as Mars would have been suitable for life at a earlier time than Earth.

[xcorps]

And besides there's even a theory that life began on Mars and came to Earth via metorites, as Mars would have been suitable for life at a earlier time than Earth.

Interesting. So the life on Mars was so evolved that it could grab a meteor from space, land it, board it, launch it, fly it to earth, land it again. But then the life had to what...devolve, then reevolve through hundreds of millions of years into barely sentient primates so that it could speculate about where it came from.

Sounds solid to me.

[Vagn]

Interesting. So the life on Mars was so evolved that it could grab a meteor from space, land it, board it, launch it, fly it to earth, land it again. But then the life had to what...devolve, then reevolve through hundreds of millions of years into barely sentient primates so that it could speculate about where it came from.

Sounds solid to me.

Is this a real question?

If it's true, and it is still contentious, then the bacteria would have been on Martian rocks which were ejected when a meteorite impacted on Mars, whcih then got captured by Earth's gravity and collided with us.

[Phalanx300]

Then how did life go to Mars? But yeah I agree that life most likely came that way to earth, not specifically form Mars though.

[xcorps]

You're suggesting that there was so much bacteria on Mars (based on no evidence) that a meteorite might have hit Mars hard enough to blow chunks of the surface of the planet into space, through space, through Earth atmosphere, impacted with the ground (we know what happens when big rocks hit the planet, right)...and not destroyed that life.

I'll stick with evolution.

[Elfdude]

You're suggesting that there was so much bacteria on Mars (based on no evidence) that a meteorite might have hit Mars hard enough to blow chunks of the surface of the planet into space, through space, through Earth atmosphere, impacted with the ground (we know what happens when big rocks hit the planet, right)...and not destroyed that life.

I'll stick with evolution.

Pansperia != conflict with evolution. Quite a bit of the earth's bacteria survives the conditions of space embedded in rock just fine. Bacteria has been found in suspended animation in crystal lattices billion of years old IIRC. Further they proved in multiple experiments in the 1980's->2000's that it was more than possible indicating that the procedures nasa uses to sterilize offworld equipment may be far too insignificant. Including shooting meteorite bits from railguns, impact calculations etc to create a convincing way for bacteria to be ejected from a planet.

However given that the structures are observed in nearly every meteorite if you cut into the protected crystal lattices it seems possible that bacteria didn't originate on a planet at all but rather originated in outerspace. This provides a plausible environment for initial abiogenesis as the crystal lattice of meteorites can act as a scaffolding for chemical synthesis. They repeatedly have found the basic ingredients for life on asteroids so this doesn't seem very unlikely given the background.

Also the Martian Meteorite in question had no living (that we're aware of) bacteria on it only fossilized bacterial cell walls.

[Vagn]

You're suggesting that there was so much bacteria on Mars (based on no evidence) that a meteorite might have hit Mars hard enough to blow chunks of the surface of the planet into space, through space, through Earth atmosphere, impacted with the ground (we know what happens when big rocks hit the planet, right)...and not destroyed that life.

I'll stick with evolution.

Personally I agree with you that its more likely that life formed on Earth, but it is a scientifcally valid theory. Mars almost certainly had liquid water and a thick atmosphere in its early history, so it's not implausible that life would have formed there.

[Col. Tartleton]

Seeing as Terra had life a very long time ago then lost it IIRC in that big old Kaboom when we got ol' Luna and life grew back I'd argue Terra and Mars developed life roughly together.

[xcorps]

I'm sorry, but the almost certainly of liquid and atmosphere doesn't back up the speculation about migration. I wouldn't dismiss bacterial life on Mars, but I can't connect the dots. For the sake of arguement, let's say that conditions on Mars once allowed for the beginning of life. Why does the beginning of life on Earth require a migratory event from Mars. It's a given that the same requirements are met here. Both planets are roughly the same age. Given what is known about the formation of Mars and Earth, isn't it more likely (though not really likely at all) that bacteria on Earth migrated to Mars?