posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 09:09 AM
reply to post by Thill
One biologist not finding DNA does not mean that there is none. The one person still maintaining the claim of "no DNA" is a physicist.
"Regarding the "absence" of DNA, Louis' only attempt to stain the spore's DNA was by the use of malachite green, which is generally used to stain
bacterial endospores, not algal spores. Visualising algal spore DNA under a light microscope can be difficult due to the impermeability of the highly
resistant spore wall to dyes and stains used in normal staining procedures. In order to stain the spores' DNA, which is tightly packed, encapsulated
and desiccated, spores must first be cultured in suitable growth medium and temperature in order to induce germination."
"Samples of the red particles were also sent for analysis to Milton Wainwright at Sheffield University and Chandra Wickramasinghe at Cardiff
University. Wickramasinghe reported in December 2006 that "work in progress has yielded positive for DNA, however, this identification is not yet
fully confirmed, and might be considered equivocal".
"A correction was printed in The Observer regarding Dr. Wainwright's comment that the red rain lacked DNA. Dr. Wainwright asked in the correction to
make clear that he currently had no view on whether the samples contained genetic material or not, and that it was physicist Godfrey Louis who held
"The controversial conclusion of Louis et al. is the only hypothesis suggesting that these organisms are of extraterrestrial origin. Louis has not
reported the use of any standard microbiology growth medium to culture and induce germination and growth of the spores, basing his claim of
"biological" growth on light absorbance measurements following precipitation by supercritical fluids."