Red Rain: Extraterrestrial Microbes?

[TheAtomium]

World Science (http://www.world-science.net/exclusives/exclusives-nfrm/060104_specks.htm) is running a story about a paper currently under review entitled 'The red rain phenomenon of Kerala and its possible extraterrestrial origin', which can be read here (http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0601022).

This paper says that Kerala in India experienced 'red rain' for a period of 2 months following an airburst meteorite, and the authors believe that the dust causing the discolouration is in fact extraterrestrial microbes.

The particles certainly look like cells of some kind, and under the microscope they show familiar cellular structures like cell walls, a detatched inner cell, and a thin layer of mucus surrounding the cell. The cell's major constituents are carbon and oxygen, making up about 94%, followed by nitrogen, silicon, iron, sodium, aluminium and chlorine.

However, no DNA or RNA could be detected in the cells, and they have no obvious 'nucleus'. There also seems to be some doubt over wether the particles actually came from the meteorite!

I'm not sure if this is the right forum to post this in, but general opinion seems to be against these guys so I'm hoping it will generate some interesting discussion :)

[TinFoilHat]

The question then becomes, can they get these objects to exhibit any lifelike behavior at all? From reading that I'm not seeing the case for these actually being cells, rather than just being small nodules of organic materials.

[Blob]

Hum,
i suppose that they discounted Red China?

[phunk]

I don't buy it. If it was extraterrestrial why was it still falling over the same region sporadically for 2 months. If some of it could hang in the air that long, the wind would have carried it over other areas. Had to be a local source.

[01101001]

First, August, 2001, Indian Express: Red rain was fungus, not meteor (http://www.indianexpress.com/ie20010806/nat10.html)

The Centre for Earth Science Studies (CESS) here on Saturday retracted its hypothesis that a streaking meteor triggered the rain.

Later, June 2003, The Telegraph, Calcutta: Red rain sparked by Gulf dust cloud (http://telegraphindia.com/1030620/asp/nation/story_2086578.asp)

Analysing data from satellites and a laser radar, scientists at the Vikram Sarabai Space Centre in Thiruvananthapuram have found that the culprit was a dust cloud that originated in the Gulf.

On July 25, 2001, many places in coastal Kerala received coloured rain overnight and in the morning. The rainwater contained suspended particles and many elements, including carbon, silicon, calcium and magnesium. It was then believed that the water was coloured because of the presence of red spores of some species of fungus.

S. Veerabuthiran and M. Satyanarayana of the space physics laboratory at the centre have reported in the Indian Journal of Radio and Space Physics that the strange event was due to dust from the Gulf countries in combination with several meteorological phenomena.

The cited paper came out days ago and raises some questions. I await the answers. That the red rain was seen over the course of as much as 60 days I think argues strongly against an atmospheric origin. I would think there's gotta be a source from Earth's surface somewhere and the particles were transported by wind. It's difficult to conceive of an atmospheric source sitting over the Kerala region for a couple months, slowly dropping the particles.

[Ian Goddard]

I don't buy it. If it was extraterrestrial why was it still falling over the same region sporadically for 2 months.
Right, that seems to be a strong reason to question an extraterrestrial origin. That aside, the "red rain" phenomenon is well documented in the cited paper (http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0601022) and may be an unexplained phenomenon worthy of investigation. The red component in the rain appears to be diatom (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=diatoms)-like particles lacking DNA.

This website (http://www.strangemag.com/redrain.html) cites numerous historical cases of "red rain" that have been described by scientists as diatom (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=diatoms)-like particles. In a journal search at JSTOR (http://www.jstor.org.) I found two historical reports. The first (in Science, New Series, Vol. 10, No. 257, 1899) cites an 1896 report of red rain from the Australian Association for the Advancement of Science. In that case "red rain" reportedly "fell over Melbourne and much of Victoria on December 27, 1896." It notes that while the red content appeared to be volcanic-rock soil, "Under the microscope the presence of diatoms, scales of lepidoptera, quartz and granet were detected."

The second historic report I found (in Past and Present, No. 166. Feb 2000) incidentally mentions: "[...] on one occasion in 1914 he comments on a report of a shower of red rain in the Jiangsu town of Songjiang. This report was in the back pages of Shenbo, in small print, and in the local news section, all of which related to towns far away in Jiangsu and Zhejiang."

