JBPCOL Posted November 26, 2011 Share Posted November 26, 2011 Hi, I would really like to hear from anyone with a more indepth knowledge of the search for life on Mars than myself. I am a professional marine biologist with a keen interest in microbiology. I have been extremely puzzled for some time now about the supposed search for life beyond our own planet. Professor Chandra Wickramasinghe is a highly regarded astrobiologist with over 75 publications in Nature alone highlighting his credentials. I have read several of his papers in which he 1- has identified microorganisms in the stratosphere which have to originate from space...the boundary between the troposphere/stratosphere inhibits terrestrial sourced microorganisms achieving these heights and 2- the spectral signature of "space dust" is exactly the same as known bacterial examples on Earth. Therefore why are we all being led to believe in the popular press that life has not been found anywhere beyond our own planet? any comments would be greatly received Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michel123456 Posted November 26, 2011 Share Posted November 26, 2011 Therefore why are we all being led to believe in the popular press that life has not been found anywhere beyond our own planet? Because life has not been found anywhere beyond our own planet I think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michel123456 Posted November 27, 2011 Share Posted November 27, 2011 Did I kill this thread? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted November 28, 2011 Share Posted November 28, 2011 Did I kill this thread? Still not sure whether it's a thread or professorial propaganda. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CharonY Posted November 29, 2011 Share Posted November 29, 2011 Looks like that to me, considering that evidence of life outside Earth is mostly rather weak and heavily challenged (especially the analytical evidence). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mississippichem Posted November 29, 2011 Share Posted November 29, 2011 the spectral signature of "space dust" is exactly the same as known bacterial examples on Earth. Therefore why are we all being led to believe in the popular press that life has not been found anywhere beyond our own planet? any comments would be greatly received Who actually does radio spectroscopy on bacterial samples? That should give a spectrum so complex that it would be practically illegible. Maybe this is a technique I'm not aware of? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CharonY Posted November 30, 2011 Share Posted November 30, 2011 In addition to that why should bacteria in the stratosphere have originated from space? AFAIK identified samples were for instance Bacillus and Janibacter species. And the evidence such as mentioned radio spectroscopy or the claimed fossils of extraterrestrial cyanobacteria are just too weak to have any value (*cough* artifacts *cough*). And finally, quite a bit of that kind of stuff is published in a junk journal/website (journal of cosmology or something like that). Also, Wickramasinghe (in addition to some others) are rather well-known to be the main proponents of panspermia. Nice theory with little evidence and even less explanatory powers. Also, apparently they think that evolution is driven by the influx of extraterrestrial viruses (of which they claim SARS was an example of, don't ask me). What makes it worse is that quite some effort have been put into promoting this notion, efforts that should have been put into gathering and critically evaluating evidence. Finally, things like this fake journal and stuff like the wiki pages as well as the OP here, just cheapen their academic achievements. In the realms of cosmology, I mean. In the area of biology I am rather dubious about their contributions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mississippichem Posted November 30, 2011 Share Posted November 30, 2011 In addition to that why should bacteria in the stratosphere have originated from space? AFAIK identified samples were for instance Bacillus and Janibacter species. And the evidence such as mentioned radio spectroscopy or the claimed fossils of extraterrestrial cyanobacteria are just too weak to have any value (*cough* artifacts *cough*). And finally, quite a bit of that kind of stuff is published in a junk journal/website (journal of cosmology or something like that). Also, Wickramasinghe (in addition to some others) are rather well-known to be the main proponents of panspermia. Nice theory with little evidence and even less explanatory powers. Also, apparently they think that evolution is driven by the influx of extraterrestrial viruses (of which they claim SARS was an example of, don't ask me). What makes it worse is that quite some effort have been put into promoting this notion, efforts that should have been put into gathering and critically evaluating evidence. Finally, things like this fake journal and stuff like the wiki pages as well as the OP here, just cheapen their academic achievements. In the realms of cosmology, I mean. In the area of biology I am rather dubious about their contributions. An example of physicists doing quack biology? I remember you've mentioned something about the tendency for that to happen in other threads Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CharonY Posted December 10, 2011 Share Posted December 10, 2011 Kind of relevant Linky 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kepler94 Posted January 15, 2012 Share Posted January 15, 2012 Therefore why are we all being led to believe in the popular press that life has not been found anywhere beyond our own planet? Why? Because there isn't sufficient evidence to support life outside of earth and its atmosphere. Even though there is a small chance of finding anything, that doesn't mean nothing is out there, and it doesn't mean we won't ever find life beyond earth. A recent study predicts that there are about 160 billion planets in the Milky Way. Just the Milky Way. So plug that into the Drake equation and see it's still possible. But again, most people and the press say there isn't found life yet because, well, there really hasn't. And on a day-to-day basis, ordinary people don't worry about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
granpa Posted January 15, 2012 Share Posted January 15, 2012 we should be looking for living molecules in giant molecular clouds. perhaps PAH based life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajb Posted January 15, 2012 Share Posted January 15, 2012 An example of physicists doing quack biology? My brother, who is a biologist has made similar sentiments in the past. I am sure there has been cases of physicists not understanding the biology and thus make spurious claims. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted January 15, 2012 Share Posted January 15, 2012 In some ways I think the reason we look for life on Mars, or we why would like to at least, is the same reason the man was found looking under a street light for his lost wallet. When asked where he lost his wallet he said way over yonder in the dark, when asked why he was looking for it here he said "the light is better" To really find life on Mars we will have to drill down to the aquifer, assuming there is one on Mars it would seem to be the best place to look for life but also one of the more difficult placers to look as well... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now