Astrobiologists discover fossils in meteorite fragments, confirming extraterrestrial life

page: 3
105
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 11 2013 @ 07:41 PM
link   
reply to post by InnerPeace2012
 

Sometimes, when a topic is so correct that it overturns or adds much more information to both the "accepted normal" and the peer-reviewers own claim-to-fame, the peer review never gets done. Years can go by, and the peer review never appears. In this case the physical sample and documents may be being kept back from other sets of reviewers, and the one team to come up with findings is apparantly adding to its conclusions hopefully before allowing others to take this to the next step. Maybe not though, and a shoe is just a shoe.




posted on Mar, 11 2013 @ 07:57 PM
link   
Its life Jim but not as we know it!
Joking aside a fascinating development if proven to be the real deal and a significant step into the disclourse of INTELLIGENT LIFE outside Earth. Although one does wonder if there is intelligent life on Earth!!



posted on Mar, 11 2013 @ 08:06 PM
link   
reply to post by InnerPeace2012
 


So Phage what does this mean to you??? Just trying to understand your skepticism on why you try to disprove potential evidence that may attribute to life elsewhere in this vast universe???

I'm not trying to disprove anything.

What it means to me is that this would be a huge discovery if it turns out to be correct. But it will require more the work of more than a single group (a group with a bias toward the panspermia hypothesis) to validate it.

edit on 3/11/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 11 2013 @ 08:28 PM
link   
I guess I missed it. But where does the article say anything about paleobotanist, paleobiologist, or for that matter a paleontologist or even geologist looking at this rock?

At this point all I see is researchers. What is their field of study? What do they specialize in?

Here is a link with more information.

www.digitaljournal.com...

Still looking for some real peer review though. By people with some specialty in the field.

Raist



posted on Mar, 11 2013 @ 09:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by InnerPeace2012
The problem with "peer" reviews is that it get's PTB attention. And if you follow the "money", this can be easily written off as just space rocks. This is basically agenda driven.
Aside from traditional scientific skepticism over any extraordinary claim, what's the agenda? Follow what "money"? Where? What do you even mean putting "money" in quotes?

I didn't see any particular agenda by those who reviewed the initial claims by McKay that Mars rock ALH84001 might show evidence of life forms, except to bring other scientific views to the table. I think if someone really found incontrovertible evidence of ET life, like maybe a fossilized skeleton of a vertebrate for example, even the peer reviewers would be excited about it. Who wouldn't be?



posted on Mar, 11 2013 @ 09:17 PM
link   
Here's a potential theory. A meteorite landed and exploded here millions of years ago, leaving parts all over a multi-mile radius. During the past million years or so life has resided in those parts, leaving fossilized remains. Along comes another meteorite a few million years later, say 2012 or so, lands and explodes in the same area as the much older landing site. Scientists flock to the new meteorite site and start looking for meteorite remains. The find some from the much older meteorite that have the earthbound fossils in them, but thinking these are from the recent landing. Now how do they tell the difference between them?



posted on Mar, 11 2013 @ 09:39 PM
link   
Honestly, the level of proof needed for this kind of claim is nothing less than actual, living, 'breathing,' micro organisms. And even that may not be enough, considering the problem of contamination. It's just too big, with too many implications for us to look at a few tiny structures on meteorite and declare a positive result.
edit on 11-3-2013 by Irako because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 11 2013 @ 09:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Irako
 

That's pretty much true. Because something looks like a fossil does not mean it is.

And, according to the panspermia hypothesis, living examples should be available.



posted on Mar, 11 2013 @ 10:00 PM
link   
the desire to believe anything. you kids got trolled.



posted on Mar, 11 2013 @ 10:08 PM
link   
Very interesting.

Like some have said, despite Cardiff University seeming to have confirmed the discovery, it won't be until at least a few solid peer reviews have occurred before this becomes (or doesn't become) big news.

