Alien Life Found!

[Senoska]

Uggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh guys, its Fox News, you need to know better than this.

This pretty much isn't going to be true. It was "published" in the "Journal of Cosmology" which doesn't even have a print version, and is a free publication that requires its authors to pay nearly $200 to publish in it.

If this had any real credible backing behind it, it would be in Science or Nature. Not some bullshit internet only pay to publish journal.

I haven't read the actual article yet, but at least take this sort of thing with a bit of a grain of salt.

Thats very clear in your post. Is it that hard to read a few paragraphs before you whip your herp out and derp all over the forums?

[Scritch]

Thats very clear in your post. Is it that hard to read a few paragraphs before you whip your herp out and derp all over the forums?

Oh, I'm very sorry. I didn't mean to offend.

Next time I'll uncritically accept any find a scientist has.

[archibaldcrane]

Science has yet to come even close to replicating spontaneous life

Uhhh, everywhere science looks they're finding new conditions and ways for the building blocks of life to form. Spontaneous life. Like, out of nothing, and shit. This isn't even new. You're bad, and you should feel bad.

The point is, mixing up some amino acids in a sterile beaker is a long fucking way from replicating spontaneous life. This "building blocks of life" shit is a huge overstatement. They've been making "building blocks" since the 1950's out of base elements and still aren't much closer to creating organisms.

[Fitch.]

This thread is slowly but surely turning into a raging shitstorm.

On topic, this is exciting news. I was hoping it would have been direct evidence, such as a literal living life form like bacteria or something off a recently fallen meteorite, but this is nonetheless very intriguing. Inb4 aliens and spitting acid and shit, but this is just another step in being able to further understand the universe and what it happens to have in store for us.

[Tsuko_Asura]

Oh, I'm very sorry. I didn't mean to offend.

Next time I'll uncritically accept any find a scientist has.

You didn't critically approach anything. You hadn't even read the article.

[Xfaustx]

You didn't critically approach anything. You hadn't even read the article.

Yeah he's most likely a troll, with a brain full of fuck. No that wasn't sarcasm either. lol Next time you "critique" something Scritch, at least read the article before shit spews from your voice hole.

And if this does turn out to be proven, which I hope it does but feels too good to be true, I'm curious how religion is going to respond. Granted the Pope has somewhat already addressed this issue.

[Tristam]

Scritch is 100% right, if you have a good story, you dont publish it in a garbage "journal" that consists entirely of a shit website. And you don't go to fox news to break it. The paper is horribly difficult to read...because it's shit. I got through a few weird paragraphs and craptastic tables before I quit, because it's not worth it. The source does matter in science, quite a bit actually, better journals have better editing and review practices. Even for a scientist, if you're reading outside of your field you need to rely on the expertise of the authors, editors, and reviewers from the same field to help decide whether the claims in the paper are validated sufficiently by the data presented. Because even if you're the greatest biochemist in the world, you probably know little of the composition of meteorites on a professional level.

In any case, nothing to see here, move along.

http://rrresearch.blogspot.com/2011/...meteorite.html

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/20...something-new/

[Tsuko_Asura]

itt: dismissing something as "shit" before actually reading the article is 100% right.

[Tristam]

The point is, mixing up some amino acids in a sterile beaker is a long fucking way from replicating spontaneous life. This "building blocks of life" shit is a huge overstatement. They've been making "building blocks" since the 1950's out of base elements and still aren't much closer to creating organisms.

But we have gone quite a bit further, self replicating RNA enzymes are able to evolve in "test tubes", does that constitute life or something on the way to it? Of course we can't know, but it's a possibility. Synthetic (man-made genome) DNAs placed into bacterial shells can "reprogram" the host and turn one bacteria into another. Does that count as creating life? It's technically a new organism, never before seen on earth. It wouldn't be expected that mixing all the requisite materials in a beaker pops bacteria into existence, the emergence of "life" as we know it today probably wasn't a clear-cut phenomenon, which is why these sorts of experiments are the best ways to figure out how it could've happened.

[Tristam]

itt: dismissing something as "shit" before actually reading the article is 100% right.

In this case, yes. Grey literature is notorious for publishing bad "journals" just so that someone can say they published an article and give it the veneer of scientific respect. You certainly can dismiss most of those publications by virtue of the source. Journal of cosmology appears to be one of those types of sources.

edit: Put another way, giving the paper a complete read, I'm still not an expert, so I wouldn't be able to judge the paper entirely on its merits. None of us here would, so in that respect its pointless. It's an incredibly difficult paper to read, like horribly badly written. They make claims, and say data backs it up, but they don't explain why. So we need to rely on the expertise of reviewers to validate these claims. We rely on good editing and review standards. This journal does not have them so we should take any claims within with a huge dose of skepticism based on the source.

[Shiroikage]

Yeah, all evidence points to this being bullshit.

[Haiko]

so lock this thread?

[Shiroikage]

Quit with the backseat modding.

[Haiko]

wasn't my intention just thought there was no point on having this thread open because i smell bs as well with the article.

[Rhinox]

Yeah, all evidence points to this being bullshit.

Get the fuck out

[fredjanx]

ctrl-a

http://images.cheezburger.com/comple...3076449168.jpg

[Shiroikage]

Get the fuck out

Even NASA is stepping back on the announcement.

