Rosetta comet 'may be home to alien life'

a reply to: wildespace

The point was to highlight that certain members here can't have it both ways, not that a mainstream scientist can have outrageous ideas and theories, which incidentally, in my book is an essential trait that most scientists to possess to drive forwards our understanding and knowledge.

The crux is...often members will say "Oh yeah...and who is the source for your information / theory / idea? Oh right, so your source is a guy or girl in their bedroom, wearing a tin foil hat no doubt...not exactly a credible source then" Or words to that effect.

Then a credible course is offered and that source is then rubbished and disparaged just as the tin foil hat wearing amateur was previously.

Why do people ask for a credible source...if their bigotry won't permit them to say anything else other than display their bigotry?

Circular isn't the word.

originally posted by: MysterX
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

A mechanic doesn't usually specialise in biological machines do they...we usually call that kind of mechanic a Doctor.

Exactly my point. It would be like a mechanic seeing dogs as robots.

The "scientist" in question sees algae blooms as alien life seeding Earth. According to him Earth would be constantly bombarded by non Earth life ... yet we don't ever see it. Because it doesn't exist.

He sees what he wants to see (makes him money).

originally posted by: MysterX
Then a credible course is offered

There is no credible source here. It's someone with a history of outrageous claims he has never once backed up. He has gone so far as to claim he possesses alien non-Earth life ... wonder why he won't show the world.

a reply to: MysterX
An accredited scientist with a PhD is more knowlegeable than a bedroom "expert", so would initially present a more credible source. However, lots of hypotheses or ideas from accredited scientists have been rejected as not having enough evidence or based on wrong data. So it's important to retain skepticism and not take everything that comes from accredited scientists at face value.

A credible source is not everything, one must take a look at the claims themselves. The matter is not in bigotry or personal pride, it's in the scientific evidence and the validity of claims.

originally posted by: wildespace


So yeah, nobody's perfect, and people can be very wrong in certain things while they were right in other things. Science doesn't rest on the shoulders of a single scientist (or a small group of them), it rests on the shoulders of scientific method, meticulous research, and repeated observations or experiments.

Agreed, but as so often is the case, as is here, Wickramasinghe and Wallis are speculating with what they do know, but they are not sure, all those arguing against, are pretty much speculating too, with what they know...much of it the same as Wickramasinghe, but still they don't know for sure either, but then you get this from one of the Rosetta team Katie Mack,

"When you see "[Shocking headline-grabbing thing], says top scientist(s)!" you should put a VERY heavy prior on the thing being false. "
Can you see what she's doing there? she's making an attack on either the story writers/paper or Wickramasinghe and Wallis or both, but doesn't actually say does she. I presume she hopes by saying that the whole thing will go away, but we'll see when their report comes out. Conversely Wickramasinghe doesn't seem to be doing any criticisms about all their shouting, in fact I do believe he was one of the first to congratulate the Rosetta team on their work.

a reply to: smurfy

Don't get me wrong Smurfy, I am interested in panspermia as a theory, because it has features which make an awful lot of sense.

However, my specific concern is that reportage on such topics should be far less sensationalist and ready to jump on the hope of scientists, rather than genuine discovery, just for a headline.

originally posted by: MysterX
Then a credible course is offered and that source is then rubbished and disparaged just as the tin foil hat wearing amateur was previously.

That's entirely untrue, and in this case, no credible source was offered. Wickramasinghe may have legitimate credentials, but he is in no way, shape, or form, credible. He has drawn the same conclusions from different sources at least six times that I'm aware of. Out of those six, two were definitively proven to be false. He refuses to make all aspects of his experiments available for other scientists to examine, and what he does make public, is often found to be inherently flawed. Finally, he publishes his papers in a predatory faux scientific journal that will publish anything for a $185 fee, rather than presenting his work for peer review and publishing in legitimate journals. The man has no credibility whatsoever.

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: smurfy

Don't get me wrong Smurfy, I am interested in panspermia as a theory, because it has features which make an awful lot of sense.

However, my specific concern is that reportage on such topics should be far less sensationalist and ready to jump on the hope of scientists, rather than genuine discovery, just for a headline.

