Are we alone?

Maybe you've heard...

Astrobiologist Dr. Richard B. Hoover of the Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, AL, (the Space & Rocket City) recently published a paper claiming that microfossils he discovered on freshly fractured pieces of a meteorite could not possibly have come from Earth. The essential implication of his paper is that life on Earth is not unique. Published in the paper are several SEM micrographs of the fossilized filaments in question along with figures of known prokaryotes, mostly cyanobacteria, with morphological resemblances to these fossils. The claim he makes is based partly on an elemental analysis that showed a lack of nitrogen in the fossils; fossilized Earth specimens apparently contain detectable levels of nitrogen up to a certain age (something like 8 million years). Since the date of the meteorite's entry into Earth is known, the lack of nitrogen is seen as presumptive evidence that the fossils are from another world and therefore not "contaminants" from our planet.

Obviously, a claim like this is controversial. But the beautiful thing about science is that claims in any field can and will be challenged. Quoted in an online MSNBC.com article by Alan Boyle, one biologist already dissents

"As a microbiologist who has looked at thousands of microbes through a microscope, and done some of my own electron microscopy, I see no convincing evidence that these particles are of biological origin. The techniques used may not have been appropriate for these types of analyses. It is stated that the implements were flame-sterilized, with no details of how this was performed. Were the implements placed in the flame of a Bunsen burner? If so, sometimes soot can get on them at the microscopic level. The usual procedure for flame sterilization is to dip the implements in ethanol then burn the ethanol off. Yet, these would be inappropriate for this type of analysis. You need to have everything clean and then bake at 550 degrees C overnight. These missing details would cause me to question not just about the photos, but the elemental analyses as well. I am also disturbed about the lack of nitrogen. There should be more. There are many technical flaws in this paper."

There will undoubtedly be more controversy surrounding this paper. I wanted to bring it up here on the forum just to share it. Here's a link to the paper: http://journalofcosmology.com/Life100.html. Do you think the weight of evidence supports the claim? Is it too early to tell? Is it a hoax? Do you care?

The idea of antimatter came before the first detection of such. Nature abhors a vacuum, given the number of planets that can support various forms of life, the likelihood is that we are surrounded by other life-forms in the universe is extreme. There is proof, but I don't know if this is the way to find it.

But I do know that only a very narrow mind struggles with the reality that the sun doesn’t revolve around us, we aren’t the centre of the vast universe and that we aren't alone.

I definitely don't think it's a hoax. I followed this story as well and I think Hoover believes what he's saying. That, or, he has another agenda up his sleeve. At any rate, as a scientist, he should have known there would be alot of scrutiny and therefore should have brought his A-game before saying this publicly. I do think, however, it's only a matter of time before we find proof of life away from earth. It may just be primitive though. It would be really sad if we were the only life in this vast universe.