British scientists claimed to have found first evidence of alien life

"In the absence of a mechanism by which large particles like these can be transported to the stratosphere, we can only conclude that the biological entities originated from space" so, just because we don't KNOW of any mechanism by which large particles could be transported to the stratosphere, we conclude that the particles originated from space - even if we obviously don't KNOW of any mechanism by which life could originate from space and fall on Earth? This looks like very very weak reasoning.

Paper: <a href="http://journalofcosmology.com/JOC22/milton_diatom.pdf" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;journalofcosmology.com&#x2F;JOC22&#x2F;milton_diatom.pdf</a><p>The journal of Cosmology is regarded as a low-quality publication by many scientists. I can&#x27;t judge the assertions in the paper but the methodology seems good.

&gt; On its return they found organisms that were too large to have originated from Earth.<p>Too large? They had two choices -- too large and too small.<p>To be &quot;too large&quot;, the organism would have had to be larger than an ostrich egg yolk, the single-cell record-holder for size.<p>To be &quot;too small&quot;, the cells would have to be very small indeed -- the smallest earthly cells are extremely small.<p>In any case, if the cell has DNA, it&#x27;s from here, so first run the test, find the DNA, then don&#x27;t publish this ridiculous claim.<p>&quot;Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.&quot; -- Carl Sagan

If they have protein in their samples and find amino acids of both chirality, then get exited. If they only find the chirality naturally occurring in earth based life: forgetaboutit<p>My bet is on the latter.

Until they do more rigorous analysis of this it is not convincing.

One possible mechanism would be a weather balloon.

Published on the Journal of Cosmology: <a href="http://journalofcosmology.com/" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;journalofcosmology.com&#x2F;</a><p>Wikipedia lists no less than 6 references questioning the credibility of this journal (<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journal_of_Cosmology#Reliability" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Journal_of_Cosmology#Reliabili...</a>).<p>I think this discovery should be taken with a very large grain of salt.

Meanwhile, a more reputable report against life on Mars:<p><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/20/science/space/mars-rover-comes-up-empty-in-search-for-methane.html?hp" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.nytimes.com&#x2F;2013&#x2F;09&#x2F;20&#x2F;science&#x2F;space&#x2F;mars-rover-c...</a>

They should do sequencing and metagenomics on this alleged alien life.<p>Strands, sequences, twisting, separating, joining. Abathur would be pleased...<p>Honk if you played Heart of The Swarm...

Life is constantly surprising us, it&#x27;s well known that there is bacteria on the outside of the ISS, it could well be that life is falling down rather than up.<p>I&#x27;d like to see a DNA sample that doesn&#x27;t point to existing earth life, for me just seeing diatoms seems a little too early to reach this conclusion.

I wonder what it smells like. Does it get happy or sad?

It&#x27;s life, but it doesn&#x27;t have DNA to test?

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, but still, this is good to see.<p>I imagine this discussion in the scientific community will go on for many years, perhaps decades. I&#x27;m still not convinced that Viking didn&#x27;t find some evidence of life on Mars back in the 70s.