
No, Diatoms Have Not Been Found in a Meteorite - jalanco
http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/01/15/life_in_a_meteorite_claims_by_n_c_wickramasinghe_of_diatoms_in_a_meteorite.html#.UT8TU9xCmRM.hackernews
======
8ig8
Likewise: New Bacteria in Lake Vostok Actually a Contamination...
<https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5361405>

Seems like there's a rush to get news out without full investigations.

~~~
Trufa
I agree there is a rush but most times is from the media, not only from the
actual gatherers of information (not in this case apparently).

I remember when CERN published the experiment that they measured neutrinos(?)
that seem to travel faster than the speed of light, the news was:

Neutrinos travel faster that the speed of light, the rules of physics as we
know them are collapsing.

CERN did nothing wrong, they published what they findings, and later, when
peer reviewed, it proved to be a measurement error, that's the way science is
supposed to work.

Similar was when NASA(?) found a bacteria that sustained life without carbon,
that proved to be wrong too.

The problem is that it doesn't pay to be conservative, and absolutist
headlines sell much better than realistic ones. I think it's a shared blame.

I would also like to add, to be fair, that many of this topics are pretty
complicated for the layman, and some information is lost when the news is
simplified/oversimplified. Not everyone is familiarized with the scientific
processes, nor they are supposed to be.

------
tomrod
How would fossilization occur in space? I was under the impression that water
carried down calcium compounds which replaced bone structure/other molecular
structures. Would not the fossil have to be there as the rock becomes ejecta
from some source?

~~~
eksith
One possibility would be that if the calcium already existed in the asteroid
along with ice.

The ejecta could somehow retain some water along with the original organisms
the sudden relocation to space would preserve the structure (if it hadn't been
vaporized first). The water would turn to ice.

If this asteroid then came near the Sun, the ice would presumably melt by the
ambient heat (and if deep inside, wouldn't immediately sublimate). The
moisture will then aid in the fossilization.

That's purely speculation, of course.

~~~
tomrod
I guess its _possible_...

[http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Science/Universe_con...](http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Science/Universe_contains_more_calcium_than_expected)

Says there is 1.5 times more calcium than we thought before.

------
lucb1e
Obligatory: <http://xkcd.com/955/>

------
bicx
I guess what confuses me with this stuff is that while we consider throwing
out all claims of life on Mars due to a possible rover equipment exposure to
non-sterile air, it's okay to assume that a meteorite laying around in the
dirt is a safe source of extraterrestrial life.

~~~
ori_b
The difference here, as I understand it, is that the measurements done on mars
were done by looking for samples of specific carbon compounds. This is indeed
vulnerable to contamination, since the compounds could be deposited on at any
time.

In the case of diatoms, they were looking for fossilized structures embedded
in the rock. These aren't subject to contamination (at least not trivially),
because contamination would have to actually change the structure of the rock.

The results for both are wrong -- we didn't find life -- but in principle the
methods of looking are subject to different kinds of errors.

In this case, the issue is that the author of the original paper has done two
major things wrong:

    
    
        - He hasn't shown that the meteor is actually a meteor.
        - What he claims to be fossils embedded in the rock aren't fossils.

------
jneal
Okay, I'm no scientist but one part of the argument just kind of irks me:

[i]In other words, all the diatoms shown in the paper are from known species
on Earth. That makes it somewhat less likely they are native to space. And by
somewhat, I mean completely. Like, zero chance they are from space.[/i]

UNLESS, Panspermia is correct and all life on earth came from space, in which
case it would be completely in the realm of possibility that life from space
that landed on earth had already landed here before, in the distance past.

~~~
lolcraft
No. You exhibit a severe misunderstanding of evolution.

Imagine panspermia is true. Some kind of life exists in space. and some of it
fell down to earth. Then life on earth would evolve down here, adapting to the
particular circumstances of our planet, _and_ the species in space would
evolve, separately, to adapt to living in space. The result is that both
strands would inevitably become very different.

If you brought down life from space, compared it to actual life on earth, and
found they turned out to be the same, then _necessarily_ it would mean that
both strands, in completely different environments, evolved to become the
same. This is not only improbable, but emphatically impossible.

~~~
sesqu
You would have a point if they found living specimens in the meteorite. As it
stands, they found organisms that have died a long time ago and that greatly
resemble organisms that have died a long time ago. Dead things don't evolve,
so placing their lives at the same chronological point is not a problem.

~~~
mbrubeck
But according to the evolutionary biologist quoted in this article, neither
the organisms in the photos nor the known species they look like have been
dead a long time.

> _"1) they are, for the most part, in great shape. There certainly is not any
> sign of this being fossilized material… There are no extinct taxa found,
> only ones we would find living today…"_

~~~
sesqu
Fair enough. I was basing my comment on the other article, which claimed the
opposite.

------
jalanco
If you're interested in the topic of ET life, I'd recommend Paul Davies book
"The Eerie Silence: Renewing Our Search for Alien Intelligence".

