Happy Atheist Forum

Fossils of Cyanobacteria in CI1 Carbonaceous Meteorites (http://journalofcosmology.com/Life100.html)

QuoteRichard B. Hoover, Ph.D. NASA/Marshall Space Flight Center

Synopsis

Dr. Hoover has discovered evidence of microfossils similar to Cyanobacteria, in freshly fractured slices of the interior surfaces of the Alais, Ivuna, and Orgueil CI1 carbonaceous meteorites. Based on Field Emission Scanning Electron Microscopy (FESEM) and other measures, Dr. Hoover has concluded they are indigenous to these meteors and are similar to trichomic cyanobacteria and other trichomic prokaryotes such as filamentous sulfur bacteria. He concludes these fossilized bacteria are not Earthly contaminants but are the fossilized remains of living organisms which lived in the parent bodies of these meteors, e.g. comets, moons, and other astral bodies. The implications are that life is everywhere, and that life on Earth may have come from other planets.

Members of the Scientific community were invited to analyze the results and to write critical commentaries or to speculate about the implications. These commentaries will be published on March 7 through March 10, 2011.

This could just be it, proof of extraterrestrial life. NASA are be very careful about this as one would expect.

Posted by Tank,
Dr. Hoover has discovered evidence of microfossils similar to Cyanobacteria, in freshly fractured slices of the interior surfaces of the Alais, Ivuna, and Orgueil CI1 carbonaceous meteorites. Based on Field Emission Scanning Electron Microscopy (FESEM) and other measures, Dr. Hoover has concluded they are indigenous to these meteors and are similar to trichomic cyanobacteria and other trichomic prokaryotes such as filamentous sulfur bacteria. He concludes these fossilized bacteria are not Earthly contaminants but are the fossilized remains of living organisms which lived in the parent bodies of these meteors, e.g. comets, moons, and other astral bodies. The implications are that life is everywhere, and that life on Earth may have come from other planets.

Life arising on Earth via meteorites poses several questions. If it came from another planet then it seems logical to infer that the "mother" planet broke up into meteors at some time in the past.

If these bacteria are indeed indigenous to the meteorites then a vast new field of research is opened in abiogenesis and exobiology. It appears that the hypothesis of PANSPERMIA promulgated by Sir Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe may be confirmed.

But if this indicates that life sprang into being somewhere else in the Universe, it should not be inferred that it did not happen here on Earth. The Universe is stuffed with organic chemicals <http://www.astrobiology.com/adastra/ex.astra.html>. And the "cyanobacteria" were not alive, they were "fossils" of a sort. What sort of fossil of a soft-bodied creature could survive the heat generated by passing through Earth's atmosphere?
Is it possible to discover whether the bacteria were fossilised before being cast into space, during travel in space [which could well be in the order of millions of years] or after landing on Earth?

How does something as soft and as minute as a bacterium fossilise? One single grain of a meteorite would be millions of times larger than a fossilised bacterium. What exobiological/extraterrestrial factors made this bacterium into a fossil? Can we presume it happened as it does on Earth? Would this mean that the "mother" planet was Earth-like?

I can't see this event presenting insurmountable problems for theology but there'll be some interesting intellectual acrobatics from them. But it will be no less interesting a time for atheists as well.

Extropian

Thanks for posting that, Tank!

If you read the linked article, Extropian (I admit it's long and technical in some spots, but interesting none the less), you will discover that the particular type of meteorite which Hoover was studying is an extremely rare variety.  Why is it rare? Because it's composed of material which dissolves readily in water.  It's a clay-like matrix. The specimens used by Hoover were all recovered in the 19th century or later, from meteorites which had fallen only shortly before they were collected.  There is no way that the possible microfossils in these meteorites could have fossilized on Earth.

