1
   

AMAZING: Alien life *possibly* found!

 
 
Reply Fri 2 Jun, 2006 05:28 pm
Ok, this is probably the coolest thing I've read all month. Can you imagine the implications if this turns out to be legit? Shocked

Link to article

Quote:
Mysterious red cells might be aliens

By Jebediah Reed
Popular Science

(PopSci.comexternal link) -- As bizarre as it may seem, the sample jars brimming with cloudy, reddish rainwater in Godfrey Louis's laboratory in southern India may hold, well, aliens.

In April, Louis, a solid-state physicist at Mahatma Gandhi University, published a paper in the prestigious peer-reviewed journal Astrophysics and Space Science in which he hypothesizes that the samples -- water taken from the mysterious blood-colored showers that fell sporadically across Louis's home state of Kerala in the summer of 2001 -- contain microbes from outer space.

Specifically, Louis has isolated strange, thick-walled, red-tinted cell-like structures about 10 microns in size. Stranger still, dozens of his experiments suggest that the particles may lack DNA yet still reproduce plentifully, even in water superheated to nearly 600 degrees Fahrenheit . (The known upper limit for life in water is about 250 degrees Fahrenheit .)

So how to explain them? Louis speculates that the particles could be extraterrestrial bacteria adapted to the harsh conditions of space and that the microbes hitched a ride on a comet or meteorite that later broke apart in the upper atmosphere and mixed with rain clouds above India.

If his theory proves correct, the cells would be the first confirmed evidence of alien life and, as such, could yield tantalizing new clues to the origins of life on Earth.

Last winter, Louis sent some of his samples to astronomer Chandra Wickramasinghe and his colleagues at Cardiff University in Wales, who are now attempting to replicate his experiments; Wickramasinghe expects to publish his initial findings later this year.

Meanwhile, more down-to-earth theories abound. One Indian government investigation conducted in 2001 lays blame for what some have called the "blood rains" on algae.

Other theories have implicated fungal spores, red dust swept up from the Arabian peninsula, even a fine mist of blood cells produced by a meteor striking a high-flying flock of bats.

Louis and his colleagues dismiss all these theories, pointing to the fact that both algae and fungus possess DNA and that blood cells have thin walls and die quickly when exposed to water and air.

More important, they argue, blood cells don't replicate. "We've already got some stunning pictures -- transmission electron micrographs -- of these cells sliced in the middle," Wickramasinghe says. "We see them budding, with little daughter cells inside the big cells."

Louis's theory holds special appeal for Wickramasinghe. A quarter of a century ago, he co-authored the modern theory of panspermia, which posits that bacteria-riddled space rocks seeded life on Earth.

"If it's true that life was introduced by comets four billion years ago," the astronomer says, "one would expect that microorganisms are still injected into our environment from time to time. This could be one of those events."

The next significant step, explains University of Sheffield microbiologist Milton Wainwright, who is part of another British team now studying Louis's samples, is to confirm whether the cells truly lack DNA. So far, one preliminary DNA test has come back positive.

"Life as we know it must contain DNA, or it's not life," he says. "But even if this organism proves to be an anomaly, the absence of DNA wouldn't necessarily mean it's extraterrestrial."

Louis and Wickramasinghe are planning further experiments to test the cells for specific carbon isotopes. If the results fall outside the norms for life on Earth, it would be powerful new evidence for Louis's idea, of which even Louis himself remains skeptical.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 1,768 • Replies: 37
No top replies

 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Jun, 2006 05:36 pm
Hey JO

Make sure it gets peer reviewed or anti-IDers might not believe it. And shareholders don't count as peer reviewers.

But it does sound like there's a lot of scientific evidence for it I must admit.
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Jun, 2006 05:52 pm
I hope no one (even those faithless "anti-ID'ers") would accept anything as science until it is peer reviewed. That's how science works.

I am sure that any work on this fantastic claim will be very carefully reviewed before it is accepted-- as it should be. If this claim is true it is a monumental scientific discovery (and monumental scientific discoveries don't happen very often).

You say it "does sound like there's a lot of scientific evidence for it"....

Do you know what the phrase "scientific evidence" means (hint: peer review is an important part of it)?
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Jun, 2006 06:10 pm
Yeah E-
I know.

Raquel Welch was peer reviewed. Goodstyle.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Jun, 2006 06:28 pm
This is the third topic on this subject.
0 Replies
 
littlek
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Jun, 2006 08:04 pm
Spendius, you think that proof of alien life would prove ID?
0 Replies
 
stuh505
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Aug, 2006 06:09 am
The PDF of his article is freely available here:
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0601022

The majority of the paper discusses the results of microscopy, spectral analysis and several other tests objectively (although the English is not so good).

More substantial evidence linking the event to the mysterious comet is needed, however. They do not even say the name/designation of the comet it is proposed to have come from, much less provide any information regarding a possible trajectory or origin, period, or even hypothetical mass of the comet!

