Extraterrestrial Lifeforms Found?

  • Thread starter Thread starter mee
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the announcement of evidence for fossilized cyanobacteria found in the Orgueil meteorite, presented at the SPIE Conference. Participants explore the implications of this finding, including the potential for contamination and the origins of the bacteria, while debating the validity of the claims made regarding the conditions under which the bacteria could have existed.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants note that the images of cyanobacteria in the meteorite are indistinguishable from known Earthly fossilized forms, suggesting a possible Earth origin.
  • Others argue that contamination is a plausible explanation, citing previous instances of fossilized Earth bacteria found in meteorites.
  • One participant questions the logic of asserting that cyanobacteria can only grow underwater and exposed to sunlight, suggesting that this does not rule out contamination.
  • Another participant expresses confusion about the reasoning behind the claims, seeking clarification on why the assertion of contamination being impossible is accepted.
  • A question is raised regarding the possibility of analyzing the DNA of the fossilized cyanobacteria to determine their origins.
  • Some participants propose that the bacteria may have adapted to different environments on Earth, challenging the assumption that they could not have originated from Earth.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the implications of the findings, with some supporting the idea of extraterrestrial origins while others emphasize the likelihood of contamination and Earthly origins. The discussion remains unresolved, with multiple competing perspectives present.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight limitations in the arguments presented, including assumptions about the growth conditions of cyanobacteria and the potential for contamination, which remain unresolved.

mee
Messages
213
Reaction score
1
NEWS FROM THE SPIE CONFERENCE IN DENVER, 2-3 AUG 2004:

Cyanobacteria found in a meteorite:

At a conference in Denver today [2 Aug 2004], NASA's Richard Hoover announced evidence of a fossilized cyanobacterial mat in the Orgueil carbonaceous meteorite. His pictures of forms in the meteorite were indistinguishable from known, Earthly fossilized cyanobacteria such as phormidium tenuissimum. The images from Orgueil were taken in July, 2004, using Environmental- and Field Emission Scanning Electron Microscopy at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama.

Other fossilized bacteria have been found in meteorites, including Orgueil, before now (see related webpages linked [at panspermia.org website].) But the possibility that Earthly bacteria could have colonized the meteorites and left fossils in them after they arrived leaves room for doubt within the scientific establishment today. Contamination is not a possible cause now however, because the observed cyanobactera, on Earth, form their mats only under water on surfaces exposed to sunlight. This fragment of Orgueil was not under water on Earth (it would have dissolved), nor was its interior open and exposed to sunlight on Earth before now. Furthermore, the newly seen fossils are not isolated single cells, but whole ecologies. They must have grown on the meteorite's parent body before it fell.

Participants at the SPIE Conference in Denver who saw the new images agreed that Hoover's evidence is momentous. Photos and updates will be posted here when available.

http://www.panspermia.org/whatsnew.htm#0400802
 
Biology news on Phys.org
mee said:
His pictures of forms in the meteorite were indistinguishable from known, Earthly fossilized cyanobacteria...

Other fossilized bacteria have been found in meteorites, including Orgueil, before now...

Contamination is not a possible cause now however, because the observed cyanobactera, on Earth, form their mats only under water on surfaces exposed to sunlight...
In light of the first two, I'm not buying the 3rd.
 
russ_watters said:
In light of the first two, I'm not buying the 3rd.

Thanks, I did not read it closely enough first time.
 
May you please clarify why that statement is wrong? I'm not arguing, I just don't understand.
 
Can the DNA of fossilized cyanobacteria be analized?
 
It's a bacteria found on Earth. Similar contamination has previously been found in this meteorite.

The other part of the logic that doesn't make any sense is stating that this bacteria can only grow under water when exposed to sunlight, and then turning the argument to say that explains why it grew while the meteorite was somewhere else other than Earth. More likely, they've just found a form of this bacteria that can grow in a different place on Earth than previously recognized. It's rather unscientific to just say contamination is not possible too. There's always the possibility of contamination, and if this meteorite is of a composition that would dissolve upon exposure to water, then it would easily explain why a bacterial contamination inside it would leave what appear to be fossils even if they only recently made their way in (the water of the bacteria would have dissolved some of the mineral leaving an impression, like a footprint, of their presence).
 
aychamo said:
May you please clarify why that statement is wrong? I'm not arguing, I just don't understand.
To paraphrase,

-The bacteria found look exactly like Earth bacteria (implying, maybe they are Earth bacteria).

-Fossillized Earth bacteria have been found in other meteorites (supports the conclusion from the first fact that they are Earth bacteria).

-The bacteria could not have originated from Earth (implying that on Mars, there are bacteria identical to bacteria on Earth - an extrordinary claim).

So either there are bacteria on Mars identical to that on Earth, or the 3rd statement is wrong. I'd put my money on the 3rd statement being wrong.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
10K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K