I agree with that entirely, and I know you're interested as am I. It's the way that some of these scientists use the manner of the story as a way of poohooing something in the most trivial way, just like a poster here said of Wickramasinghe, "well if it's anything to do with Wickramasinghe it's not true. Then...blank! a hatchet job without any input before anyone gets started, I hate that, and it's not like Wickramasinghe is a serial hoaxer, although I dare say some of his critics would like us to think that.

originally posted by: smurfy
Agreed, but as so often is the case, as is here, Wickramasinghe and Wallis are speculating with what they do know.

Actually, as I have pointed out in my first post in this thread, they don't seem to know what they're talking about - regarding the dark hydrocarbon coating on the comet.

originally posted by: wildespace
How could possibly microbial life appear and evolve on a comet? I think life needs a more hospitable and complex environment (complete with lots of liquid water) in order to appear. Any microbes on a comet would have gotten there from a planet (no idea how).

There's a good possibility of microbial life in places like Mars or Europa, but really not so much on a comet.

And by the way, doesn't that scientist know that most objects in the outer Solar System are covered with dark (reddish) hydrocarbons? They are the result of methane and other basic organic molecules being bombarded by radiation and cosmic rays for millions of years.

The Solar System is littered with pieces of exploded proto-planets. Samples of crusts,mantles and cores are represented in many of our meteorites, and some comets could be the remnants of crust and oceans. Many are in the Oort, but many are endlessly zipping around the Sun. Who knows what exotic concoctions many of them certainly contain.

originally posted by: charlyv
The Solar System is littered with pieces of exploded proto-planets. Samples of crusts,mantles and cores are represented in many of our meteorites, and some comets could be the remnants of crust and oceans. Many are in the Oort, but many are endlessly zipping around the Sun. Who knows what exotic concoctions many of them certainly contain.

I have never seen any mainstream scientific research and theorising about "exploded proto-planets". Do we have to rely on alternative/pseudo-science authors for the explanation?

And wouldn't catastrophic explosions like that wipe any life that could be possibly present there?

originally posted by: smurfy
just like a poster here said of Wickramasinghe, "well if it's anything to do with Wickramasinghe it's not true. Then...blank! a hatchet job without any input before anyone gets started, I hate that, and it's not like Wickramasinghe is a serial hoaxer, although I dare say some of his critics would like us to think that.

I assume you're referring to me...My earlier post that you alluded to was clearly not a "hatchet job" (nor was it meant to be) as here we are three pages later still discussing the topic...

Anyway, I have no qualms whatsoever with the idea of panspermia; I find it quite interesting, in fact. The simple fact is, however, that when it comes to Wickramasinghe, every time he claims "proof of alien life", you can safely bet that there's absolutely no evidence to back up the claim.

I'm sure he's quite the intelligent person, and has probably done quite a bit of legitimate scientific work (at least I would hope so, given his PhD). When it comes to panspermia, however, he clearly has a vested interest, and so far, after at least half a dozen claims of "proof", we still have no such thing.

No scientist who makes a legitimate huge discovery, much less the single biggest discovery in mankind's history, is going to refuse to submit their work for peer-review, and instead lot to publish in a predatory "journal" that will publish anything, as long as it's sent with a check. It just doesn't happen that way.

If one takes that into account, along with the fact that the work he has made public has all been found to be flawed, with conclusions that don't fit the data, and his long history of all of the above, the man simply has no credibility when it comes to panspermia.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: MysterX
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

A mechanic doesn't usually specialise in biological machines do they...we usually call that kind of mechanic a Doctor.

Exactly my point. It would be like a mechanic seeing dogs as robots.

The "scientist" in question sees algae blooms as alien life seeding Earth. According to him Earth would be constantly bombarded by non Earth life ... yet we don't ever see it. Because it doesn't exist.

He sees what he wants to see (makes him money).

^^^^^

This. x1000

That guy is a joke in astrobiology circles. Only tabloid news carries his "research". If you go searching for peer reviewed papers from him you find mostly......(crickets)