The whole panspermia thing sounds pretty crazy to me based on what I know about comets. They are icy remnants of the early stages of the solar system that did not accrete into planets due to being gravitationally slingshotted into the Kuiper "belt" or Oort "cloud"...so first of all there's no way that life could be transported from one planet to another via a comet, which means that if there were life on a comet it would need to have evolved on that comet. A comet has certainly existed for a long enough period of time, but conditions on a comet are continuously changing...with each cycle around the sun it is heated to extreme temperatures causing sublimation of the volatiles, and then on it's return being sent into a deep freeze.

I don't think it is a rational idea for life to evolve in a solid, and comets are pretty much solids all the time, since they are heated so quickly that the ices sublimate...so I dont' see any of the conditions for life there. If life did evolve on a comet it would certainly be a much less probable event than on Earth, where the conditions were all ripe.

Anyway regarding this red rain, I would think that an excellent test that could potentially validate this as being extraterrestial would be a see if it is chiral and see what direction it rotates the plane of light. Correct me if I'm wrong here but if it shows that it is levorotary I think that would pretty much prove that it did not evolve from anything Earthly, since all Earthly life is dextrorotary.
0 Replies
 
Shellgame
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Aug, 2006 08:42 am
So, if this is the "beginning of life" or a possible answer to how life began on earth, wouldn't these cells go through the same type of evolutionary changes over time?

Just think, man could live with dinosaurs! We could have cave man and "evolved" man on the planet at the same time. What kind of respect do you suppose we would give such a being?

This will be interesting to follow.

Personally, I think the Indian government was quick to try to dismiss the red rain. It will probably turn out to be something new from the warfare lab, but it's still fun to contemplate alien life.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Aug, 2006 10:01 am
Anne McCaffrey called. She wants her plot back....
0 Replies
 
stuh505
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Aug, 2006 11:32 am
Quote:
So, if this is the "beginning of life" or a possible answer to how life began on earth, wouldn't these cells go through the same type of evolutionary changes over time?

Just think, man could live with dinosaurs! We could have cave man and "evolved" man on the planet at the same time. What kind of respect do you suppose we would give such a being?

This will be interesting to follow.


No, that is absolutely preposterous because evolution does not work that way.

The organisms that inhabit Earth presently are so perfectly adapted to every niche that a simple organism would not be able to compete for resources. It would immediately die out and never evolve.

In some cases an alien invading species will randomly have characteristics that cause it to dominate existing species, which causes them to die off, and their evolution to stop.

If a species does not have sufficient competition, it also will not evolve, because there is no selective pressure for it to do so.

Selective pressure is not some magical or outside force, this is a term that makes explanation more simple ( you seem to have misconstrued it.)

When there is a lot of unused resources over a non-uniform geographic area than a species implanted in one area tends to spread out to cover more area, and in each local area it will adapt to the local environment simply be natural selection (small mutations in dna...). This is the fanning out...and then once capable species fill all the niches they simply become more and more efficient. New species never develop unless there is a catastrophe.

So it is entirely impossible for a simple 1 celled organism, if that's what this is, to evolve, barring the extremely improbable possibility that it is better suited to Earth's environment than anything already on Earth.

Also, when evolution occurs, it does not follow a preset course because each change is random. So you wouldn't get dinosaurs anyway. And furthermore it's an exponential process, so by the time a single celled organism coudl develop to be multicelled, humans would be long extinct most likely from some kind of global catastrophe.

Quote:
Anne McCaffrey called. She wants her plot back....


Sadly it's already been done here...
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0251075/
0 Replies
 
NickFun
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Aug, 2006 11:42 am
I did a post on this a while back at http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=70816&highlight= . For some reason the news media is not picking this story up and running with it.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Aug, 2006 02:52 pm
stuh505 wrote:
Quote:
Anne McCaffrey called. She wants her plot back....


Sadly it's already been done here...
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0251075/

Poorly, I might add.

Although the blue monkeys were funny.
0 Replies
 
stuh505
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Aug, 2006 09:03 pm
What do the more biologically minded folks in here think of this experiment I mentioned?

Quote:
Anyway regarding this red rain, I would think that an excellent test that could potentially validate this as being extraterrestial would be a see if it is chiral and see what direction it rotates the plane of light. Correct me if I'm wrong here but if it shows that it is levorotary I think that would pretty much prove that it did not evolve from anything Earthly, since all Earthly life is dextrorotary.
0 Replies
 
NickFun
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Aug, 2006 09:46 pm
Check out the pdf on this stuff. There's plenty of evidence this stuff ain't from Earth: http://arxiv.org/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0312/0312639.pdf
0 Replies
 
stuh505
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Aug, 2006 10:50 pm
Thanks for that link NickFun.