My off-the-cuff hunch is that the red diatomic cell-like component in the rain may originate from the ocean, drawn up by convection or water spouts (http://australiasevereweather.com/techniques/moreadv/funnels.htm#5). Many (if not all) historic cases of red rain were close to an ocean. For example, the documented cases (http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0601022) in India were all right next to the Arabian Sea. Furthermore, in the historic cases I cite above, both Melbourne and Victoria are along the Indian Ocean, while Jiangsu runs along the Yellow Sea. ~Ian

[peteshimmon]

Its an old theory that Worldwide rainfall is
corelated with the major meteor showers. And its
an old idea of mine to pass the rain coming
down from house gutters under magnets to see
if some iron content can be found. Perhaps
some university somewhere is indeed trying to
find whats in raindrops as the drop is
supposed to form around some particulate in the
first place!

[Wolverine]

Oh no... Nancy picked up (http://zetatalk.com/index/zeta257.htm) on this one. :rolleyes:

[grant hutchison]

Oh no... Nancy picked up (http://zetatalk.com/index/zeta257.htm) on this one. :rolleyes:Interesting.
Anyone know what the difference between "DNA" and "DNA, per se" is?

Grant Hutchison

[beskeptical]

I will tell you that from reading lots of foreign news sources on the net you'd be amazed at how many totally absurd stories get into print. I don't want to condemn 3rd world countries but when you read in the India Times, for example, that a woman supposedly gave birth to a frog, and it's reported as real news, not the National Enquirer type of news, you get a different perspective on what people believe around the world.

[beskeptical]

Interesting.
Anyone know what the difference between "DNA" and "DNA, per se" is?

Grant HutchisonShe said DNA per se isn't required for life. That's true in that we have RNA life forms but those are all viruses and viruses require cells to reproduce and those cells require DNA.

Nancy, of course, being the expert that she is, knows that there is life in the Universe that none of the rest of us know about.

[grant hutchison]

She said DNA per se isn't required for life.Sure. But if she'd said DNA isn't required for life, she'd have been saying the same thing, I think. I'm just interested in how pointlessly popular "per se" has become, as a bit of verbal decoration.

Grant Hutchison

[Ken G]

I think "per se" is just a way of achieving wiggle room, like saying "to the best of my recollection" when in court. Hardly anyone, including me, knows its latin origin or what it is really supposed to mean. Latin scholars?

[Nicolas]

"by itself" (through itself)

We use it more as "at all costs/really" in Belgium, like in "did you per se need to do that?". Strange.
I think that has its origins in the correct use as in "that is not necessary per se" (I'm translating Dutch here :)), where it replaces "op zich" which means "by itself". Only, when stating it as "did you per se need to do that" the meaning changes, and the original meaning of "per se" is lost. Seems to be common misuse :). I often use it wrong (if that is wrong). But anyway, if it's used in Belgium it has a function. Possibly the wrong function, but it has a function :).

[grant hutchison]

In English it's used with its literal Latin meaning: "in itself". So you might say "Well, his letter wasn't defamatory, per se." Inference: the words themselves didn't say anything defamatory, but the context in which they were interpreted might make them defamatory.
But (it seems to me) people sometimes seem to just tack "per se" on to any random noun in order to express vague doubt: "I'm saying this, but maybe I don't really mean it". "DNA per se" seems like a case in point: "DNA" is, as far as I can see, identical to "DNA in itself", in that DNA has no interpretive context that makes it become other than DNA. And on this occasion I can't even see why the writer wants to hedge her bets in this way.

Reminds me of an overheard remark in the hospital corridor: "And she's been told that they'll never be any use to her again. Not as feet."

Grant Hutchison

[captain swoop]

I will tell you that from reading lots of foreign news sources on the net you'd be amazed at how many totally absurd stories get into print. I don't want to condemn 3rd world countries but when you read in the India Times, for example, that a woman supposedly gave birth to a frog, and it's reported as real news, not the National Enquirer type of news, you get a different perspective on what people believe around the world.


You can earn money with them

the British Satirical magazine 'Private Eye' runs a column called 'Funny old World' if you get a crazy story included you get £10.

If it involves tragic death, sex or mutilation, so much the better.

[beskeptical]

You can earn money with them

the British Satirical magazine 'Private Eye' runs a column called 'Funny old World' if you get a crazy story included you get £10.

If it involves tragic death, sex or mutilation, so much the better.That's interesting. I think I'll look into it. I know lots of stories.

http://www.private-eye.co.uk/

Can't find the column, are you sure it's in that mag.?

[HenrikOlsen]

I will tell you that from reading lots of foreign news sources on the net you'd be amazed at how many totally absurd stories get into print.
This one (http://bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=36845) went around the world in a day.

[beskeptical]

This one (http://bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=36845) went around the world in a day.Was it a myth?