QuoteThe CI1 carbonaceous chondrites are extremely rare. Although over 35,000 meteorites have been recovered there are only nine CI1 meteorites known on Earth (Table I). Five of them were observed falls: Alais, Orgueil, Ivuna, Tonk and Revelstoke) and the other four (Y-86029, Y-86737, Y980115 and Y-980134) were collected in 1986 and 1998 from the blue ice fields of the Yamato Mountains by Antarctic Expeditions of the National Institute of Polar Research, Japan. The great rarity of the CI1 stones is undoubtedly due to the fact that they are friable micro-regolith breccias. All five CI1 meteorites known before 1986 were collected soon after they were observed to fall. The particulates of the CI1 meteorites are cemented together by water soluble evaporite minerals such as epsomite (MgSO4.7H2O) and gypsum (CaSO4.2H2O). The fact that these stones disintegrate immediately after they are exposed to liquid water was observed during the initial studies of the Alais meteorite (Thénard, 1806; Berzelius, 1834, 1836) and the Orgueil stones (Leymerie, M. 1864). These stones are destroyed and disaggregate into tiny particles as the water soluble salts that cement the insoluble mineral grains together in the rock matrix dissolve (Hoover, 2005).[/size]

QuoteThe cosmochemistry data for a cometary parent body is entirely consistent with the composition and characteristics of the CI1 meteorites. This suggestion that the parent body of the CI1 carbonaceous meteorites were possibly comets is significant with regard to possible existence of indigenous microfossils in the Alais, Ivuna and Orgueil meteorites. From the extensive evidence of aqueous alteration on the Orgueil parent body and the presence of indigenous water in the Orgueil meteorite it is clear that the parent body was either a water-bearing asteroid or a comet.

After discussing this elsewhere, I gather that the Journal of Cosmology, despite being "peer reviewed," is not a well respected periodical.  It will be interesting to read the "critical commentaries" which the Journal invites.

Quote from: "Extropian"Posted by Tank,
Dr. Hoover has discovered evidence of microfossils similar to Cyanobacteria, in freshly fractured slices of the interior surfaces of the Alais, Ivuna, and Orgueil CI1 carbonaceous meteorites. Based on Field Emission Scanning Electron Microscopy (FESEM) and other measures, Dr. Hoover has concluded they are indigenous to these meteors and are similar to trichomic cyanobacteria and other trichomic prokaryotes such as filamentous sulfur bacteria. He concludes these fossilized bacteria are not Earthly contaminants but are the fossilized remains of living organisms which lived in the parent bodies of these meteors, e.g. comets, moons, and other astral bodies. The implications are that life is everywhere, and that life on Earth may have come from other planets.

Life arising on Earth via meteorites poses several questions. If it came from another planet then it seems logical to infer that the "mother" planet broke up into meteors at some time in the past.

That would be the most reasonable scenario, if life first formed on a planet other than Earth and that whole planet broke up it would leave a lot of contaminated debris. There is a minor potential alternative to this which is how bits of Mars (http://www2.jpl.nasa.gov/snc/) get to Earth. According to the Mars link 34 Mars Meteorites exist and they too have sparked controversy as one(?) of them were interpreted as appearing to contain the fossilised micro-organisms (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4688938.stm). So bits of a neighbouring planet/moon could possibly have been the source of the meteorite material.

Quote from: "Extropian"If these bacteria are indeed indigenous to the meteorites then a vast new field of research is opened in abiogenesis and exobiology. It appears that the hypothesis of PANSPERMIA promulgated by Sir Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe may be confirmed.

Yes, and that is the nagging doubt in my mind. Hoover et al stand to make a fortune from this, even if they are wrong. If you follow the link to Hoover's site you will find it smothered in links to books at Amazon, one of which is written by him and he is a main proponent of Panspermia. I hope the way the scientific establishment handle this isn't a feeding frenzy, but unfortunately past experience has been that vested interests tend to supported, sometimes unreasonably. The fact that the paper is being pre-reviewed by 100 establishment experts and that their comments/criticisms will be published at the same time as the official publication on 11th of March is encouraging. I also find it slightly disconcerting that the first release of this story was to Fox News (http://www.seonode.com/blog/scientist-at-nasa-finds-evidence-of-alien-life-on-meteorite/), an establishment not renowned for it's scientific rigour!

