
Astrobiologists Find Ancient Fossils in Meteorite Fragments - uptown
http://www.technologyreview.com/view/512381/astrobiologists-find-ancient-fossils-in-fireball-fragments/
======
tokenadult
"This is an idea put forward by Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe, the
latter being a member of the team who has carried out this analysis."

Chandra Wickramasinghe is currently the MAIN guy promoting the idea discussed
in the article kindly submitted here (as Hoyle has died). Hacker News
participants can gain perspective on this idea by reading "Diatoms…iiiiin
spaaaaaaaaaaace!"

[http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2013/01/16/diatomsiii...](http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2013/01/16/diatomsiiiiin-
spaaaaaaaaaaace/)

and

"Chandra Wickramasinghe replies…and fails hard"

[http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2013/01/18/chandra-
wi...](http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2013/01/18/chandra-
wickramasinghe-repliesand-fails-hard/)

to see comments by a biologist on why the evidence here is completely
inadequate for Wickramasinghe's latest claim. Wickramasinghe has been around
the block with claims like this before, and he is the editor of the main
"journal" that promotes this idea, but none of his specific claims of finding
extraterrestrial life have ever been backed up by convincing evidence.

EDIT: I should add the link to a critique of the extraordinary claim here by
an astronomer

[http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/01/15/life_in_...](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)

(this was linked in the links I put in this comment earlier), so you can see
his comments on the new claim directly.

~~~
nemo
While there seem to be serious issues with the research, it's hard to be won
over by an article that starts with "You all know that the Journal of
Cosmology is complete crap, right? In addition to some of the worst web design
ever — it looks like a drunk clown puked up his fruit loops onto a grid of
1990s-style tables — the content is ridiculous, predictable, and credulous,"
and continues with "That’s the kind of rigorous scientific thinking we’re
dealing with here." Admittedly I've never liked Myers style since he always
has seemed to be an obnoxious advocate of a certain brand of orthodoxy, rather
than giving any sense of nuanced or rigorous (scientific or otherwise)
thinking.

~~~
tripzilch
Especially since I know many solid scientific websites with horrible design
(especially professors' personal sites), so it's almost a show of ignorance to
try and connect "rigorous scientific thinking" with proper web design.

~~~
takluyver
Personal websites, yes. Academic journals tend to look professional - which
doesn't always mean great web design, but it definitely doesn't mean what you
see at journalofcosmology.com. If you had solid evidence for the biggest
biological claim of the century, you'd take it to the top journals - Nature or
Science.

------
carbocation
The identified structures look no more nor less "lifelike" than other random
bits found in the rock (image is here [1]).

As far as I can tell, this evidence doesn't even begin to scratch at the
surface of information needed to demonstrate or even really suggest that these
were ever living organisms.

The nail in the coffin, for me, is the fact that this is set to be published
in the Journal of Cosmology, a publication of questionable repute [2].

[1]
[https://www.technologyreview.com/sites/default/files/images/...](https://www.technologyreview.com/sites/default/files/images/Polonnaruwa%20meteorite.png)

[2] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journal_of_Cosmology>

~~~
raverbashing
"The nail in the coffin, for me, is the fact that this is set to be published
in the Journal of Cosmology, a publication of questionable repute [2]."

So it's ok to go Ad Hominem against anything that contradicts our current
knowledge? Ok, got it

~~~
tokenadult
No, it's that an extraordinary claim that would revolutionize our
understanding of the universe would be likely to be published in a high-impact
journal, if it is backed up by enough evidence to survive review in that
journal. When the principal investigator of a study is someone who has to
publish in his own journal,

<http://journalofcosmology.com/Contents11.html>

(Wickramasinghe is "Executive Editor, Astrobiology" for the Journal of
Cosmology)

then you can see for yourself a bad sign about the strength of evidence for
the paper.

See

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources)

for more details on identifying reliable sources.

AFTER EDIT:

The group blog Retraction Watch

<http://retractionwatch.wordpress.com/>

is an excellent glimpse into the world of scientific publishing, and shows how
many low-ranking journals there are that are hard up for content. I think I
learned about this interesting blog from another HN participant a year or two
ago.

~~~
raverbashing
The article should stand (or not) on its merits, regardless of the journal of
publication (or other medium)

Of course I trust Nature more than, let's say "Bob's Journal about science
stuff"

But sometimes even articles in Nature have been printed elsewhere first, (like
a 'beta test' for the article - peer review nevertheless), usually in journals
specific from the field (clarification below)

The "Identifying reliable sources" page is a Wikipedia policy, it has some
good insights, but it is biased towards Wikipedia, see for example "Articles
should rely on secondary sources whenever possible. For example, a review
article, monograph, or textbook is better than a primary research paper"

Edit: Yes, journals usually don't accept content published elsewhere, my bad.

