NASA objavljuje prve dokaze o postojanju vanzemaljskog života?

[hooyadahoo]

@dragancenije nasa kriva sto se desio hype... sigurno imaju dosta press konferencija. ova je i te kako zasluzila paznju. kako si dosao do zakljucka da je to smicalica? na kraju krajeva, sta ima lose u tome dati nasi kintu?

Edited December 7, 2010 by hooyadahoo

[dragance]

Nisam rekao da je lose sto traze nacine da zarade kintu (donacije). Nasa nije kriva sto se desio hajp, ali nisu se preterano ni trudili da opovrgnu unapred ceo hajp koji je krenuo blogosferom. Tek je onaj fini cika tvitnuo da "nije to to, cemu se svi nadaju". Nisu slagali, ali su verovatno svesno isli da malo podignu posecenost KZS i u tome nema nista lose.Samo rekoh, obicnoj masi ljudi je ovo ispalo kao epizoda The Big Bang Theory.

[Weenie Pooh]

na kraju krajeva, sta ima lose u tome dati nasi kintu?

Za mene ništa, nisam USA poreski obveznik. Ali daj, zar stvarno ne vidiš tendencioznost i senzacionalizam ovde?"NASA will hold a news conference at 2 p.m. EST on Thursday, Dec. 2, to discuss an astrobiology finding that will impact the search for evidence of extraterrestrial life."To je stoprocentno sročeno da napravi maksimalni mogući hajp. Astrobiološko otkriće u laboratorijskim uslovima, na bakterijama uzetim iz kalifornijskog jezera. A tek navodni uticaj na potragu za vanzemaljskim životom... ne bih opet da se nerviram zbog te sulude tvrdnje. Kao, dosad smo tražili život samo u high-phosphate sredinama, a sad ćemo da proširimo i na arsenične :isuse:Zanimljivije mi je ovo sa Takeshijevog linka. Ne čudi me da ih neki osporavaju, svako major otkriće bi razni osporavali a priori. Ali ako je istina da je postojala određena koncentracija fosfora, čak veća od one u kojoj neki drugi mikroorganizmi opstaju, onda ne znam čemu ovolika priča.

As Bradley notes, the Sargasso Sea supports plenty of microbes while containing 300 times less phosphate than was present in the lab cultures."If they say they will not address the responses except in journals, that is absurd," he said. "They carried out science by press release and press conference. Whether they were right or not in their claims, they are now hypocritical if they say that the only response should be in the scientific literature."

Ajde, videćemo. Bili u pravu ili ne, ipak se nadam da neće profitirati od ovakvog zavlačenja javnosti.

[hooyadahoo]

da, ok. astro i extraterrestrial jesu malo bezveze... overio sam takeshijev link danas, ne izgleda dobro. ostaje mi da navijam, poruka je super.

[Schmeling]

Mali oftopik:

Scientists poke holes in NASA’s arsenic-eating microbe discoveryWhen NASA announced the discovery of an arsenic-eating microbe in a California lake last week, the agency hailed it as a suggestion that life as we know it, well, isn't life as we know it."We have cracked open the door to what is possible for life elsewhere in the universe," Felisa Wolfe-Simon of the NASA Astrobiology Institute and U.S. Geological Survey, who led the study, said at a news conference.NASA's team of astrobiologists had taken samples of the bacteria from mineral-dense Lake Mono -- in a volcanic region of Northern California near the Nevada border -- and starved them of phosphate, the meal of choice for most DNA-based organisms. Instead, the scientists force-fed the bacteria a form of arsenic, and, much to the researchers' surprise, the bacteria continued to grow and flourish on their new diet of poison.But then other scientists began digging into the paper outlining NASA's research and findings, and they're now charging that the research behind it is flawed."I was outraged at how bad the science was," University of British Columbia microbiology professor Rosie Redfield told Slate's Carl Zimmer. Redfield also posted a scathing critique of the report on her blog.Redfield and other detractors point out that when NASA scientists removed the DNA from the bacteria for examination, they didn't take the steps necessary to wash away other types of molecules. That means, according to the critics, that the arsenic may have merely clung to the bacteria's DNA for a ride without becoming truly ingrained into it.The report's detractors also note that the NASA scientists fed the bacteria salts that contained trace amounts of phosphate, so it's possible that the bacteria were able to survive on those tiny helpings of phosphate instead of the arsenic."This paper should not have been published," University of Colorado molecular biology professor Shelley Copley told Slate's Zimmer.So why would NASA scientists make such a big deal out of a discovery that, according to critics, they must have suspected was questionable?"I suspect that NASA may be so desperate for a positive story that they didn't look for any serious advice from DNA or even microbiology people," UC-Davis biology professor John Roth told Zimmer.A NASA spokesperson brushed off the criticism. The paper's authors have not responded to the firestorm. Needless to say, that posture, too, has drawn the ire of critics. "That's kind of sleazy given how they cooperated with all the media hype before the paper was published," Redfield said.