------
alex_doom
Pretty sure this is N. C. Wickramasinghe: <http://i.imgur.com/FpqQTu6.jpg>

~~~
acqq
You're joking, but it's distracting. The real guy is here:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chandra_Wickramasinghe>

"On May 24, 2003 The Lancet published a letter from Wickramasinghe,[16]
jointly signed by Milton Wainwright and Jayant Narlikar, in which they
hypothesized that the virus that causes Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome
(SARS) could be extraterrestrial in origin and not originated from chickens.
The Lancet subsequently published three responses to this letter, showing that
the hypothesis was not evidence-based, and casting doubts on the quality of
the experiments referenced by Wickramasinghe in his letter.[17][18][19]"

------
EGreg
If fossilization occurred in the asteroid, wouldn't entering earth's
atmosphere alter it sufficiently to be unrecognizable?

Also, who is to say that bacteria didn't "seep into" the asteroid? Scientists
often use fossils to come to the conclusion that Antarctica wasn't that cold
in the past: [http://www.livescience.com/5023-fossil-suggests-
antarctica-w...](http://www.livescience.com/5023-fossil-suggests-antarctica-
warmer.html)

~~~
mikeash
Rocks insulate fairly well, so the interior would probably be unscathed after
reentry. Fresh meteorites tend to be extremely _cold_ , because only the outer
layers heated up in reentry, and the inside is still cold from being in space
for a couple billion years.

------
ygmelnikova
Science -- The greatest religion of them all.

------
retrogradeorbit
This is full of ad hominem, rough guesses, non scientific hyperbole, ones
persons opinion (the authors, or a person contacted) and colloquialisms and
weasel words. Please don't assume I believe in panspermia. But this article is
likely to be just as rubbish as the original paper. The emotional language the
author uses makes me think that this gripe is personal. As in biased. The
opposite bias he accuses the original author of. And he keeps, well, saying,
why, well...

Some examples of the hyperbole:

"It’s wrong. Really, really wrong. Way, way, way ridiculously oh-holy-wow-how-
could-anyone-publish-this wrong."

"[deep breath]"

Cynically calling the journal "august"

"alarm bells exploded in my head"

"not without some merits." (not 'has some merits' but is just short of no
merit at all. as in just 'some')

"fervent proponent"

"Like, really fervent" (did he actually, like, well, write 'like'?)

And so on it goes. And on, and on, and on. Like verbal diarrhoea. It really
does come across like he has an axe to grind. This kind of writing really
doesn't help his point. Do you think this article would pass peer review and
be published in a journal?

I don't know why scientists just can't keep an open mind. Maybe life comes
from outer space. Maybe it doesn't. Maybe diatoms are in meteorites. Maybe
they aren't. No one really knows, do they?

~~~
DanBC
I agree with most of your post. I prefer calmer writing, even when they're
destroying stupid claims. I often find calmer writing to be more powerful.
Someone yelling "HEY LOOK! THIS IS STUPID!!!" is less effective than just
telling me that something is wrong, why it's wrong, and giving me links to
real scientists who show it's wrong.

But I strongly disagree with your last paragraph.

> I don't know why scientists just can't keep an open mind.

This little sentence is _evil_ , and I don't say that lightly. Creationism is
taught in school science lessons alongside evolution because "we need to teach
both sides", we need to 'keep an open mind' - even though evolution is a very
strong theory and creationism is bollocks. There are many other similar
examples of truth being harmed in the name of 'open mindedness'.

But it's important to realise that scientists do keep an open mind. Any belief
will change if the evidence is strong enough. For some things we have some
math to predict something and some weak experimental research showing it - for
those things you'd just need better math and better experimental evidence and
a nice description of how it fits in with everything else.

> Maybe life comes from outer space. Maybe it doesn't. Maybe diatoms are in
> meteorites. Maybe they aren't. No one really knows, do they?

You're right, no-one really knows. But that's an excellent reason to be very
very cautious when making claims. Start small and build the case, don't just
announce that extra-terrestrial life has been found.

~~~
retrogradeorbit
I can see your point. I didn't really consider this because I come from a
country where creationism isn't, and wouldn't ever be taught in a science
class. I guess I am a little cynical because I work in a science research lab
(as a technician) and a few of the scientists are close minded, beginning with
their conclusion and tailoring things to fit. These ones are very political
and most concerned with putting their names on other peoples work.

Though that being said, most of them are open minded and thoughtful people.
One of them is just amazing and has become my hero as I've watched them
continuously fight the good fight against a toxic system that is against them
most of the way.

I agree with your last sentence. The original paper should not have made such
grand claims. When I read the first 'viral' reporting I actually went 'meh'
and kind of dismissed it. It was, after all, just one paper, and no doubt we'd
see a lot more over time if it were true. After all, rocks are falling from
space all the time. But then this response, and more so, peoples defence of
this writing, that really got my goat up.

It really reminds me of Tim Harford's TED talk on God Complex. I see this
complex all around me, while the people displaying it deny it.

