NASA Scientist Finds Evidence of Alien Life

[Technician]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/digitaltrends/nasascientistfindsevidenceofalienlife

It probably a stunt, but I'm hoping it's true.

[bytor]

I envision a 'Jurassic Park' of aliens that break free of their constraints and run rampant on the earth, devouring human flesh and destroying the human race.

The article says:
some highly respected names in the scientific community are challenging the validity of Cosmology, and the findings of Dr. Hoover.

Ok, I won't worry then.

[Craigs]

clearly that is a photo of an alien penis.

[Frankdude]

needle dick the bug fucker

[Quast]

Whoa, I've traveled back in time 15 years to 1996...groovy maan. I remeber that, it was cool and exciting...life on mars and shit. Doomworld didn't exist back then, this IS CRAZY!

[Csonicgo]

Dr. Hoover, how am I not surprised?

He's a quack. when I saw him at UAH, he went on a little rant on the podium about how the media is trying to "censor his ideas". Ideas. not research, but "ideas". If that is how he treats research, then maybe he shouldn't be doing it.

[magicsofa]

I knew that

[Creaphis]

I want to be excited about this but it doesn't feel real. Maybe eventually someone will come up with some evidence that seems more legit.

Why would anyone want to prove that life on Earth originated elsewhere? Where could conditions possibly be more congenial to life than right here?

[Technician]

Creaphis said:

Why would anyone want to prove that life on Earth originated elsewhere? Where could conditions possibly be more congenial to life than right here?

It's not about wanting to prove something in science, it's what the evidence points you to. Do you think humans really want to know they are apes? Most don't, but it doesn't make it false.

Since life as of today all started from simple single celled organisms, they simply conformed to earth conditions, which were vastly different then they are today.

I don't believe it, but it's possible, I guess.

[Scripten]

Creaphis said:

Where could conditions possibly be more congenial to life than right here?

With so many possibilities, it stands to reason that there's something better out there somewhere.

[Creaphis]

Technician said:

I guess.

I guess. It just doesn't seem like the most profitable avenue of scientific inquiry. It's always going to be much less likely that life originated elsewhere and managed to fly here on a loose rock than that it simply originated here in the first place. Besides, such theories don't even do anything to explain the ultimate chemical origins of life, so that's still just as big of a puzzle as ever. This reminds me of those religions where humanity's origin story is just that we were stuck here by an alien race. If your god is just another bunch of people that get born, screw and then die then they're not gods at all, and certainly aren't any better equipped to answer unanswerable metaphysical questions than you are.

[phi108]

Creaphis said:

It's always going to be much less likely that life originated elsewhere and managed to fly here on a loose rock than that it simply originated here in the first place. Besides, such theories don't even do anything to explain the ultimate chemical origins of life, so that's still just as big of a puzzle as ever. This reminds me of those religions where humanity's origin story is just that we were stuck here by an alien race.

I think the issue is that we don't know if Earth is old enough to allow life to have arisen on its own, while there may exist some or many other planets that are old enough to allow random life. If a planet has only had solidified crust for a short time, and has life, then maybe it's more likely that the life came on a meteor. So we don't know when the age is that an Earth like planet is old enough to probably have its own life.

[Technician]

Creaphis said:

I guess. It just doesn't seem like the most profitable avenue of scientific inquiry.

I admit scientific fields benefit greatly by having a profit agenda, but do you see the study of the origins of life profitable in general? No, it's mostly anecdotal outside the university, average people will likely jump the "Birds with Teeth" bandwagon, but it's still explored by passionate people and backed by investors looking for a tax write-off.

Besides, such theories don't even do anything to explain the ultimate chemical origins of life, so that's still just as big of a puzzle as ever.

What are you talking about? This would be the biggest discovery of the epoch. And Abiogenesis would still remain even if the discovery life on earth is has an extraterrestrial origin anyway.

[DoomUK]

Creaphis said:

I want to be excited about this but it doesn't feel real.

[Kirby]

^^ That.

I've been versed in Yahoo!'s articles before (85% of which are crap) and daresay this won't hold a grain of sand anywhere until the experts view it closely. It could be an interesting find but on the other hand it could just be a load of crap stemming from a specialist who may not have his wits about him completely. I'm waiting until after the examination before giving a thought on this potential fossil.

[fraggle]

Did scientists discover bacteria in meteorites? No. No, no, no. No no no no no no no no. No, no. No.

[GreyGhost]

Creaphis said:

Where could conditions possibly be more congenial to life than right here?

Possibly Mars, umpteen millions of years ago when the planet's believed to have had surface water in abundance and a much thicker atmosphere. It's known that bacteria can survive the vacuum of space for extended periods and in the right environment can also survive high velocity impacts. While the prospect of bacterial lifeforms surviving being blasted into space by an asteroid impact AND a fiery decent through our atmosphere might be vanishingly slim, we shouldn't totally dismiss the possibility that we're actually Martians.

[Creaphis]

Technician said:

I admit scientific fields benefit greatly by having a profit agenda, but do you see the study of the origins of life profitable in general?

Oops, I meant "profitable" in a more general sense, as in, "likely to lead towards supported, useful results."

I'm inventing definitions aren't I? I do that a lot.

GreyGhost said:

While the prospect of bacterial lifeforms surviving being blasted into space by an asteroid impact AND a fiery decent through our atmosphere might be vanishingly slim, we shouldn't totally dismiss the possibility that we're actually Martians.

Fair enough. I know it isn't good science to dismiss possibilities altogether. It just seems silly!

[Sharessa]

Oh, it's the whole "hey guys, I found 'space' bacteria on the bottom of this 'meteorite'" thing again.

[magicsofa]

phi108 said:

I think the issue is that we don't know if Earth is old enough to allow life to have arisen on its own, while there may exist some or many other planets that are old enough to allow random life. If a planet has only had solidified crust for a short time, and has life, then maybe it's more likely that the life came on a meteor. So we don't know when the age is that an Earth like planet is old enough to probably have its own life.

This is an interesting idea, but you have to be careful not to cling to it too tightly and to understand what the statistical significance is. You could roll one million dice and have them all land on six on the first try.

Also, if you roll one million dice with one million sides, chances are decent that at least one of them will land on six. My point is, with so many planets, it might not be all that strange for some of them to develop life somewhat rapidly.

Danarchy said:

Oh, it's the whole "hey guys, I found 'space' bacteria on the bottom of this 'meteorite'" thing again.

Yeah...as soon as I saw this I thought I remembered a similar "discovery" years ago