Slashdot Mirror
DNA-Less 'Red Rain' Cells Reproduce At 121 C
eldavojohn writes "A new paper up for prepublication from the controversial solid-state physicist Godfrey Louis claims that the cells Louis collected from a Keralan red rain incident divide and produce daughter cells at 121 degrees Celsius. While unusual, this is not unheard of as the paper recalls cells cultivated from hydrothermal vents are known to reproduce at 121 C as well. Of course, caution is exercised when dealing with the possible explanation surrounding the theory of panspermia but the MIT Technology Review says researchers 'examined the way these fluoresce when bombarded with light and say it is remarkably similar to various unexplained emission spectra seen in various parts of the galaxy. One such place is the Red Rectangle, a cloud of dust and gas around a young star in the Monocerous constellation.'"
That's Monoceros - Unicorn. It's not an adjective with the "ous" ending.
What does that mean? Has it been peer-reviewed yet? Has it been accepted? Or is it just at the stage where the author's submitted it, and those other steps still need to happen? The linked page only says its "submitted".
If it hasn't been accepted, posting it here is rather silly on a lot of counts. Not to mention that, with some journals, doing something like that can result in the paper being summarily rejected (e.g Nature, Science).
#DeleteChrome
Proving they are not common terrestrial microbes is easy: just sequence them. Run them trough an extraction kit, PCR with pro- and eukaryote specific primers, sequence and BLAST in NBCI. If they don't amplify (and the controls do), then they might be unique. If they do amplify, the BLAST will tell you what they could be, or at least what they are related to. Der....
and are not of extraterrestrial origin. Just saying.
But I've had a few drinks and I just can't resist...
I'm in ur nightskiez panejaculating on ur planetz!
Soooo worth the karma.
People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
I had to look over that summary a bit to understand what context this information occurred. Does this sound about right?
1) There was some rain in India that was red color for some reason.
2) Various theories were put forth as to why, including some earth-born algae in the rain.
3) The guy from this article claims that there are some space-borne cells (that don't have DNA) that caused the red rain.
4) This guy also claims that these space-borne cells divide at 121 degrees Celcius
5) This is 'possible' because there are some cells on Earth that apparently divide at 121 degrees Celcius.
6) This also explains some weird lighting patterns in various constellations.
Assuming this is all true, you would think alien cells that are not made from DNA would be something the general scientific community would love to have samples of, for analysis. The whole thing sounds like bunk to me. An obvious question is that if these cells divide at 121 degrees Celcius, what do they do in the extreme cold of space, just hibernate?
Rhymes that keep their secrets will unfold behind the clouds.There upon the rainbow is the answer to a neverending story
But not as we know it.
One such place is the Red Rectangle, a cloud of dust and gas around a young star in the Monocerous constellation.
Seriously, how could they miss such a great headline opportunity?
...can be created using Alt-01712 ...
I read about them reproducing under the right conditions years ago. It doesn't detract from the fact it could be a massive discovery. A cell wall was always a hard one to explain since we seem to jump from viruses to one cells organisms. Viruses infecting these naturally occurring ready made cells may have been the basis for cellular life. If they are starting to detect these structures in other solar systems it could be a strong indication of life favorable conditions. It's a massive leap though claiming to see signs of them since it would require densities we don't have in our system.
It looks like more recent publications have resolved this: "The alga was identified as a specie belonging to the genus Trentepohlia. The region in Changanacherry from where the red rain was reported was found to be densely vegetated with plenty of lichen on trees, rocks and lampposts. Samples of lichen collected from there also were cultured in the microbiology laboratory of TBGRI. The study showed that the lichen collected from the site gave rise to algae similar to the ones cultured from the spores obtained from the rain water samples. The spores in the rainwater, therefore, most probably are of local origin." http://web.archive.org/web/20060613135746/http://www.geocities.com/iamgoddard/Sampath2001.pdf
Which is not to say they are wrong. There is a lot of speculation that neither DNA nor RNA were the actual encoding means of early life, but some other double helix that was more stable in the radiation and temperature extremes of early Earth. If this research justifies an in-depth study of what is in those hypothetical "nuclei" and what comprises that "cell membrane", that should tell us whether this is for real or whether it's some kind of nonliving artefact.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
Your standard flamethrower is capable of operation at well above 121c. Should be no big deal...
So he works for the state and, what, is he shaped like a gofukahedron?
...welcome our Red Rain daughter cell overlords.
Andromeda has arrived.
No Peter Gabriel tag?
Any insufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.
I am a microbiologist and this claim in my opinion is very weak. Remember, extraordinary claims need extraordinary proof to be accepted. This guy is a physicist, not a biologist, so that already raises many red flags.