Quote from: "Extropian"But if this indicates that life sprang into being somewhere else in the Universe, it should not be inferred that it did not happen here on Earth.

Yes. It is conceivable that these meteorites are parts of the Earth split off by the impact of a bigger meteorite hitting the early Earth.  

Quote from: "Extropian"The Universe is stuffed with organic chemicals http://www.astrobiology.com/adastra/ex.astra.html (http://www.astrobiology.com/adastra/ex.astra.html). And the "cyanobacteria" were not alive, they were "fossils" of a sort. What sort of fossil of a soft-bodied creature could survive the heat generated by passing through Earth's atmosphere?

I used to work for a company that sold and manufactured heat sinks and I designed a couple. Heat flow is something I have some formal understanding of. In addition I have done a little bit of studying of fossilisation process with the Open University. There are different types of fossilisation, in this case mineral replacement appears to have been the cause of the alleged fossilisation. So the fossils are not soft but hard and no more alive than the supporting matrix around them. So they would be more robust than the precursor organisms.

Regards how hot the core of a meteorite could become. The starting temperature of the object, its mass, the duration of the heating, the nature of the structure/composition of the object and the behaviour of its surface to heating would all be contributory factors in determining how hot the core of the object becomes.

Temperature. The starting temperature could be very cold, if its been floating around in the vacuum of space in shade, then it could be as cold as 3 degrees Kelvin (-270 degrees centigrade) the confounding variable would be how much sunlight the object has been exposed to just prior to re-entry. So we don't really know the starting temperature. It could vary from 3 Kelvin upwards.

Mass. The larger the mass the greater the energy input required to heat it to a given temperature in joules/gram/degree. But the ablative effects (noted later) confound this relationship.

Time. We're only talking a matter of minutes here. I can't find a definitive figure but researching that found this piece of work Space voyaging rock reveals insight into detecting life on other planets (http://www.physorg.com/news142175898.html)

Quote from: "PhysOrg.com"The specially prepared slab of rock was launched into space attached to a Russian spacecraft by University of Aberdeen experts in September last year as part of a European Space Agency mission.

Studies of the quarter of the rock which survived the journey have shown that if it had landed as a meteorite on another far distant planet and been tested by an alien life form, its chemical formations would have shown that life exists on other planets.

Nature of composition and structure. How hot the internal parts of an object get will be determined by the thermal conductivity of the material and it's structure. Metals are the best thermal conductors, some oxides have good thermal conductivity but clays and composite materials of lower thermal conductivity. A structurally homogeneous material will always have a higher thermal conductivity than a fractured conglomerate of the same material as interfaces introduce additional thermal resistance. So these meteorites are made of fractured conglomerates of poor thermal conductors which means they would have a relatively low thermal conductivity, potentially bordering on insulative.

Surface heating behaviour. This is the killer point. These meteorites come fitted with their very own Ablative Heat Shield. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_entry)

Quote from: "Wiki re Robert Goddard"The concept of the ablative heat shield was described as early as 1920 by Robert Goddard: "In the case of meteors, which enter the atmosphere with speeds as high as 30 miles per second, the interior of the meteors remains cold, and the erosion is due, to a large extent, to chipping or cracking of the suddenly heated surface.For this reason, if the outer surface of the apparatus were to consist of layers of a very infusible hard substance with layers of a poor heat conductor between, the surface would not be eroded to any considerable extent, especially as the velocity of the apparatus would not be nearly so great as that of the average meteor."

So a conglomerate material with a water content (noted in the article) when exposed to extreme heating will shed its surface as it is heated. The shed surface material will remove heat energy from the system and the boiling off of volatiles creates an insulating vapour barrier.