[HenrikOlsen]

Yes (http://www.thenewmexicochannel.com/news/5972914/detail.html).

[beskeptical]

That's so fascinating. It's the news media in this case. They hear partial statements and fill in the blanks for their stories. Anyone who's ever read an in depth story they knew the real details of has probably seen the "fill in the blanks but claim they are facts" in action.

[tofu]

Wow, I'm not sure what to make of this, but it's in a mainstream newspaper.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/story/0,,1723913,00.html

Louis decided that the rain was made up of bacteria-like material that had been swept to Earth from a passing comet. In short, it rained aliens over India during the summer of 2001.

[phunk]

It's a load of BS. The fact that the red rain fell over the same area for 2 months proves it's a local source. Any source higher in the atmosphere would move, there's this little thing called wind...

[Arneb]

Wasn't it 007 who said in "Tomorrow never dies": They print anything these days? :sick: :evil: :wall:

[ryanmercer]

Didn't we have a thread that touched on this a month ago...

[Wolverine]

Yes. I've moved the above four posts from Life in Space to the existing thread on the topic.

[beskeptical]

I would suspect pollution for any red rain in India and the comment by phunk about it being local over time therefore not from high in the atmosphere makes perfect sense.

Any real life from space will be readily recognizable by its distinct DNA. Just as Darwin observed isolated species and found them to be distinct, so will the DNA be from life forms separated from this planet for millions or billions of years.

[Kullat Nunu]

If they even have DNA...

[skeptED56]

Perhaps the original science team made a mistake when testing for DNA?

Otherwise it's a big deal whether or not it's extraterrestrial in origin (providing they are what they appear to be, cells), because it shows that DNA isn't the only route to travel in the origin of life, perhaps even enlightening us to a second genesis of life on earth.

New Scientist (http://www.newscientist.com/contents/issue/2541.html) (subscription required) recently published an article on this; one scientist proposed the hypothesis that they may be mammalian blood cells (which have no DNA). But that leaves you wondering why they haven't shriveled up or exploded due to less than ideal salinity levels (or, for that matter, how upwards of 50,000 kg of blood ended up raining on India).

If what Ian Goddard suggests is correct, and these "cells" have an oceanic origin, how do we explain diatoms without DNA? They may be from the ocean, but they might as well be alien. Again, assuming the DNA tests was properly done.

Perhaps I'm missing something. It's just that my instinctive reaction is cells + absence of DNA = Waaah?

[skeptED56]

Curiously enough, under absorption spectrum analysis, the publishers of the paper found the major absorption peak at 505 nm (read UV-visible spectrum here (http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0601/0601022.pdf)), which just happens to be around the maximum radiation wavelength of the Sun.

[beskeptical]

I took a closer look at the actual paper. The only thing I see here that even suggests organic is the shape. The composition is mostly carbon and oxygen with a few trace elements and a bit of silica.

No DNA is one thing, but nothing organic and now you are looking at something of mineral composition. What evidence did they even provide that the stuff was organic except its outward appearance. Lots of things look organic but that doesn't mean they are.

[skeptED56]

True, you would expect carbon and oxygen in living cells, but you would also expect nitrogen and hydrogen and the latter two didn't show up on the team's elemental analysis.

I guess we can agree that the simplest explanations are that 1) They aren't cells, but rather something else or 2) the researchers made a mistake in their DNA or elemental analyses

I think it still merits some interest considering the possible historical precedent that Ian Goddard mentioned (which means if it is pollution, it would have to be the same pollution present in Australia in the late 1890's) and the non published claim by the papers authors that the cells divide under certain conditions.

Even if they're not alien cells, I would be interested to know the process by which they fell over India.

[skeptED56]

Oops, spoke too soon.

True, you would expect carbon and oxygen in living cells, but you would also expect nitrogen and hydrogen and the latter two didn't show up on the team's elemental analysis.

on closer reading...

The elemental composition of the red cells was further checked using a CHN analyzer
(Model Elementar Vario EL III). The presence of carbon, hydrogen and nitrogen can
be analyzed using this analyzer. About 30 ml of red rainwater when dried gave a
solid residue of about 3mg. This under CHN analysis showed 43.03% carbon, 4.43%
hydrogen and 1.84% nitrogen.

There you go.

[randb]

interesting!!

[beskeptical]

... and the non published claim by the papers authors that the cells divide under certain conditions. ...Where did you see this?


I still see nothing organic here. Having 4.5% H doesn't change that fact.