In the arXiv blog linked, it says that Godfrey collected numerous samples of the "red rain". Since he is not a microbiologist, I doubt he took the necessary precautions to prevent contamination with terrestrial microbes, though it is debatable whether this is even possible. This alone is the biggest stumbling block to his claims. The blog also says that the cell "reproduce" at 121C yet also states that it has no DNA (all form of nucleic acids?). This flies in the face of all known life on earth. Even red blood cells initially have a nuclei before losing them as they mature. The point of reproduction is to pass on your genetic code to your offspring. This suggests to me that we might be looking at a abiological/chemical process. Did Godfrey try to detect the production of metabolite byproducts from his sample? Reproduction is a very energy intensive biochemical operation and should produce detectable metabolites. My research field is hyperthermophilic Archaea that grows at 90C or more and I know the existence of microbes that can grow at even higher temperatures, so this part of the claim is feasible. Overall, I caution extreme scepticism until Godfrey can provide extraordinary proof of his claims.
Has anybody checked what pH they can reproduce at?
After reading that book, I ingested copious amounts of acid to ensure I would be one of the survivors.
Dear Slashdot,
Why are you wasting my time with this? It isn't peer reviewed science from a biologist. It hasn't been verified by biologists. It has all the markings of pseudoscience put forth by a crackpot. Please stop propagating such nonsense.
Sincerely,
A Biologist
Ideally, he would overcome his ego and get these samples to another researcher who is detached from the subject and considerably less "controversial". Independent confirmation would go a long way towards bringing legitimacy to his claims about these bacteria.
However, the cynical part of me would also note that this is exactly what he would not want to do if he's got even the faintest internal doubt in the things he's saying, since it could well falsify the only "evidence" he has.
o If these particles really are reproducing, and given the number of particles in the sample, shouldn't we be able to see all the different stages of re-production occurring, including the half-way jettisoning of "baby" particles?
o If the particles are reproducing, can we see the increase in mass? The increase in the number of particles is shown...but what about mass?
o Is there a physical description of where the particles get said mass from? From the air? Has the experiment been tried in a vacuum? Where else do the particles get their mass from? are they converting energy into mass???
Come on...seriously folks. These are all easy, basic questions.
Hmmm, the cells reproduce at exactly 121 deg. Celsius. The Flux Capacitor requires 1.21 jigawatts (gigawatts) to power time travel. It is becoming increasingly clear the the number 121 is a cosmic 'magic number' and we propose that the red rain particles are indeed small time travelers from possibly another dimension sent on a mission to... well, we're just not sure of the mission. Whatever it is it's probably not good. I have a bad feeling about this.
"Out of the void S'ngac the violet gas had pointed the way"...
H.P. Lovecraft in "The Dream Quest of Unknown Kadath"
Why all the naysaying? Godfearing people afraid their big childrens tale might not hold water? If this is true its wonderful.
Have to stock up on agnothre to fight the threads when they come ...
- Tjp
I am in wallow with my inner money grubbing capitalistic pig. ... Oink!
From the wikipedia article "From July 25 to September 23, 2001, red rain sporadically fell on the southern Indian state of Kerala."
So, tell me this. How can ANY phenomena based on material being delivered from space hit the SAME small area of the earth multiple times on different days over a period of two months, and not hit other parts of the world? Is there a comet with a particular grudge against this part of india?
You would think a physicist, of all people, would have figured there was a problem with that idea.
Scientists come up with crazy ideas all the time. Crazy ideas are what makes science great. However, if your crazy idea is also wrong, it's probably good to give it up and not keep writing papers about it.
Please read my Canon EOS tech blog at http://www.everyothershot.com
This red rain event happened multiple times in that specific area. This makes the meteor idea absolutely ridiculous.
I've been doing LSD since 1962, am I safe too?
Even if you rip out the whole extraterrestrial and panspermia mumbo jumbo you end up with something pretty interesting. Let go for a moment of the prejudice that terrestrial life requires DNA and/or RNA. Perhaps at some time in the early days of the earth alternative wholly terrestrial "life" existed and competed unsuccessfully with the DNA/RNA life systems. If you allow for that you could be looking at an ancient living fossil, life as we don't know it as opposed to life as we know it. Pretty cool and well worth looking into by people with less kookiness-cred than Godfrey Louis.
Okay, stop. Right there.
Slashdot submitters, if your summary includes the phrase "controversial solid-state physicist", then your article is bunk. Click the cancel button and go back to whatever you were doing.
Visit the
And more importantly, how did I miss that this is a young nebula? Probably because I was having to make a deliberate effort to treat the article with respect.
Panspermia implies that "spores" (in some poorly-defined sense) travel from established "live" planetary systems to new, "dead" systems. But for there to be significant amounts of fluorescing "spores" in this nebula, then EITHER life originated there pretty damned quickly and is now shedding "spore", or by some mystical process, the "spores" "know" how to identify a "dead" "young" "system" and "congregate" there.
What could the White Queen do? Believe six impossible things before breakfast, if I recall correctly. But I think even she'd get indigestion over that lot.
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"