What happens is that, yes, you can't republish something 100% equal to
something published elsewhere. (eg:
<http://www.ieee.org/documents/top10faq.pdf> ) but while the research
progresses you provide more detailed papers or focus on different areas of
research

~~~
carbocation
> But sometimes even articles in Nature have been printed elsewhere first,
> (like a 'beta test' for the article - peer review nevertheless), usually in
> journals specific from the field.

Not true. Republishing already-published work is specifically disallowed by
Nature and most high impact journals. Doing so merits a retraction.

------
lutusp
There are some serious problems with this claim:

1\. "In total, Jamie Wallis at Cardiff University and a few buddies received
628 stone fragments collected from rice fields in the region. However, they
were able to clearly identify only three as possible meteorites."

In other words, the researchers weren't in on the collection activity, and may
not possess the expertise to distinguish meteoritic material from ordinary
earthly rocks (that determination is not easy).

2\. "One stone, for example, had a density of less than 1 gram per cubic
centimetre, less than all known carbonaceous meteorites."

And it didn't occur to these people that it wasn't a meteorite? Low-density
meteors don't normally get to the ground -- they are much more likely to
vaporize in the atmosphere. A low-density sample like this is immediately
suspect.

Conclusion: Three identifications out of 628 samples, one of the three is not
likely to be a real meteorite, terrestrial contamination cannot really be
ruled out, and this work is neither refereed AFAIK nor published in a normal
scientific journal. I call shenanigans.

Reference: <http://arxiv.org/abs/1303.1845>

------
Jabbles
This has come up before. Although this paper is considerably better presented
than the previous one, the conclusions are still the same - the author is
biased and the evidence is weak.

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5055227>

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5055547>

------
jmillikin
Previously: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5055227>

General HN comment consensus is that the article is terribly poor science,
published in a crank journal.

~~~
gus_massa
Note: It was about a _different_ analysis of the same event, by almost the
same authors.

------
wtvanhest
Its probably worth reading the last two paragraphs first:

"There are other explanations, of course. One is that the fireball was of
terrestrial origin, a remnant of one of the many asteroid impacts in Earth’s
history that that have ejected billions of tonnes of rock and water into
space, presumably with biological material inside. Another is that the
structures are not biological and have a different explanation.

Either way, considerably more work will have to be done before the claims from
this team can be broadly accepted. Exciting times ahead!"

------
celerity
Please, please stop voting pseudo-science up so much. Look at the comments in
the post. The second one pretty much explains why this "paper" has no
credibility what-so-ever.

------
drcube
Been there, done that:

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allan_Hills_84001>

From the wiki article: '[T]he scientific consensus is that "morphology alone
cannot be used unambiguously as a tool for primitive life detection."'

But let me know when they find a skeleton fossil in a meteorite.

------
bobwaycott
Why is this article receiving so many upvotes given the rather apparent
consensus that it is overhyped and/or untrustworthy analysis presented in a
disreputable journal?

------
brass9
It's curious the MIT article tries to downplay the role of Wickramasinghe
behind this _research finding_. NC Wickramasinghe may be a brilliant
scientist, but any news regarding possible extra-terrestrial life-form and his
name appearing together instantly raises alarm bells all over the place.
Wickramasinghe is the von Däniken of astrobiology.

------
qwertzlcoatl
Let's all keep in mind that this paper was published by physicists, in non-
peer reviewed journals.

There is a lot of jumping the gun in these articles, especially when it's the
lead authors first and only paper. Here is a link to the actual paper:

<http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1303/1303.1845.pdf>

Here is a slate article that has already proven that the data mined by the
"Astrobiologists" is faulty and biased:

[http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/01/15/life_in_...](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)

------
systematical
I wouldn't call this clear evidence. Is it not possible the a large asteroid
struck earth, kicking up debri from earth which happened to contain micro
organisms. These organisms then died and fossilized in the space later
returning...

------
aneth4
Could they not carbon date the fossils to see if they correspond with the
existence of similar lifeforms on Earth?

~~~
egeozcan
that apparently wouldn't work on extra-terrestrial stuff as it seems to depend
on "the ratio of 14C to 12C in the atmosphere" and works for "up to about
58,000 to 62,000 years"[1]

[1] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating>

~~~
aneth4
Right, so if it turned out to come from the future or 10 billion years ago on
that scale, then it's likely extraterrestrial.

