"Claim: Meteorite discovered with signs of life in it"

[mrlynn]

Much though I'd love for it to be true, discussion in the Comments leads me to suspect it's a fake:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/14/cl...more-77521

/Mr Lynn

[Paul F.]

Life is so pervasive here on earth, that ANY sample that is recovered ON EARTH and is claimed to have "signs of life" in it has a very uphill battle to prove it wasn't something that contaminated the sample HERE on EARTH.

[davester]

Considering the amount of woefully inaccurate garbage posted on the wattsupwiththat.com blog, I would be highly skeptical of something like this.

[cbelt3]

As Paul stated. Which is why spacecraft that go off in search of life go through extensive and painful sterilization processes to remove traces of terran life.


http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/ar...rs/262147/

[mrlynn]

davester wrote:
Considering the amount of woefully inaccurate garbage posted on the wattsupwiththat.com blog, I would be highly skeptical of something like this.

You mean the many posts debunking the unproven claims of the Climatists? Unlike the the 'consensus' climate sites Anthony Watts encourages all views, contrary or not, in the Comments. If you find something "woefully inaccurate" you are welcome to post a correction—but you'll be challenged to document it.

As for this 'discovery', Anthony is also skeptical:

I would remind readers that “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence“. This needs to be confirmed by others in the science community before it can be taken seriously.

/Mr Lynn

[mrlynn]

This commenter suggests that if not fake, the 'fossil' diatom was probably originally ejected from Earth, perhaps from the Chesapeake Bay impact some 35 million years ago. Here's his post:

dlgriscom says:
January 15, 2013 at 12:14 pm wrote:
I believe there is a near consensus that if Wickramasinghe’s sample isn’t a fake, then it must be a meteorite from the Earth. (I think that most of us agree that the red rains are red herrings).

Meteorites from the Earth are regarded to exist but are believed by these authors as unlikely to ever be recovered:
Gladman, B. J., Burns, J. A., Duncan, M., Lee, P., and Levison, H. F.: The exchange of
impact ejecta between terrestrial planets, Science, 271, 1387-1392, 1996.
DOI:10.1126/science.271.5254.1387

If there were to be any meteorites from the Earth, it has been deemed likely that some of them would have originated with the Chesapeake Bay impact ca. 35.5 Ma:
Faucett, P. J., and Boslough, M. B. E.: Climatic effects of an impact-induced equatorial debris ring, J. Geophys. Res. 107 (D15), 4231-4249, 2002. doi:10.1029/2001JD001230.

There are diatomaceous sands in the impact area of the CB crater.
(general knowledge)

Perhaps the most successful mechanism for putting fragments of the Earth into distant orbits that do not return to the Earth’s atmosphere for ~35.5 m.y. is the jetting phase, wherein ejecta is launched nearly tangentially to the Earth’s surface “at speeds usually faster than the projectile itself.”:
Melosh H. J.: Impact Cratering – A Geological Process, Oxford Monogr. Geol. Geophys
Ser., vol. 11, Oxford University Press, New York, 1989. p.51

So all we have to do now is to find some of these meteorites from the Earth and study them.
And in fact I have found one:
Griscom D L., In plain sight: the Chesapeake Bay crater ejecta blanket, Solid Earth Discuss., 4, 363—428, 2012, http://www.solid-earth-discuss.net/4/363...-2012.html
doi:10.5194/sed-4-363-2012
(Sections 10 and 11 treat jetting-phase ejecta (which didn’t leave the Earth) and a recovered meteorite from the Earth, respectively.)
The link above shows my abstract and permits downloading the full article. However, if you wish to read it I recommend downloading my reader-friendly version (figures inline w/ text) here: http://www.drivehq.com/file/df.aspx/publ...erResearch

/Mr Lynn

[SteveG]

Our forum expert sez: "Need more study."

[Will Collier]

davester wrote:
Considering the amount of woefully inaccurate garbage posted on the wattsupwiththat.com blog, I would be highly skeptical of something like this.

You mean not equating the output of software models with actual science?

Why, the nerve.

[NewtonMP2100]

did the sign say.....no egress....????

[davester]

Will Collier wrote:
[quote=davester]
Considering the amount of woefully inaccurate garbage posted on the wattsupwiththat.com blog, I would be highly skeptical of something like this.

You mean not equating the output of software models with actual science?

Why, the nerve.
There are two issues here:

1. Software models are an inherent part of virtually all science today. If you don't like it, then please abandon all technologies that rely on science. Software models are calibrated based on real world data sets, preferably multiple independent data sets. That's simply how science is done. If you don't understand this then you have no business trying to critique science.

2. Mr. Watts, the former weatherman, to his credit, has called out some errors in some of the data sets and some of the models used to simulate climatic effects. Unfortunately, and not to his credit, he has also called out errors or drawn conclusions that are in fact erroneous or at the least not supported by the data he presents. Mr. Watts does not practice, and never has practiced, science. A true scientist creates a hypothesis and then devises tests that attempt to invalidate his/her hypothesis to see if it will stand up to scrutiny. Mr. Watts creates hypotheses and then only gathers data that supports his hypotheses. Those of us in science refer to people like this as religious figures. Actually, given his single minded direction, he might better be described as a conspiracy theorist. Granted, there are some religious figures in the climate science world that tout hypotheses that are in opposition to those of Mr. Watts. However, that does not excuse Mr. Watts' behavior.