CNN: Mysterious red cells might be aliens

AlexGT

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Jan 15, 2001
Messages
3,651
Location
Houston, Texas
Interesting article! I wonder how they managed to publish that without the MIB shining those fancy lights in their eyes?

AlexGT
 

wwglen

Enlightened
Joined
May 24, 2003
Messages
534
Location
NC
A *** solid-state physicist *** sending the sample to a *** astronomer *** to determine if it is life???

Why not a ***biologist ***.

Something just doesn't seem right when people work (and keep) this level of experiment out of the field it should be in.

Or maybe the Biologists already said "nothing to it"?

wwglen
 

Mike Painter

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Sep 16, 2002
Messages
1,863
wwglen said:
A *** solid-state physicist *** sending the sample to a *** astronomer *** to determine if it is life???

Why not a ***biologist ***.

Something just doesn't seem right when people work (and keep) this level of experiment out of the field it should be in.

Or maybe the Biologists already said "nothing to it"?

wwglen

This comment was posted on another site with the writer saying he would be contacting his accountant because he was haveing car problems.
 

picard

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Dec 31, 2004
Messages
1,298
Those red cells are probably my lunch of red lobster that I regurgitated for the duck. :grin2:
 

TedTheLed

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Feb 22, 2006
Messages
2,021
Location
Ventura, CA.
whatsamatter guys? it's not so improbable. I think it is an accepted possibility that life on earth was originally seeded from space..

if it could have happened 3 or 4 billion years ago, why not tonight, or last year?

from: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/309/5731/89

"...other scientists have focused their efforts on figuring out how the lifeless chemistry of a prebiotic Earth could have given rise to an RNA world. In 1953, working at the University of Chicago, Stanley Miller and Harold Urey demonstrated that experiments could shed light on this question. They ran an electric current through a mix of ammonia, methane, and other gases believed at the time to have been present on early Earth. They found that they could produce amino acids and other important building blocks of life.

Today, many scientists argue that the early atmosphere was dominated by other gases, such as carbon dioxide. But experiments in recent years have shown that under these conditions, many building blocks of life can be formed. In addition, comets and meteorites may have delivered organic compounds from space.

Just where on Earth these building blocks came together as primitive life forms is a subject of debate. Starting in the 1980s, many scientists argued that life got its start in the scalding, mineral-rich waters streaming out of deep-sea hydrothermal vents. Evidence for a hot start included studies on the tree of life, which suggested that the most primitive species of microbes alive today thrive in hot water. But the hot-start hypothesis has cooled off a bit. Recent studies suggest that heat-loving microbes are not living fossils. Instead, they may have descended from less hardy species and evolved new defenses against heat. Some skeptics also wonder how delicate RNA molecules could have survived in boiling water. No single strong hypothesis has taken the hot start's place, however, although suggestions include tidal pools or oceans covered by glaciers.

Research projects now under way may shed more light on how life began. Scientists are running experiments in which RNA-based cells may be able to reproduce and evolve. NASA and the European Space Agency have launched probes that will visit comets, narrowing down the possible ingredients that might have been showered on early Earth.

Most exciting of all is the possibility of finding signs of life on Mars. Recent missions to Mars have provided strong evidence that shallow seas of liquid water once existed on the Red Planet--suggesting that Mars might once have been hospitable to life. Future Mars missions will look for signs of life hiding in under-ground refuges, or fossils of extinct creatures. If life does turn up, the discovery could mean that life arose independently on both planets--suggesting that it is common in the universe--or that it arose on one planet and spread to the other. Perhaps martian microbes were carried to Earth on a meteorite 4 billion years ago, infecting our sterile planet..."
 

Mike Painter

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Sep 16, 2002
Messages
1,863
TedTheLed said:
whatsamatter guys? it's not so improbable. I think it is an accepted possibility that life on earth was originally seeded from space..

if it could have happened 3 or 4 billion years ago, why not tonight, or last year?

It is accepted as a possibility by some but the evidence is lacking.
That's not the major problem, however.

The findings are biological in nature and taking them to an astronomer would be a lot like you breaking your arm - a biological problem - and going to an auto mechanic who likes to watch re-runs of Emergency.

In your case it's a bad idea and in the other case it's bad science.
 

Ken_McE

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Jun 16, 2003
Messages
1,687
I prefer the "A-meteor-hit-a-flock-of-high-flying-bats-and-blew-them-all-to-red-jelly" theory myself. Much more intuitively satisfying. More Indian bat pate' anyone?
 
Top