[mei]

fosili vanzemaljskih bakterija pronađeni u meteoritimafoxnews

[Antares]

fosili vanzemaljskih bakterija pronađeni u meteoritimafoxnews

Pa na prvi pogled ne deluje bezveze. No bilo je takvih hajpova do sada... Sad treba sacekati sud strucnjaka.Nego da okacimo slicice tih ljutih vanzemaljaca

[ToniAdams]

nek neko zove kurt rasela, on nam je jedina nada!

[Roger Sanchez]

fosili vanzemaljskih bakterija pronađeni u meteoritimafoxnews

A ecosystem? 0 bodova?

[hooyadahoo]

odje paperhttp://journalofcosmology.com/Life100.html

[mei]

Pa na prvi pogled ne deluje bezveze. No bilo je takvih hajpova do sada... Sad treba sacekati sud strucnjaka.

biće uzbudljivo naredna četiri dana, ovaj časopis u kome je objavljen rad bi trebalo da objavljuje komentare i kritike stručnjaka od sutra tj. danas pa do 10. marta.

A ecosystem? 0 bodova?

moramo da uhvatimo neku kometu da joj ispitamo ekosistem. ili ekosistem neke raspadnute planete ;-)

[Antares]

biće uzbudljivo naredna četiri dana, ovaj časopis u kome je objavljen rad bi trebalo da objavljuje komentare i kritike stručnjaka od sutra tj. danas pa do 10. marta. moramo da uhvatimo neku kometu da joj ispitamo ekosistem. ili ekosistem neke raspadnute planete ;-)

Procitao rad i mene kao nestrucnjaka je napalio. Hoover daje gomilu detalja zasto to stvarno mogu biti jako stari (>100k godina) fosili vanzemaljskih bakterija. Odnos izotopa ugljenika je potpuno drugaciji od zemaljskog standarda. Nadjene su iste amino-kiseline kiseline koje su nadjene i u prastarim uzorcima i nedostaju amino kiseline koje fale u prastarim zemaljskim uzorcima (dok npr mumije iz egipta imaju svih 20 komata iako su stare po 5000 godina). Slicno i sa azotom. X zraci ostavljaju male rupice u modernim bioloskim uzorcima, dok ne ostecuju prastare uzorke (kao sto ne ostecuju ni ove filamente iz meteora). Od ukupno 35000 meteora, samo je 9 komada ovog tipa, dakle jako su retki. Unutrasnjost meteora podseca na glinu, kad su nadjeni imali su neki miris (!), rastvaraju se u vodi (!) - dakle maticno telo ovih meteora ima dosta vode.Medjutim nije tesko pogoditi sta ce biti tema diskusije.Ovde (Murchison's Amino Acids: Tainted Evidence?) je sumirano pro et contra slicnih studija. Hoover mora da je itekako svestan ovakve argumentacije i za mene je razocarenje da se on nije ni potrudio da odgovori na kritiku koja ce sigurno biti upucena.A ja bih dodao jos jedan ne-naucni problem. Ovaj isti meteor je bio u sredistu gotovo identicne rasprave pocetkom 60tih. Tada su isto pronadjeni cudni oblici pod mikroskopom. I onda se ispostavilo da je to samo polen ostecen kiselinom koja je upotrebljena za pripremu uzoraka (npr ovaj rad). E sad, Hoover je toga itekako svestan, i potrudio se da speci kontaminaciju, nije koristio kiseline i tako to, lomio je uzorke i ispitivao samo sveze povrsine (teza da unutrasnjost nije kontaminirana). No sve to i dalje ostavlja gadnu primedbu: vec je jedanput parce tog istog meteora bilo zagadjeno i ozbiljni naucnici su se izblamirali. Sta nam garantuje da nije slicna stvar i sada?Sto se tice Murchison-ovog meteora: prve studije su dale rezultate koji se razlikuju od modernijih ispitivanja. E sad, ili je neko tu lose merio, ili je zagadjenje uzoraka gadan problem i ne da se spreciti (tj. sve je gore i gore kako godine prolaze).Tako da je moja pocetna euforija splasnula donekle. Sa druge strane pa nije svacija laboratorija problematicna, i ne moze se valjda doveka potezati primedba o losem merenju (tipicne recenice kriticara: "extra, unwanted, compounds exiting from the gas chromatograph column at the same time as the left-handed amino acids. This would skew the data."). No zagadjenje posle vise decenija skladistenje jeste tesko pitanje.