[Draylo]

Quit with the backseat modding.

Quit with the backseat backseat modding.

[Shiroikage]

Quit with the backseat backseat modding.

Turtles all the way down.

[Eliseos]

lol

Open Letter to the Editors of Science & Nature The Journal of Cosmology Proposes a Scientific Commission,
Established Co-Jointly with Science and Nature,
To Investigate & Confirm the Validity of the Hoover Paper

March 11, 2011 Dear Dr. Bruce Alberts and Dr. Philip Campbell:
In 1584, Giordano Bruno published "Of Infinity, the Universe, and the World" and wrote: "There are innumerable suns and an infinite number of planets which circle around their suns as our seven planets circle around our Sun." According to Bruno, we are unable to see these planets and suns "because of their great distance or small mass." On February 19, 1600 Bruno was tortured and burned at the stake by the Inquisition for publishing these claims which contradicted established "scientific" dogma.

The publication of Richard Hoover's paradigm shattering discovery of microfossils within carbonaceous meteorites, unleashed an ugly storm of violent, histrionic invective not seen since the Middle Ages when they burned scientists for making discoveries that threatened the established order. Charlatans and quacks quickly emerged, and the media unabashedly published their ravings, recklessly casting delusional filth upon the reputations of the Journal of Cosmology and its editorial board, and the hundreds of esteemed scientists whose peer reviewed work we have published; a roster which includes two Senior Scientists Science Directorates at NASA, over 30 top NASA scientists, and four astronauts.

How can science advance if the media and NASA administrators promote frothing-at the-mouth-attacks on legitimate scientists and scientific periodicals who dare to publish new discoveries or new ideas? Skepticism is natural. Doubt is healthy. But science cannot progress under a cloud of intimidation and fear.

The Journal of Cosmology (JOC) has reviewed its editorial policies and peer review procedures and determined they are sound. The media has been provided a sample list, the names of nearly 100 top scientists who have served as referees in the past; a veritable "who's who" of the top experts in the world have reviewed papers for JOC.
Hoover's paper was received in November and was repeatedly peer reviewed. After months of careful analysis, it was published on March 5 of 2011. Of the 24 commentaries received, almost all have been supportive of the findings. The results are valid. We have been provided with no evidence they are not.

The implications of Richard Hoover's discoveries are profound. However, given the slanders and paranoid ravings designed to crush all rational discussion of these findings, naturally the public, the media, and the scientific community would be skeptical. They deserve to know with absolute certainty if these findings can withstand the scientific scrutiny of esteemed experts and if his results should be accepted or dismissed.

How can this issue be successfully resolved? Who can the public trust? Science magazine which published the "arsenic-life" study which proved to be untrue? NASA's chief scientist who backed the bogus "arsenic" paper, and has made a number of grossly inaccurate and untruthful remarks about the Hoover issue? The Journal of Cosmology whose reputation has been besmirched by reckless slanders? Nature magazine which has rejected Nobel prize winning research?

Given the ugly climate which now prevails, the validity of the Hoover paper must be resolved as a cooperative effort, through an unprecedented collaborative peer review, monitored and mediated by the Journal of Cosmology and its critics and competitors (Science and Nature), thus guaranteeing a balanced approach and so all points of view are represented. Therefore, the Journal of Cosmology proposes that:
1) JOC, Nature, and Science each appoint an expert-judge who has a background in astrobiology.
2) These 3 expert-judges will appoint and unanimously agree on a panel of 12 esteemed experts who will be guaranteed anonymity if they desire.
3) This expert panel of 12 will have 30 days to review the Hoover paper, ask for supplementary material, and to question Richard Hoover and to call upon the expertise of additional experts, if they so choose. Each of these experts will issue their reports to the 3 expert-judges.
4) The 3 expert-judges will issue their own report(s) summarizing these findings, and issue a verdict on or their opinion of the validity of Hoover's paper as based on the reports issued by the 12 expert panel.
5) Science, Nature, and JOC, will publish the reports of the 12 member expert-jury, and the expert-judges.
6) If the weight of opinion is that Hoover's findings are not valid, the Journal of Cosmology will withdraw the paper.
7) If Hoover's findings are validated, we ask not for a apology, but congratulations.
We believe our proposal is scientifically sound and eminently reasonable. We are completely open to working out the fine details with the editorial boards of Science and Nature

If Science and Nature decline, then any refusal to cooperate, no matter what the excuse, should be seen as a vindication for the Journal of Cosmology and the Hoover paper and an acknowledgment that the editorial policies of the Journal of Cosmology are beyond reproach. The very fact that we have made this proposal, coupled with all our previous efforts to open this issue to scientific discussion and debate, is, itself, testament to the integrity of JOC whose mission has always been to promote and advance science.

Sincerely,
Rudy Schild, Ph.D.
Center for Astrophysics, Harvard-Smithsonian
Editor-in-Chief
Journal of Cosmology

Honestly, it sounds like they never peer reviewed it, and want actual science publications to review it for them. Claiming victory if Science and Nature choose not to participate in his panel? That isn't the way science works, the burden of proof is on the guy who wrote this paper. His evidence seems to be "oh hey it looks like a fossil so that's what it must be!".

Also hilarious is the website for this "journal": http://journalofcosmology.com/ It looks like it was designed by a high school student.