'Alien life found above Derbyshire proves we're descended from extraterrestrials', say scientists

Interesting article, found this part pretty intriguing...

Additionally the Journal of Cosmology has had its reputation called into question more than once by other members of the scientific community.

While the find, if true, would be exciting, the proper testing hasn't been completed yet....

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.

Seems a little fishy to me...

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.[78] Virus self-assembly within host cells has implications for the study of the origin of life,[79] as it lends further credence to the hypothesis that life could have started as self-assembling organic molecules.[80][81]

''http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/cells/organelles/

So it's like, "we've found alien life, except it's in earth's atmosphere, so it's not really alien life at all, we just dont know how it got there"... am I close?

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

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 .

No no, there is debate in politics and religion and at the coffee shop, but science does not debate. Science proposes a hypothesis and then does experimental work, and it either confirms or denies the hypothesis. That is why if there are holes loose enough to incite debate, it is bad science.

Granted most of the biggest breakthroughs did take a lot of pushing and shoving outside of the lab, the battle is not won there though and you do not prove anything by pushing your assumptions onto the general population. That is a giant red flag, as the general rule is check your work x10 and have it peer reviewed so when you go public there is no debate.

That's the reason it took CERN 2 years to release the data they had on the Higgs.

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.

If any scientist uses terms like "Darwinist" and has sentiments like this I question their mental capacity. Not to mention the total misunderstanding/misrepresentation, that evolution and abiogenesis are not the same in any way shape or form. Evolution fits in entirely with both Abiogenesis or Panspermia.

Talk like that is disturbing to say the least.

I don't know... I read science articles all the time, and definitely over the past decade, that claim the proof of alien life. It ends up false or the discovery of our own biological contaminates.

Granted most of the biggest breakthroughs did take a lot of pushing and shoving outside of the lab !

Debate ?

originally posted by: Denoli
Granted most of the biggest breakthroughs did take a lot of pushing and shoving outside of the lab !

Debate ?

Different. Thats more like when a new theory is settled on, where a dozen people each have various theories proposed, and people debate the merits of each one, which will be the prevailing theory? This is far different than arguing about a S%#& paper that was put in a bunk journal pushing one person's idea. This is more like deciding whether or not people will spend their lifetimes researching Quantum Physics, Relativity, or String Theory.

In some cases, more than one wins the debate. (See the above 3) and in the case of the third, people still spend time investigating it, it is just not the major player, and rightfully so as the other two have experimental data to support them every step of the way, unlike the other.

a reply to: gortex

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.

That sounds great, Gortex. And maybe if there are enough truly skeptical scientists willing to replicate this mans experiment for themselves, that will happen. On the other hand, how many "unverified claims" went unverified for decades, or even a century, because the scientists of the day weren't ready to have the status quo challenged? Ignaz Semmelweis and George Ohm come to mind. Quacks that they were.
All I'm saying is, skeptical is good. A true skeptic is willing to consider all possibilities. But some people seem to think closed-mindedness sounds more sage and wise. It isn't. IMHO.

Except there's not much science here and plenty of supposition...

“If at first the idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for it.” Albert Einstein

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.

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 creates heavier elements that then get shot into the interstellar medium to create either more stars or other astrological bodies when the star goes supernova. This is what I mean when I say things go from less complex to more complex when these processes are applied.

Yes the universe is a giant chemical experiment and that was what I was getting at with my original point. Whether life originated on Earth or elsewhere is irrelevant. It HAD to start off as a chemical reaction somewhere somehow. Then it got more complex and evolved from there. We may not know the exact composition and requirements for that to occur, but there really is no other logical way that it could have occurred. That is unless you start adding things like god to the equation.

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.

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.

I'm not saying that the Panspermia hypothesis is wrong. It certainly is a valid hypothesis and your point that it gives the universe an extra 8 - 9 billion years to produce life is a good point. I'm just saying that it had to start SOMEWHERE, maybe somewheres, but it certainly didn't just appear on a comet whole. It had to have the right conditions and elements for it to start then it had to have been put on a comet. 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.

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?

Yes I read those explanations too, and they aren't compelling enough to warrant the claims being said. The questions I asked were more questions for future study. 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.

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 like the first option. It sounds more plausible. 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?

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.