[3opge]

i tako su nam umesto superinteligentnih vanzemoljaca sa ogromnim glavama stigle neke davno okamenjene vaske

[braca]

da, jedno od najvaznijih otkrica otkad je nauke je objavio fox, a "publikovano" je u opskurnim "novinama" koje postoje samo kao internet izdanje...jeste li bre normalni, obicna patka...http://scienceblogs....over_bacter.php

Did scientists discover bacteria in meteorites?No. No, no, no. No no no no no no no no. No, no. No. Fox News broke the story, which ought to make one immediately suspicious — it's not an organization noted for scientific acumen. But even worse, the paper claiming the discovery of bacteria fossils in carbonaceous chondrites was published in … the Journal of Cosmology. I've mentioned Cosmology before — it isn't a real science journal at all, but is the ginned-up website of a small group of crank academics obsessed with the idea of Hoyle and Wickramasinghe that life originated in outer space and simply rained down on Earth. It doesn't exist in print, consists entirely of a crude and ugly website that looks like it was sucked through a wormhole from the 1990s, and publishes lots of empty noise with no substantial editorial restraint. For a while, it seemed to be entirely the domain of a crackpot named Rhawn Joseph who called himself the emeritus professor of something mysteriously called the Brain Research Laboratory, based in the general neighborhood of Northern California (seriously, that was the address: "Northern California"), and self-published all of his pseudo-scientific "publications" on this web site. It is not an auspicious beginning. Finding credible evidence of extraterrestrial microbes is the kind of thing you'd expect to see published in Science or Nature, but the fact that it found a home on a fringe website that pretends to be a legitimate science journal ought to set off alarms right there. But could it be that by some clumsy accident of the author, a fabulously insightful, meticulously researched paper could have fallen into the hands of single-minded lunatics who rushed it into 'print'? Sure. And David Icke might someday publish the working plans for a perpetual motion machine in his lizardoid-infested newsletter. We've actually got to look at the claims and not dismiss them because of their location. So let's look at the paper, Fossils of Cyanobacteria in CI1 Carbonaceous Meteorites: Implications to Life on Comets, Europa, and Enceladus. I think that link will work; I'm not certain, because the "Journal of Cosmology" seems to randomly redirect links to its site to whatever article the editors think is hot right now, and while the article title is given a link on the page, it's to an Amazon page that's flogging a $94 book by the author. Who needs a DOI when you've got a book to sell? Reading the text, my impression is one of excessive padding. It's a dump of miscellaneous facts about carbonaceous chondrites, not well-honed arguments edited to promote concision or cogency. The figures are annoying; when you skim through them, several will jump out at you as very provocative and looking an awful lot like real bacteria, but then without exception they all turn out to be photos of terrestrial organisms thrown in for reference. The extraterrestrial 'bacteria' all look like random mineral squiggles and bumps on a field full of random squiggles and bumps, and apparently, the authors thought some particular squiggle looked sort of like some photo of a bug. This isn't science, it's pareidolia. They might as well be analyzing Martian satellite photos for pictures that sorta kinda look like artifacts. The data consists almost entirely of SEM photos of odd globules and filaments on the complex surfaces of crumbled up meteorites, with interspersed SEMs of miscellaneous real bacteria taken from various sources — 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 — do they have cause to think the substrate of a chondrite might have some correspondence to a Siberian Pleistocene mammoth guard hair? I'd be more impressed if they'd surveyed the population of weird little lumps in their rocks and found the kind of consistent morphology in a subset that you'd find in a population of bacteria. Instead, it's a wild collection of one-offs. There is one other kind of datum in the article: they also analyzed the mineral content of the 'bacteria', and report detailed breakdowns of the constitution of the blobs: there's lots of carbon, magnesium, silicon, and sulfur in there, and virtually no nitrogen. The profiles don't look anything like what you'd expect from organic life on Earth, but then, these are supposedly fossilized specimens from chondrites that congealed out of the gases of the solar nebula billions of years ago. Why would you expect any kind of correspondence? The extraterrestrial 'bacteria' photos are a pain to browse through, as well, because they are published at a range of different magnifications, and even when they are directly comparing an SEM of one to an SEM of a real bacterium, they can't be bothered to put them at the same scale. Peering at them and mentally tweaking the size, though, one surprising result is that all of their boojums are relatively huge — these would be big critters, more similar in size to eukaryotic cells than E. coli. And all of them preserved so well, not crushed into a smear of carbon, not ruptured and evaporated away, all just sitting there, posing, like a few billion years in a vacuum was a day in the park. Who knew that milling about in a comet for the lifetime of a solar system was such a great preservative? I'm looking forward to the publication next year of the discovery of an extraterrestrial rabbit in a meteor. While they're at it, they might as well throw in a bigfoot print on the surface and chupacabra coprolite from space. All will be about as convincing as this story. While they're at it, maybe they should try publishing it in a journal with some reputation for rigorous peer review and expectation that the data will meet certain minimal standards of evidence and professionalism. Otherwise, this work is garbage. I'm surprised anyone is granting it any credibility at all.

[Аврам Гојић]

partypooper