So it would appear that delicate fossilised structures can survive re-entry if enclosed in a conglomerate material with low thermal conductivity and a propensity (due to composition and structure) to ablative behaviour when subjected to intense heat for relatively short periods with the possibility of a very low starting temperature .

Quote from: "Extropian"Is it possible to discover whether the bacteria were fossilised before being cast into space, during travel in space [which could well be in the order of millions of years] or after landing on Earth?

Well as noted by recusant the structure and composition of these particular meteorites preclude fossilisation after they have landed on Earth as the meteorites disintegrate on contact with liquid water. This is interesting because fossilisation by mineral substitution requires the presence of water as the mediator of chemical dispersion and re-composition of minerals as far as I know. This implies that the fossilisation occurred in liquid water or there is a fossilisation  process that has not been described, or I am unaware of, that could occur without the presence of water. No doubt this point will be discussed in detail as this proposal is examined in detail by experts.

Quote from: "Extropian"How does something as soft and as minute as a bacterium fossilise? One single grain of a meteorite would be millions of times larger than a fossilised bacterium. What exobiological/extraterrestrial factors made this bacterium into a fossil? Can we presume it happened as it does on Earth? Would this mean that the "mother" planet was Earth-like?

Mineral substitution 'Permineralisation' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil#Permineralization) works on a scale well below that of the structures being considered here. This is not an issue.

Quote from: "Extropian"I can't see this event presenting insurmountable problems for theology but there'll be some interesting intellectual acrobatics from them. But it will be no less interesting a time for atheists as well.

Extropian

We'll be debating this for decades as it is a watershed moment in the development of our understanding of early life on this planet. We need to have a good sceptical, but open minded, look at the evidence presented here.

For me the alarm bells started going off when I visited Hoover's site and found all the links to his and others books. The term 'confirmation bias' sprang to mind. So I'll be reading the comments and criticisms very carefully and also watching Hoover's reaction. Hoover does appear to be an intelligent person and no doubt has had to face considerable criticism for holding ideas outside the scientific norm. If he keeps his mouth shut and let's the evidence do the talking then I would give his ideas a little more credence than if he defends them like some conspiracy theorist nutter.

Now we wait and see  

PZ Myers has a look here (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/03/did_scientists_discover_bacter.php) and it is less than complimentary.

Quote from: "Tank"PZ Myers has a look here (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/03/did_scientists_discover_bacter.php) and it is less than complimentary.

Ah, you beat me to it.

Quote from: "Extropian"How does something as soft and as minute as a bacterium fossilise? One single grain of a meteorite would be millions of times larger than a fossilised bacterium. What exobiological/extraterrestrial factors made this bacterium into a fossil?

My relatively uneducated guess would be that given the absense of weather, as we understand the word, and other living microorganisms to eat it in space, the specklet of goo was preserved as best it could be, simply because there was nothing there to ruin it beyond chemical reactions within itself and its surroundings and possibly some external influence, like radiation..?

Quote from: "Sophus"

Quote from: "Tank"PZ Myers has a look here (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/03/did_scientists_discover_bacter.php) and it is less than complimentary.

Ah, you beat me to it.

Having read the Hoover article twice now I think some of PZ Mayers comments are a little peremptory. Myers comments on the Mammoth hair, "they seem to be proud of having analyzed flakes of mummy skin and hair from frozen mammoths, but I couldn't see the point at all" (PZ Myers 2011) indicate he either did not read, or failed to understand, that Hoover included the modern and pre-historic samples to show that the nitrogen levels in the meteorite were so low that they could not have been contaminated.  

Quote from: "Hoover"These results {measurements of nitrogen} provide definitive evidence that the filaments encountered in the CI1 carbonaceous meteorites are indigenous to the stones and are not the result of microbiota that invaded the stones after they arrived on Earth in 1864 or 1938. Hoover (2007) has discussed the use of Nitrogen levels and biogenic element ratios for distinguishing between modern and fossil microorganisms as a mechanism for recognizing recent biological contaminants in terrestrial rocks and meteorites.