You think so? I would have thought that humans' innate curiosity to explore the unknown and unreachable was the reason for that. The same reason people used to stand on the shores and gaze out towards the oceans or stand on a plain or mountain and gaze across the land. But hey your explanation may work too.

a reply to: FamCore

The origin of life has nothing to do with the theory of evolution. So it doesn't matter what an "evolutionist" thinks. Though I will also say that with Panspermia hypothesis being true doesn't mean that Abiogenesis hypothesis is untrue. They both could be true and life just chemically kick started off world then was seeded here later. Maybe take your science denialism elsewhere, we don't have time for your fake science pushed by Creationists.

a reply to: Klassified

All I'm saying is, skeptical is good. A true skeptic is willing to consider all possibilities.

My opinions are based on past experience of Wainwright and Wickramasinghe and research into claims made about the red rain n Kerala , past experience tells me they are big on claims but short on evidence.

As I highlighted earlier the research paper contains no research into the origin of the diatom but plenty of assumptions on how it got there.
Here it is if you care to read it.
journalofcosmology.com...

a reply to: Krazysh0t

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.

Yup, and they poof into existence. And yeah, amino acids forming into rna/forming a cell, thats all more complex.

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.

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.

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.

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"...

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

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.

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?

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!

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.

Same way algae was growing on the ISS way further out then this... don't see how this is indisputable when we've found more complex life forms further out. And just for the record, I'm a believer in Panspermia Theory.

originally posted by: NoRulesAllowed
VERY interesting, still not conclusive by a long-shot tho.

What more would you need to prove it conclusively?

a reply to: alientransfer

What more would you need to prove it conclusively?

I guess this would help.

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."
www.space.com...

Actual evidence of a non terrestrial origin seems to me to be the scientific way rather than making assumptions of origin.

a reply to: Jenisiz

Totally agree as I did from the start, who made who?
It's too inconclusive at the moment, research is in it's infancy and until conclusive evidence is presented this is all hypothetical and academic pondering. Not that this won't develop into something more concrete later on.

But as ATS has proven time and time again, it's better to look good and say nothing relevant, then look bad and be right!
Stella Artois is watered down swill anyway, I drink REAL beer when I party!

originally posted by: boncho
Yup, and they poof into existence. And yeah, amino acids forming into rna/forming a cell, thats all more complex.

I guess if you consider ignition being the poof... But I'd see that as more like starting a grill. The materials are already there, all that happened was the matter became ionized and started fusing together.

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.

That would be pretty substantial, but I cannot predict the future. Therefore I cannot say that won't one day be true. Though, keep in mind, the energy consumption of a singular black hole has life beat by a long shot; and there are MANY black holes in the universe (including super massive ones) so that is a LOT of ground to make up for energy consumption.

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, that was what I was getting at, and I always leave things as "could be/maybe/interesting if". Though I would say that logically, Abiogenesis is true regardless if Panspermia is true or not. Life has to start somehow regardless of if it was on this planet or not.

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.

You maybe. Not me. I don't get my hopes up for preliminary findings. I say, "that's interesting" or "that would be neat if" but I never get my hopes up for any outcome over the other. Or try not to at least. It is the best way to avoid confirmation bias and the possibility of denying evidence that conflicts with your hopes.

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.)

Yes, yes it does. Though I think that meeting an advanced extraterrestrial life form wouldn't go as romantically as humans like to imagine it. You said it yourself, life is a great tool of chaos. Currently, every species on this planet that can rationalize and reason is highly destructive and chaotic. Every action that it does that is considered "evil", "wrong", "good", etc are all actions that other species on the planet do (even war and slavery). This species just does it better and with worse consequences. I'd say that logically, an advanced life form would be even worse and more destructive than we are. In any case, humans wouldn't hesitate to go to war with them if we thought we could beat them (we wouldn't even have to dehumanize them first).

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!

My experience with probability says that this is statistically inevitable anyways. If it has happened once, that is proof that the odds aren't 0%. Then if the odds aren't 0%, the event WILL happen given a large enough space and enough chances. Then it is statistically inevitable that it will happen again and again and again. Heck, statistically, since we know that homo sapien sapien is a valid form life can take through evolution, it is statistically inevitable that humans exist elsewhere in the universe. The question is if they are in the Milky Way and if they evolved at the same time period in the universe as us and didn't die off before we reach interstellar travel.

people in this thread have asked the obvious question [ paraphrased for brevity ] :

what would make you believe this ?

answer :

isotope ratios not found on earth - within the samples

simples