If anything this solidifies my theory.
In addition to that three other issues arise:
1) At the time protobionts are supposed to have formed, conditions on the young Earth seem to contradict that possibility.
2) It happened far to quickly, as nobel prize winner (genetics) Francis Crick pointed out.
3) Even the simplest organism on Earth (parasitic btw) consists of 500 basepairs that have to be in order. With those kind of odds, as Stephen Hawking pointed out, you'd expect biogenesis happens very late in the lifecycle of a planet. However, quite the opposite is true. Life was present as soon as it was possible on a very young Earth. This could be an incredible stroke of luck, however that is just another way of saying its very improbable and THAT is another way of saying chances are it never happened in the first place with a high degree of reliability.
Now i dare you to read up on Hoovers recent paper about cyanobacteria in CI1 meteorites. Now, usually its explained away as terrestial contamination, but i doubt it for two reasons: The catch is some of those meteorites (example: Orgueil meteorite) are 4.0-4.5 galactic years old. Coincidentally (after my theory quite expectable) thats exactly the time life is supposed to have formed on Earth. Too old for a genesis event on Earth i might add. Secondly nitrogen levels are severely different from Earth fossils, giving a strong signature for an off Earth origin.
Ironically Hoover is not the only scientist to come up with such results. McKay and his research on ALH84001 produced comperable results. In his case its explained away by an alternative geological origin, but that doesn't add up either because of magnetides found in the fossils (also explained away by geologic reasons, but what are the odds for such a strange combination? And yes, at that time Mars had a magnetic field as we found out recently, wich is a damm good reason for bacteria to grow magnetides and the meteorite age fits also seamlessly into this and the magnetides are even in the right shape for microbe produced magnetides used for orientation, as they do here on Earth) and proving the "biosignatures" formed in a low temperature environment, wich practically smashes any attempt at geological formation. Hoover circumvented this by presenting filament mats and if somebody knows of a process forming filament mats from rock by heat i'd like to hear about it.
The evidence, if peer reviewed is quite crushing and i haven't even started on Viking's Labeled Release experiment and Levin's conclusions. Lets just say the superoxydant explaination falls flat on its ass when comparing LR with the GEx (Gas Exchange) experiment, because in one instance (LR) the oxidant activity was removed by heating and in the other it wasn't (GEx) you need TWO kinds of superoxydants for a chemical explaination wich is quite puzzling and unrealistic. Add to that the findings of water and lately the seasonably changing levels of released methane and you will have a hard time finding a geologic explaination on such an inactive planet as Mars. Something has to produce the methane because it dissipates rapidly and can't stick around in the atmosphere for long.
All three of those scientists went their own way, coming up with the same conclusions and they are totally convinced they found extratrrestial life.
For none of those findings are even remotely acceptable alternative explainations present.
Carl Sagan said extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I turn the tables. With an estimated sextillon earthlike planets in the habitable zone in the visible universe (estimate based on recent Kepler data) i feel i have the right to ask what exactly is your evidence for life starting here? I figure the odds are less than probable for that coincidence.
Quite recently the Cassini probe made a swingby near Saturn's moon Encladeus to sample material from one of its plumes. It was frozen saltwater. There is a saltwater ocean beneath its crust and its heated and liquid being released in plumes forming one of Saturn's rings. And thats not the only suspect for an liquid extraterrestial ocean, the difference is its confirmed now.
I'd suggest adjusting the compass for a living universe, the evidence is really crushing, coming from multiple sources and i got the feeling thats just the beginning.
maxmercury wrote:There was a major line of thought that nothing could escape the gravity of our planet making travel to the Moon something that could never happen. Obviously, they were wrong. Also, faster than sound was thought of impossible, and yet we broke the sound barrier. Faster than light, wormhole, stargate technology, etc may not be possible for us, but give it a few hundred years.
You do make some very good points, Occam. But we all have to think outside the box when it comes to extraterrestrials as we simply do not know what their capabilities or reasons are.
Of course we can speculate, but speculation without a solid basis is not a very good way to produce usable results. That aside i think there might be a way to build a dark energy feeded gravimetric drive wich draws its energy from the very fabric of the cosmos itself. Such a drive could, accelerating for six years with a constant 1g acceleration (to make humans feel comfortable at earthlike gravity) accelerate a ship to 99,99% of lightspeed, with all the relativistic implementations that has (basically being a fast-forwarding time machine). That is of course highly hypotetical.