Just glance at Wiki on Biochemistry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biochemistry) and Wiki on proteins (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protein) to see if there is even anything remotely organic here, DNA or not.

[skeptED56]

Where did you see this?


I still see nothing organic here. Having 4.5% H doesn't change that fact.

Just glance at Wiki on Biochemistry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biochemistry) and Wiki on proteins (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protein) to see if there is even anything remotely organic here, DNA or not.

They conducted an elemental analysis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elemental_analysis) to detect...elements, not compounds. I think that's the main point of confusion.

The claim that they divide was mentioned in the New Scientist article I previously cited.

Again, I'm not trying to be a proponent here, I'm just interested.

[Damburger]

New Scientist (subscription required) recently published an article on this; one scientist proposed the hypothesis that they may be mammalian blood cells (which have no DNA). But that leaves you wondering why they haven't shriveled up or exploded due to less than ideal salinity levels (or, for that matter, how upwards of 50,000 kg of blood ended up raining on India).

So the question is no longer 'why is it raining strange cells?' its 'why is it raining blood?'

Thats not much of an improvemnt :lol:

[beskeptical]

They conducted an elemental analysis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elemental_analysis) to detect...elements, not compounds. I think that's the main point of confusion.

The claim that they divide was mentioned in the New Scientist article I previously cited.

Again, I'm not trying to be a proponent here, I'm just interested.I understand that, but the elements suggest inorganic, not organic compounds here.

[beskeptical]

So the question is no longer 'why is it raining strange cells?' its 'why is it raining blood?'

Thats not much of an improvemnt :lol:There is no evidence these are red blood cells except they remotely resemble them. If there really was the quantity described one would almost certainly see white cells mixed in as well as other components like platelets.

[snabald]

What if it's biological but not extraterrestrial, could it be something we just haven't discovered yet?

[beskeptical]

What if it's biological but not extraterrestrial, could it be something we just haven't discovered yet?Of course. But I still see nothing biological here except the shape.

Does anyone else see something in the paper supporting an organic structure? I am not a microbiologist. I am an infectious disease specialist. So I know a lot about micro-organisms but could be missing something.

And has anyone seen anything about the dividing thing? Inorganic structures grow and branch, but I don't think they divide and multiply.

If there were a meteor burst in the atmosphere than resulted in debris, the composition should have also provided evidence. Meteorites can be identified purely by composition. I didn't see that addressed in the paper. Nor did they explain was this a 'ball' of organic material not contained in a meteor structure? If it was within a meteor as hypothesized, where's the bits of meteor one would expect to find mixed in? Surely some of the particulates of an exploded meteor would be of the same mass as the red 'cells' and should have been carried to the same clouds that produced the rain.

[granolaeater]

I still see nothing organic here. Having 4.5% H doesn't change that fact.

Just glance at Wiki on Biochemistry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biochemistry) and Wiki on proteins (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protein) to see if there is even anything remotely organic here, DNA or not.


Indeed the elemental suggests pretty much an organic composition:



The cell's major constituents are carbon and oxygen, making up about 94%, followed by nitrogen, silicon, iron, sodium, aluminium and chlorine.



on closer reading...


About 30 ml of red rainwater when dried gave a
solid residue of about 3mg. This under CHN analysis showed 43.03% carbon, 4.43%
hydrogen and 1.84% nitrogen.



There you go.

Together you get a mass composition of:

C - 43% (Atomic Weight = 12g/mol)
H - 4.4% (Atomic Weight = 1g/mol)
O - 51% (Atomic Weight = 16g/mol)
N - 1.8% (Atomic Weight = 14g/mol)

This gives you a rough atomic composition of:

C - 28
H - 34
O - 24
N - 1

This is not enough hydrogen and by far not enough nitrogen but too much oxygen for a normal protein, but definitely organic.

[beskeptical]

They conducted an elemental analysis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elemental_analysis) to detect...elements, not compounds. I think that's the main point of confusion.

The claim that they divide was mentioned in the New Scientist article I previously cited.

Again, I'm not trying to be a proponent here, I'm just interested.I am interested as well and getting out of my territory. I also noticed the %s weren't helpful unless they pertained to one compound so I shall withdraw any conclusions organic or not but object to any conclusion of "definitely organic"

Here are the numbers:

43.03% carbon, 4.43%
hydrogen and 1.84% nitrogen.