Possibly the most damning thing about this article is that it's not showing up on Science Daily.

I KNEW IT!  

Though for the sake of not alarming the public, this probably wont be exsposed too much. For awhile, at least.

Quote from: "Tank"

Quote from: "Sophus"

Quote from: "Tank"PZ Myers has a look here (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/03/did_scientists_discover_bacter.php) and it is less than complimentary.

Ah, you beat me to it.

Having read the Hoover article twice now I think some of PZ Mayers comments are a little peremptory.

Nah, PZ's right. Even NASA is dismissing it (http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci-alien-life-20110308,0,5561322.story).

Quote from: "Tank"

Quote from: "Sophus"

Quote from: "Tank"PZ Myers has a look here (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/03/did_scientists_discover_bacter.php) and it is less than complimentary.

Ah, you beat me to it.

Having read the Hoover article twice now I think some of PZ Mayers comments are a little peremptory.

Quote from: "Sophus"Nah, PZ's right. Even NASA is dismissing it (http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci-alien-life-20110308,0,5561322.story).

NASA are not dismissing it. They are just not endorsing it. There is a difference. I think there are still some very touchy NASA officials after the Mars meteorite scandal. So far I've read a lot of people dismissing Hoover's claims. But I have yet to read or see evidence that falsify Hoover's claims. That's not to say that such evidence does not exist it's that I haven't seen it yet.

PZ Mayer's dismissal of Hoover is dripping with sarcasm and personal incredulity, its style is like a fundy rant against evolution. I personally find it very unworthy of him. He is a person who apparently espouses a rationalist world view yet uses a polemic style, with no cited support, to rubbish Hoover's claims. What if Hoover is right? This is not a discovery (if it is such) that can be dismissed.

Consider cold fusion, evolution and the heliocentric model of the solar system. All these ideas were dismissed and their proponents derided when they proposed their new world views. Two of these three ideas fundamentally changed our understanding of reality. I am not saying that Hoover is right or wrong, what I want to see are reasoned, rational arguments supported by sound evidence that falsifies Hoover's interpretation of what he has found. What I will not accept is polemic and derisive arguments based personal incredulity. If Hoover has got it wrong I want to be shown how and why he has got it wrong not simply told. And of course if there is no reasoned and rational argument to show Hoover is wrong then we have to accept he is right. Just as people had to accept Galileo and Darwin and dismiss Fleischmann and Pons on the basis of the evidence.

Quote from: "Tank"If Hoover has got it wrong I want to be shown how and why he has got it wrong not simply told.

I think PZ explained it fairly well. But if you're looking for more in depth critique:

http://rrresearch.blogspot.com/2011/03/is-this-claim-of-bacteria-in-meteorite.html

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/03/07/followup-thoughts-on-the-meteorite-fossils-claim/

Quote from: "Sophus"

Quote from: "Tank"If Hoover has got it wrong I want to be shown how and why he has got it wrong not simply told.

I think PZ explained it fairly well. But if you're looking for more in depth critique:

http://rrresearch.blogspot.com/2011/03/is-this-claim-of-bacteria-in-meteorite.html

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/03/07/followup-thoughts-on-the-meteorite-fossils-claim/

Cheers. I'll have a look at those this evening.

I read the links sophus. It does appear that Hoover's methodologies are suspect and his conclusions represent 'confirmation bias'. It'll be interesting to see how this continues to pan out in the popular press.

Quote from: "Extropian"I can't see this event presenting insurmountable problems for theology but there'll be some interesting intellectual acrobatics from them. But it will be no less interesting a time for atheists as well.

Extropian

I don't think there will be need for intellectual acrobatics from theists.  If the bacteria on meteorites is the source of all life on Earth, some will claim God put the meteorites here to test faith, and others will make the same claim as evolution, that it's the method God chose for creation.  The higher power being omnipotent and omniscient is convenient for theists.