It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Additionally the Journal of Cosmology has had its reputation called into question more than once by other members of the scientific community.
However claims from Professor Milton Wainwright have attracted criticism from the scientific community. One astrobiologist told Space.com "The jump to the conclusion that it is alien life is a big jump and would require quite extraordinary proof. (The usual Sagan saying: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.)"
He went on to tell the site that Wainwright would need to show that the organism was composed of all D amino acids instead of L amino acids, that is, some kind of proof that the debris did not contain the same biochemistry as Earth objects.
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: boncho
Regardless of if the life originated on earth or elsewhere and rained down on the planet, life HAD to make the jump from RNA to DNA. Where else did DNA come from? Things don't just *poof* and appear whole like that in this universe. They usually start out less complex and proceed to more complex as time goes on due to the 4 forces at work all while fighting entropy. Another question, how did it get on the comet?
I also have some other questions, how do we know that this organism didn't evolve on this planet and evolve the ability to live in the stratosphere? I want to see that D amino acid versus L amino acid thing cleared up as well. So much to wait and see for. All interesting regardless of the outcome.
While features of self-organization and self-replication are often considered the hallmark of living systems, there are many instances of abiotic molecules exhibiting such characteristics under proper conditions. Palasek showed that self-assembly of RNA molecules can occur spontaneously due to physical factors in hydrothermal vents. Virus self-assembly within host cells has implications for the study of the origin of life, as it lends further credence to the hypothesis that life could have started as self-assembling organic molecules.
originally posted by: Denoli
originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: Denoli
All science is good science
Except there's not much science here and plenty of supposition , here is the report.
ISOLATION OF A DIATOM FRUSTULE FRAGMENT FROM THE LOWER STRATOSPHERE PDF
The implication of this assumption is obvious, if there is no mechanism by which the diatom fragment shown here could be elevated from Earth to the stratosphere then , when it was sampled, it must have arrived from above the stratosphere and have been incoming to Earth
Assumptions are not good science.
Assumptions lead to a debate !
Then 2 sides try to prove or disprove the assumption .
originally posted by: FamCore
Here's a quote by Professor Milton Wainwright (who headed the study):
"It would be refreshing if Darwinists told the truth about Darwin." "I find the whole idea of Darwin Day extremely disturbing."
I'd be curious what evolutionists / and proponents of the primordial soup theory have to say about this. Probably would dismiss it and call it hogwash. Evolution and the primordial soup theory are "widely accepted" in the grand field of science....
I've always had my doubts about the primordial soup theory myself.
originally posted by: Denoli
Granted most of the biggest breakthroughs did take a lot of pushing and shoving outside of the lab !
When or if his "evidence" is ever verified by peer review then it will be of interest as it is it's just another unverified claim by one of Chandra Wickramasinghe's team.
Except there's not much science here and plenty of supposition...
originally posted by: boncho
Things poof into existence every day. Stars poof into stars, heavy elements poof into themselves inside stars, etc, etc, etc. There is kind of a programming to the universe and every time a collision of elements happens with set variables like heat, radiation, pressure, etc. its basically like a giant chemical experiment and everything is already mapped out, if we mix ____ and ____ it produces _____. And of course certain chemical/nuclear reactions only work in certain mediums with the right temperatures. Life itself is the best form of entropy there is because thats exactly what life does, waste energy and cause disorder.
There are many astrobiologists that believe earth was seeded from space boogers, and it makes a lot of sense quite frankly. The hypothesis even goes as far as to say that Earth itself might not be old enough to have started life, that the Milky Way galaxy is more likely in its much longer history to have had the chance to produce life and then blast it bit by bit to planets caught in its grip. That an additional 8-9 Billion years for life to have sprouted. The roadmap was there and it just needed the right conditions.
The authors claim a number of reasons why that isn't likely, but as I mentioned in an earlier post, Gortex pointed out they have a history of bad science. So, if it is shown that it has come from space with proper experiments and data interpretation, it really will be ground breaking, or 'sky shattering' rather?
Then the question I presume becomes, was it formed in the Milky Way and blasted through the galaxy in some large stellar explosion, raining down on billions of planets, or did some other race far advanced beyond our comprehension, maybe was seeing its final days, or even just began its journey to the stars, they decided to seed the galaxy hoping that future generations of their seed would eventually come to seek them out one day.
I would say the latter is a damn good explanation as to why we all stare up in the sky at night, wishing we could go off into the heavens, the feeling that there is something out there which will explain it all. Or at least the feeling that we have family far off into the galaxy, and the children want to come home.
All I'm saying is, skeptical is good. A true skeptic is willing to consider all possibilities.
Stars don't poof into existence. A cloud of gas swirls in a circle letting gravity pull it ever closer and closer until it starts to ball up. Eventually the ball grows so big that the gravity causes it to ignite and start nuclear fusion.
This is what I mean when I say things go from less complex to more complex when these processes are applied.
You do have a good point about life being a good form of entropy. That certainly is true. But I wouldn't say it's the best form of entropy, since the amount of energy life in its entirety consumes is less than 1% of the energy produced by the sun in a second. Not to mention, since black holes suck everything in including light; I'd say that THEY are the best form of entropy since the energy and matter can never escape to change forms again.
So how did it get there? In other words I'm saying that just because you think that the Panspermia hypothesis is correct, doesn't mean that the Abiogenesis hypothesis is incorrect as well.
I'd say that regardless of whether it was shown to be from space or from Earth, it is rather ground breaking. Since the organisms raise many questions regardless of origins
Though if another alien race was responsible for seeding life on this planet, where did that race come from and how did life start on their planet?
originally posted by: AnteBellum
a reply to: Denoli
What I'd like to know is how they got there or better yet WHO put them there?
I've always been a fan of the alien 'seed' theory.
What more would you need to prove it conclusively?
McKay gave an example of what might constitute such extraordinary evidence. "If they were able to show that it was composed of all D amino acids (proteins in Earth life are made of L amino acids), that would be pretty convincing to me," he said. "So some sort of biochemical indication that it does not share Earth biochemistry. If it does indeed share Earth biochemistry, proving that it is of alien origin is probably impossible."
originally posted by: boncho
Yup, and they poof into existence. And yeah, amino acids forming into rna/forming a cell, thats all more complex.
You have a point here. But, as we've stated there are already perimeters to the experiment. Black hole takes billions of years to form. Maybe humans, or life in general, has a destiny they re not even aware of. Which will one day outperform a black hole.
Not really as the two aren't mutually exclusive. Abiogenesis could have happened on another planet and then that planet exploded and its seeds were sent off to travel the galaxy. All very interesting stuff but we begin to get into hyper assumptions. Maybe best left as "could be/maybe/interesting if"...
Yes, I hope some reputable names take this one on and repeat the experiment or devise their own. A good chance we will be disappointed in the result as well, but I'd like to know one way or the other.
This is the question that would have profound answers. If we are just seeded by another race, its possible that race had direct contact with their creator. Or its possible we might meet our creator and they are searching the stars for their own. Any of them is many years beyond our current state it only makes for good science fiction. (My favourite is the Stargate lineage.)
But, I think the former is better anyway. If the galaxy were to seed itself and these seeds all formed in some kind of average nebula that has a high probability to create our sperm-like bubble-organisms, it would mean the entire universe is littered with life, crawling out of gooey ponds from here to the centre to the edge of the big bang. All those galaxies, all with billions and billions of forms of life. Imagine something which could simply communicate to all the advanced ones. People think Korean Dramas are popular, just want till you see Rigel 7 soap operas!