As you say though, it's not good in the billions.

~~~
schiffern
You're not getting it. You _can't_ date anything non-biological using carbon
dating. It's not that you get the wrong answer. You get _no_ answer, since you
don't know a-priori what the ratio of C12 to C14 was when the sample was
formed. The equations are under-constrained.

You can still use radiological dating with other elements (e.g. Uranium).

>if it turned out to come from the future

I don't even…

~~~
aneth4
Difficult to get what was not said in the comment I'm replying to. So fine, I
don't know my dating techniques. Uranium radiological dating sounds fine. Why
not that?

>> if it turned out to come from the future

> I don't even…

have a sense of humor? It is certainly possible if we had a extra-terrestrial
organic matter (which we don't) that it could test as coming from the future
based on carbon ratios, though obviously it would not actually be from the
future - thus "on that scale".

I'm not sure if the same applies to Uranium radiological dating.

~~~
tripzilch
But we don't _know_ future carbon ratios.

------
lifeisstillgood
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" - Carl Sagan

When you find a fossilised rabbit in the meteorite, call me.

------
tripzilch
Why does it always have to be Cardiff that gets all the aliens?

~~~
easymovet
Their city is built on a rift in the time space continuom. The energy it gives
off can be harnessed to recharge the TARDIS.

------
martinced
It seems questionable but...

Even if it was true, couldn't it have been organisms from earth ejected into
orbit after a meteor strike and, thousands of years later or more, falling
back to earth?

Now if we find a definitive proof of panspermia it would be the biggest
discovery ever made by mankind so far...

~~~
schiffern
>couldn't it have been organisms from earth ejected into orbit after a meteor
strike and, thousands of years later or more, falling back to earth?

That would still be a hugely significant result.

We expect a higher density of biologically contaminated samples near the
Earth. This is perfectly compatible with (but does not prove) panspermia.

The key question isn't whether space is _sterile_ , but whether space is
_aseptic_. That's harder to demonstrate.

To illustrate the difference, imagine a doctor scrubbing for surgery. It's
impossible to scrub your hands until there's a population of _zero_ pathogens,
but fortunately that is unnecessary. You just need to reduce the population
enough that the few organisms that remain just can't get a foot-hold.

We're in the back waters of the galaxy in a mature star system. Even if
panspermia were _rampant_ in the galaxy, we probably wouldn't see it. Stellar
clusters, nebulae, Bok globules, and young star systems are where you would
expect this kind of action.

Mechanically speaking panspemia is just diffusion, except instead of Brownian
motion you have impact ejecta and gravitational evaporation. Each of these
events has a probability curve. You could even construct your own "Panspermia
Drake Equation", something like:

    
    
      P  = N_seed * R_ejection * Pop_specific * f_survival_ejection * f_escape
         * 2^-(T_encounter / t_1/2_cruise)
         * f_habitable * f_survival_reentry * f_germination
      
      P =                  rate of panspermia in a given volume of space
      N_seed =             number of seed (life-bearing) bodies in that volume
      R_ejection =         average rate at which mass is ejected from each
                             seed body (kg/yr)
      Pop_specific =       average specific population ('von Neumann'
                             individuals/kg) of ejected material
      f_survive_ejection = fraction of population that survives ejection
      f_escape =           fraction of ejected material that eventually escapes from
                             the stellar system, either due to initial velocity
                             or long-term orbital perturbations
      T_encounter =        average length of time before an escaped
                             object encounters another body
      t_1/2_cruise =       half-life of population exposed to interstellar conditions
      f_habitable =        fraction of encountered bodies that are habitable
      f_survive_reentry =  fraction of population that survives reentry
      f_germination =      fraction of the population that actually germinates
    

Looking at this equation it's not hard to see why dense regions with young
star systems are preferred. Young systems have higher ejection and escape
rates. Survival rates for ejection and re-entry are a function of energy, so
having many less massive bodies is preferred. Young, single-cell-only
ecosystems increase the specific population.

Of course, The number of seed bodies ( _N_seed_ ) is the interesting part.
This allows the equation to feed back on itself. Waaaaaaay out here in the
Solar neighborhood, everything's so far apart that _T_encounter_ rate limits
that feedback to effectively zero, but in stellar clusters and nebulae you can
find regions with dozens of stars per cubic light-year. As stars move within
the galaxy they might experience different rates of panspermia – perhaps long
lifeless intervals punctuated by "bursts" of bombardment, or maybe just once
(in the conditions of the stellar nursery) and then never again.

When it comes to panspermia _as an origin theory_ (aka exogenesis) I consider
myself a "weak atheist", if you will. The meager evidence we have seems to
suggest that life on Earth originated in abiogenesis, _not_ panspermia. That
doesn't mean that panspermia does not occur.