It would be nice to hear what some other scientists have to say...I'd like to see the same experiments repeated on these red things by some more reputable people.

Their attempt at explaining the thing's presence in interstellar clouds is extremely dubious. It does not have the correct absorption band and simply saying that the absorption band will probably be abotu 20nm off due to temperature sounds bogus.

The panspermia theory does not provide a "natural explanation" for the evolution of life but rather just says "its not our problem." Life evolved somewhere! Panspermia certainly gives MORE time for random chance to occur but it does not give too many orders of magnitude so I don't think it really makes anything any simpler to say it evolved elsewhere.

Their section on "life distribution mechanism" sounds really crazy. Their wild assumptions are based on wild unsupported conjecture and I must say they are really getting ahead of themselves.
0 Replies
 
yitwail
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Aug, 2006 11:26 pm
even if the *cells* are of terrestrial origin, if they actually reproduce without DNA or RNA, it would show that life can arise spontaneously in the absence of DNA or RNA. existing theories of the origin of life from inert matter have to deal with a chicken or egg question: proteins are constructed from a DNA template, but DNA needs enzymes, ie. protein catalysts, in order to replicate.
0 Replies
 
stuh505
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Aug, 2006 06:45 am
Quote:
even if the *cells* are of terrestrial origin, if they actually reproduce without DNA or RNA, it would show that life can arise spontaneously in the absence of DNA or RNA. existing theories of the origin of life from inert matter have to deal with a chicken or egg question: proteins are constructed from a DNA template, but DNA needs enzymes, ie. protein catalysts, in order to replicate.


No, even if it is true that these are cells that are capable of replicating...

1) This does not show that life can arise spontaneously at all. That they do not have DNA does not mean that they don't still have some other equally complicated mechanism for reproduction that would be just as improbable to spontaneously assemble itself.

2) Yes, existing theories are incomplete because we don't know how DNA developed, but we don't need panspermia to provide an alternative possibility. There are countless possible ways to design a cell that reproduces without using conventional DNA that all could have originated at Earth.

3) This does not solve the chicken and Egg problem, it merely moves the Egg somewhere else. In any solution I think most would agree that DNA did have to be evolved under some more primitive reproductive mechanism, I don't think that thought is too revolutionary.
0 Replies
 
yitwail
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Aug, 2006 08:03 am
stuh505 wrote:


No, even if it is true that these are cells that are capable of replicating...

1) This does not show that life can arise spontaneously at all. That they do not have DNA does not mean that they don't still have some other equally complicated mechanism for reproduction that would be just as improbable to spontaneously assemble itself.


it may be nitpicking, but what i actually said was,
it would show that life can arise spontaneously in the absence of DNA or RNA

Quote:

3) This does not solve the chicken and Egg problem, it merely moves the Egg somewhere else. In any solution I think most would agree that DNA did have to be evolved under some more primitive reproductive mechanism, I don't think that thought is too revolutionary.


that's a good point, but i was assuming that these *cells* have a simpler mechanism than DNA/RNA, which perhaps could have arisen spontaneously; it's a moot question anyway until the mechanism is isolated & described. the finding that they can tolerate temperatures far higher than known terrestrial organisms is not incompatible with a simpler mechanism, i'm guessing.
0 Replies
 
NickFun
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Aug, 2006 08:47 am
It would appear this substance can metabolize (eat) both organic and inorganic substances. This means it can survive off nearly anything. If this thing reproduced at room temperatures then it would surely devour evey living and non-living thing on Earth in a relatively short time. The future of humanity os at stake! Be afraid! Be VERY afraid!
0 Replies
 
stuh505
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Aug, 2006 08:48 am
Indeed you are nitpicking, but so was I, and after all the only way to get the nits out is to pick them Laughing

Quote:
it may be nitpicking, but what i actually said was,
it would show that life can arise spontaneously in the absence of DNA or RNA


I do not disagree that life can arise without DNA or RNA, I think that has always been fairly obvious...because DNA and RNA are simple an arbitrary but working method of replication, and one can imagine any number of other methods for replication.

Rather, it is the spontaneous part of your comment that I disagree with, because this does not show anything about the potential for life to arise spontaneously (assuming that the article is in fact true). For all we know such an organism could have been assembled by hand by workers in China, you don't KNOW how long it took for this life form to be created.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Evolution 101 - Discussion by gungasnake
Typing Equations on a PC - Discussion by Brandon9000
The Future of Artificial Intelligence - Discussion by Brandon9000
The well known Mind vs Brain. - Discussion by crayon851
Scientists Offer Proof of 'Dark Matter' - Discussion by oralloy
Blue Saturn - Discussion by oralloy
Bald Eagle-DDT Myth Still Flying High - Discussion by gungasnake
DDT: A Weapon of Mass Survival - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » AMAZING: Alien life *possibly* found!
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/21/2024 at 08:58:21