The red rains

  1. Is discovery science's "Unexplained files" more believable than say ,History channel's "Ancient aliens" ?
    Red rain

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_rain_in_Kerala
    Mod note: Inappropriate links removed
    They said the red rain 'cells' did not have any nucleus or DNA(they could not find any) but were multiplying ,are there any known organisms that can multiply without DNA?
    I don't know much about it ,but why is it so hard to break it's cell wall? it's not as if its made of unbreakable material.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 17, 2013
  2. jcsd
  3. Ryan_m_b

    Staff: Mentor

    The red rain was established to be caused by a local algae:
    http://web.archive.org/web/20060613135746/http://www.geocities.com/iamgoddard/Sampath2001.pdf

    Suggestions that it is anything else have no supporting data. There has only been one peer-reviewed study suggesting extraterrestrial origin but at most it showed that there were samples containing particles that resembled cells and no DNA was found. In other words not conclusive at all: http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0601022v1.pdf

    Given studies like the one below that have found DNA and identified the spores as terrestrial (and there are many more) I'd hazard a guess that the study that didn't find DNA had poor methodology.
    http://mic.sgmjournals.org/content/early/2012/11/16/mic.0.062711-0.abstract
     
    Last edited: Nov 17, 2013
Know someone interested in this topic? Share a link to this question via email, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?

0
Draft saved Draft deleted