Okay here is what was said to me in a discussion with some paleontologists. I paraphrased a bit, but this is the gist of it.
"Live Diatoms were found inside the center of the rock. Meaning the rocks were porous and had a lot of pockets to hold liquids, which is not
the norm for meteorites."
Diatoms were found in the rock yes. As mentioned in another post Diatoms are responsible for the production of silica as well as some sponges, their
skeletons are made of it. When you see a chert/flint rock you are holding a rock that contains millions/billions of tiny bits of skeletons.
"The content of the amorphous silica in the rock was too high."
"And further Patrick Kociolek who is an expert in Diatoms says that the photos are of Diatoms but that they are too perfect to be fossilized.
The taxonomy of the Diatoms are also fresh water and of a living species today that have a great deal of evolutionary history."
Sure you can
have some really detailed fossils. You can see bone cell and plant cell many times under a microscope, I have personally seen this many times.
However, the fossilization process does not make an exact or perfect copy of the original (in any of the processes of fossilization).
I do not have the Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology for Diatoms (at least not that I recall) so I cannot compare myself. But those I was speaking
to about this I trust very much on the subject.
A good book dealing with the subject of Diatoms though as well as many other paleontology princples can be found here. It is a free download at Google
Books.
A Manual of Paleontology
books.google.com...
Aside from the fact that it is outdated in the way of this was written before the knowledge of plate tectonics the rest of the information is still
useable. I highly recomend reading through it.
Raist
edit on 3/13/13 by Raist because: spelling
You are most certainly right dear Onion. The title of the post surely is misleading, smart move on behalf of the op to get peoples attention,
yet their is no official clarification of the claims being made. That said it seems we are more alike than I previously thought. My excitement got the
better of me when I read the article and I should definitely be more rigorous in my speculation when it comes to such big claims being made. See you
around 
and Good things 
