Slashdot Mirror
Raining Extraterrestrial Microbes in Kerala?
jdfox writes "World Science is reporting on a controversial paper to be published shortly in the peer-reviewed research journal Astrophysics and Space Science, describing a strange red rain that fell in India in 2001, shortly after a meteor airburst event in the area. The authors posit that the red particles found in the raindrops may be extraterrestrial microbes. The authors' last two papers on the subject were unpublished: this published paper is more cautious. The paper can be viewed online, and should obviously be considered in context. More info on the 'panspermia' hypothesis can be found at Wikipedia."
I strongly suggest looking through this article (Yes, I know this is Slashdot, how could I suggest such a thing) as I found the summary made me extremely skeptical. If the information is not falsified, I would say it is certainly worth investigating, even with a hefty grain of salt. . . or would that be grains? . . .anyway I digress. I found the electron microscope pictures quite intriguing, it certainly "looked" like a cell, though I understand this sort of observation is hardly irrefutable. I did not see any evidence of the particles replicating which would suggest life (they could replicate and still not be considered "life" ofcourse). I believe a good analog would be the potential bacteria found in a Martian meteor.
If you are about to mod me down, keep in mind that this post was most likely sarcastic.
Iron oxide chondrules with carbon as the main ingredient? I don't think so... did you see the elemental analyses?
"I'm so moist I'm sticking to the leather." -Kermit the Frog on The Late Late Show
I've said this in other posts on this thread, but it bears repeating. Their methods are not kosher at all, and if anyone with any background in biological sciences, in particular with a background in the study of microorganisms, had been involved in the review process this paper would never have seen the light of day.
The authors clearly have no understanding of biology beyone "it has DNA in it and is carbon-based". Their methods, in particular their "study" of the DNA content, are laughably off-base and reveal a total lack of understanding of how to handle microorganisms which have a thick cell wall.
Trivial test - stain them for bloody cellulose! This is such an obvious damn thing to do that the only excuse for not doing it is (a) they don't know enough to try, or (b) they did and didn't like the results so they didn't mention them, which is probably more likely.
This is a stupid paper.
You'd think carbon was rare or otherwise exceptional in meteorites. It isn't. It is abundant in carbonaceous chrondites. Some of them practically look like charcoal. But you're right, the analysis shows these things aren't mainly iron.
I don't see anything clearly biological here, and even if there was, the connection to something extraterrestrial rather than terrestrial is tenuous. Don't get me wrong -- it's interesting, but A) there's already a long history of such hunts in ordinary meteorites, and B) that hunt has been pretty unsatisfying, with loads of examples of probable or demonstrated terrestrial contamination, and loads of examples of things that "look like" biological structures, but aren't upon more detailed examination.
People are *way* too interested in seeing something exotic here rather than looking at all the possibilities, including ordinary mineralogical ones, and ordinary terrestrial ones. The authors have done a poor job of eliminating some of these others. Where is the extraordinary evidence for the extraordinary claims? I mean, that analysis is really poor in some ways. Using EDAX on an SEM rather than a dedicated microprobe is a poor way to do it for such small structures, and where's the X-ray diffraction in case there is anything crystalline here? Not even attempted.
At least the DNA/RNA tests do look decent, because they included a positive test of the technique and were apparently thorough about breaking the structures up, but there is no guarantee there would be DNA or RNA present if there has been sufficient degradation (in either hypothesis!). What if these are highly degraded fungal spores? Their cell walls are extremely durable (they survive for geological eons). That hypothesis could explain the composition, the morphology, and the absence of DNA or RNA. Why didn't they test for the presence of typical fungal spore wall materials?
Finally, I find the arguments regarding the connection to the supposed meteor airburst rather ridiculous. The evidence for the event itself is poor in the first place -- sonic boom? That's it? I'm sorry, I need a little more than that. How do we know there weren't supersonic military aircraft in the area the time, or that people were mistaking something else for a sonic boom? Worse, most of the arguments they use to dispute the possibility of a terrestrial source contributing to the location of the fallout for 2 months would also apply to a meteor. What, there aren't any high-altitude winds here? The plume just lingered for that long? Is there something about meteor plumes that allow them to linger but not the terrestrial possibilities? High-altitude volcanic ash can spread across a whole continent in just a few days!
No, I think a regional terrestrial source is much more likely for whatever these things are, and they've done a poor job eliminating that possibility. Given all the weird stuff that sometimes gets sucked up into rainstorms and later found falling to the ground (e.g., frogs, fish), you've got to be skeptical, unless we're going to claim those could be extraterrestrial too.