[General Battuta]

Props to sigtau for spotting this first.

Tentative. Let's see if it pans out.


EDIT: and of course Fox, so let's not go nuts yet.

[sigtau]

And if this doesn't keel over like the arsenic-based life discovery did, we're not alone.

Not much else to be said other than 'we'll see'.

[redsniper]

[General Battuta]

The journal looks kinda shady. :colbert:

[Snail]

I, for one, welcome our new microscopic overlords.

[achtung]

Skepticism is necessary, but I can't deny I hope the researcher turns out to be right.

[PsychoLandlord]

I would be ecstatic if he's right, but like the  article stated, this has been claimed before then panned out. And also Fox.

Would be awesome though.

[DarkBasilisk]

From what i've heard from a friend there is a serious problem in that bacterial rarely leave behind 'fossils.' What they're looking at in these meteors is little bits of organic compounds and molecules. Which *could* mean bacteria but it's hardly an 'if an only if' relationship. It's certainly strange and significant that stuff is there in the first place, but... they're jumping to conclusions a bit.

[Eishtmo]

It's on FauxNews.

Don't you believe it.

[Nuclear1]

It's on FauxNews.

Don't you believe it.

Even true things, once said on Fox News, become lies.

[achtung]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/07/us-meteorites-life-idUSTRE7252KQ20110307

It's moved beyond fox.

[General Battuta]

Still the same source, unfortunately.

[Solatar]

I haven't taken a look through them all yet, but this appears to be where the commentaries on the research will be published first:

http://journalofcosmology.com/Life101.html


If they're going to be making the case for something this controversial, the least they could do is make their website look academic/professional.

[General Battuta]

I haven't taken a look through them all yet, but this appears to be where the commentaries on the research will be published first:

http://journalofcosmology.com/Life101.html


If they're going to be making the case for something this controversial, the least they could do is make their website look academic/professional.

It's clearly a farce, and it's actually going out of business.

[Bobboau]

wow welcome to 1994.

[Solatar]

I haven't taken a look through them all yet, but this appears to be where the commentaries on the research will be published first:

http://journalofcosmology.com/Life101.html


If they're going to be making the case for something this controversial, the least they could do is make their website look academic/professional.

It's clearly a farce, and it's actually going out of business.

I hate to go straight to Wikipedia, BUT:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journal_of_Cosmology

This journal doesn't look too much more reputable than Fox News itself (for different reasons, of course).

EDIT:  Reading through some of the other "top articles" is making me lose confidence amazingly quickly.

Only those who cling to the Biblical explanation found in Genesis, chapter 1, where we are told Earth has special life-generating powers, and those who believe Earth is at the center of the biological universe, would dispute the conclusive scientific evidence detailed in this text.

You can force false dichotomies in academic literature now? 

Evolution is not random but is instead the replication of creatures which long ago lived on other planets.

. . .

[General Battuta]

Yes, thus the farce.

[Solatar]

I'm enjoying this one.

[Mika]

Here's a rather nasty review of the Journal and of the article itself.

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/03/did_scientists_discover_bacter.php

The guy has tried to publish (/ already published?) the same thing in SPIE, 2007.

EDIT: NASA publicly withdraws from the paper. Source: http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=32928, which refers back to NASA, but I couldn't find this from their main page.

[Solatar]

Here's a rather nasty review of the Journal and of the article itself.

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/03/did_scientists_discover_bacter.php

The guy has tried to publish (/ already published?) the same thing in SPIE, 2007.

EDIT: NASA publicly withdraws from the paper. Source: http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=32928, which refers back to NASA, but I couldn't find this from their main page.

Good link.