Likewise: New Bacteria in Lake Vostok Actually a Contamination... <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5361405" rel="nofollow">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5361405</a><p>Seems like there's a rush to get news out without full investigations.
How would fossilization occur in space? I was under the impression that water carried down calcium compounds which replaced bone structure/other molecular structures. Would not the fossil have to be there as the rock becomes ejecta from some source?
I guess what confuses me with this stuff is that while we consider throwing out all claims of life on Mars due to a possible rover equipment exposure to non-sterile air, it's okay to assume that a meteorite laying around in the dirt is a safe source of extraterrestrial life.
Okay, I'm no scientist but one part of the argument just kind of irks me:<p>[i]In other words, all the diatoms shown in the paper are from known species on Earth. That makes it somewhat less likely they are native to space. And by somewhat, I mean completely. Like, zero chance they are from space.[/i]<p>UNLESS, Panspermia is correct and all life on earth came from space, in which case it would be completely in the realm of possibility that life from space that landed on earth had already landed here before, in the distance past.
If fossilization occurred in the asteroid, wouldn't entering earth's atmosphere alter it sufficiently to be unrecognizable?<p>Also, who is to say that bacteria didn't "seep into" the asteroid? Scientists often use fossils to come to the conclusion that Antarctica wasn't that cold in the past: <a href="http://www.livescience.com/5023-fossil-suggests-antarctica-warmer.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.livescience.com/5023-fossil-suggests-antarctica-w...</a>
This is full of ad hominem, rough guesses, non scientific hyperbole, ones persons opinion (the authors, or a person contacted) and colloquialisms and weasel words. Please don't assume I believe in panspermia. But this article is likely to be just as rubbish as the original paper. The emotional language the author uses makes me think that this gripe is personal. As in biased. The opposite bias he accuses the original author of. And he keeps, well, saying, why, well...<p>Some examples of the hyperbole:<p>"It’s wrong. Really, really wrong. Way, way, way ridiculously oh-holy-wow-how-could-anyone-publish-this wrong."<p>"[deep breath]"<p>Cynically calling the journal "august"<p>"alarm bells exploded in my head"<p>"not without some merits." (not 'has some merits' but is just short of no merit at all. as in just 'some')<p>"fervent proponent"<p>"Like, really fervent" (did he actually, like, well, write 'like'?)<p>And so on it goes. And on, and on, and on. Like verbal diarrhoea. It really does come across like he has an axe to grind. This kind of writing really doesn't help his point. Do you think this article would pass peer review and be published in a journal?<p>I don't know why scientists just can't keep an open mind. Maybe life comes from outer space. Maybe it doesn't. Maybe diatoms are in meteorites. Maybe they aren't. No one really knows, do they?