To me personally, it really doesn't matter. My logic, research and academic knowledge inclines me to highly believe that we are not alone in the universe, and it is almost an outlandish claim to say simple microbe level life wouldn't exist else where in the universe. I mean even from the basic idea of there being billions upon billions upon billions of stars of which a significant amount will have planetary systems of which a significant amount will have life sustaining conditions - it's simply more improbable that JUST the Earth hit the right conditions. Anyway, planets are just variables in this whole cosmic game, existing across the whole range of structural (physical and chemical) possibility. It is the fundamental forces of nature which are really important, and modern science has shown just changing any of these parameters significantly causes effects which make life impossible instantly. Our universe contains the possibility for this path as a fundamental in it's laws, do we truly believe through either external force or sheer pot luck that we and our planet's inhabitants are the only example of this 'miracle' of life manifesting itself in our grand and beautiful universe...really?

Now the possibility of another intelligent, self-aware and technological able life occurring in this universe - that's the real question for me.
edit on 11-3-2013 by DazDaKing because: (no reason given)
edit on 11-3-2013 by DazDaKing because: (no reason given)
edit on 11-3-2013 by DazDaKing because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 11 2013 @ 10:09 PM
link   
reply to post by ShortStuff
 


Who knows, sometimes it takes 40 years for scientists to realise a moon rock isn't a moon rock after all ...

Moon rock given to Holland by Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin is fake



posted on Mar, 11 2013 @ 10:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Urantia1111
However, the truth it reveals is still too terrifying for many people to accept. I'm sure some of them will show up here to cry about it.

How is the discovery of algae fossils in meteorite fragments terrifying at all?

I mean yeah I could understand if a fossil of an alien foetus or something was discovered. That would creep some people out. But there's nothing scary about seaweed



posted on Mar, 11 2013 @ 10:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Chrysalis
reply to post by ShortStuff
 


Who knows, sometimes it takes 40 years for scientists to realise a moon rock isn't a moon rock after all ...

Moon rock given to Holland by Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin is fake

That piece of petrified wood was not given to holland by Neil Armstrong or Buzz Aldrin, it was given by an ambassador who got it from someone else at the state department, not NASA. NASA gave two moon rocks to Holland, both are accounted for and that is not either of them.



posted on Mar, 11 2013 @ 10:21 PM
link   
reply to post by ngchunter
 


And still, experts gave that piece of petrified wood a value of £308,000

This only serves to illustrate what goes on if you follow the general view/theory.
edit on 11-3-2013 by Chrysalis because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 11 2013 @ 10:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Chrysalis
 




And still, experts gave that piece of petrified wood a value of £308,000

What experts? Experts on lunar rocks? No. It just took one look for geologists to know it wasn't a Moon rock.



posted on Mar, 11 2013 @ 10:24 PM
link   
not to derail or diminish this post. i just have to laugh becasue astrobiologists and microbiologist find tiny little microbes in far fetched places and claim life.. which is cool and interesting that life lives there. However scientists cannot agree that a fetus is a living thing before its born? Really? Just thought that was ironic.



posted on Mar, 11 2013 @ 10:27 PM
link   
reply to post by tluna1
 




However scientists cannot agree that a fetus is a living thing before its born?

Aside from your completely off topic post which completely distorts the issue...what scientists would that be?

Never mind.
edit on 3/11/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 11 2013 @ 10:43 PM
link   
Uh oh...!

*religion's eyes dart around the room nervously*




posted on Mar, 11 2013 @ 11:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrptr
Why is it always "fossils" of life found on meteorite?

Wake me when "living life" is found on one.

Interstellar sperms is BS. We would have found it by now on all the multi thousands of tons of stuff raining down.


Don't you understand the implications of this discovery if it is proven to be authentic?



edit on 11-3-2013 by Vandettas because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 11 2013 @ 11:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by tluna1
not to derail or diminish this post. i just have to laugh becasue astrobiologists and microbiologist find tiny little microbes in far fetched places and claim life.. which is cool and interesting that life lives there. However scientists cannot agree that a fetus is a living thing before its born? Really? Just thought that was ironic.


Astrobiologists don't deal with abortions, although they may have opinions on it. Its not up their alley.





top topics
 
105
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join