Element Wt % Atomic %
C 49.53 57.83
O 45.42 39.82
Na 0.69 0.42
Al 0.41 0.21
Si 2.85 1.42
Cl 0.12 0.05
Fe 0.97 0.24


Here's a great site to find chemical composition of minerals:
http://webmineral.com/chemical.shtml


Minerals with ~ 43% C (closest ones):
Acetamide 40.67% C
Guanine 39.74% C (organic)


Minerals with 4.43% H:
Caichengyunite
Qilianshanite
Hannayite


Minerals with ~ same % o:
too many to list (http://webmineral.com/chem/Chem-O.shtml)


Minerals with ~ 1.8% N:
Spheniscidite 2.03% N
Tobelite 1.86% N
Buttgenbachite 1.36% N

None of the above minerals have the same proportions as the material in question. If anyone cares to play around with the numbers compared to the composition of various things I'd love to see what they come up with.

[granolaeater]

Searching for Minerals with only one of the components is quite misleading.

You have to search for minerals with all main ingredients found in the substance and no main ingredient that is not main ingredient of the unknown substance.

And if you look closer on your cited website http://webmineral.com/chemical.shtml you see that all these minerals, that come but remotely close to this requirement, are indeed made of organic compounds.

So I stand by my claim: Substances with this atomic composition are "definitely organic".

99% of the substances atoms are C, H and O atoms.
39% of the substances atoms are H atoms.
32% of the substances atoms are C atoms.
28% of the substances atoms are O atoms.

This composition is simply impossible without covalent C-H bonds. And having covalent C-H bonds means "organic" by definitition.

Of course no one should fall into any misconception here:

1)"Organic" is not exclusive to "mineralic". Organic Minerals do exist as you can see on your cited website http://webmineral.com/chemical.shtml

2)"Organic" does not mean "living". It does not even mean "made by living organisms". The orange haze in Titans atmosphere is organic too, and there is no connection to living organisms.

So yes, if the analysis is right this stuff is "definitely organic". But by no means this means it is "living".

[granolaeater]

Or look it just the other way around:
There are only three non organic natural forms of carbon:

1) Pure carbon like in Diamond or Graphite. Then the remaining O and H would have to be water. But since there is not enough hydrogen for this, this possibility is ruled out.
Some of the oxygen has to be in covalent C-O bonds.

2) Carbondioxide is a gas and thus ruled out, too.

3) C-O bonds are found in Carbonates and Hydrogencarbonates. But these are negative ions. So you need an equivalent of positive ions made from nitrogen or metals. But while at least one per carbon atom would be needed, these atoms make not more than 1% of the atomic composition. So this possibility is ruled out, too

So the only remaining possibility is organic bound carbon.

[beskeptical]

Searching for Minerals with only one of the components is quite misleading.

You have to search for minerals with all main ingredients found in the substance and no main ingredient that is not main ingredient of the unknown substance.

And if you look closer on your cited website http://webmineral.com/chemical.shtml you see that all these minerals, that come but remotely close to this requirement, are indeed made of organic compounds.

So I stand by my claim: Substances with this atomic composition are "definitely organic".

99% of the substances atoms are C, H and O atoms.
39% of the substances atoms are H atoms.
32% of the substances atoms are C atoms.
28% of the substances atoms are O atoms.

This composition is simply impossible without covalent C-H bonds. And having covalent C-H bonds means "organic" by definitition.

Of course no one should fall into any misconception here:

1)"Organic" is not exclusive to "mineralic". Organic Minerals do exist as you can see on your cited website http://webmineral.com/chemical.shtml

2)"Organic" does not mean "living". It does not even mean "made by living organisms". The orange haze in Titans atmosphere is organic too, and there is no connection to living organisms.

So yes, if the analysis is right this stuff is "definitely organic". But by no means this means it is "living".
I took the % of each element and looked for those minerals then looked to see what the rest of the composition was to see if any of them fit the rest of the pattern. None did. And the only organic mineral was the guanine. Acetamide is an organic solvent. None of the rest of the minerals listed were organic. (http://www.webmineral.com/Mineral_Definition.shtml)

I know the difference between living and organic. :rolleyes:

If you are so convinced these elements indicate an organic compound name it. Or name some possibilities.

[beskeptical]

Or look it just the other way around:
There are only three non organic natural forms of carbon:

1) Pure carbon like in Diamond or Graphite. Then the remaining O and H would have to be water. But since there is not enough hydrogen for this, this possibility is ruled out.
Some of the oxygen has to be in covalent C-O bonds.

2) Carbondioxide is a gas and thus ruled out, too.

3) C-O bonds are found in Carbonates and Hydrogencarbonates. But these are negative ions. So you need an equivalent of positive ions made from nitrogen or metals. But while at least one per carbon atom would be needed, these atoms make not more than 1% of the atomic composition. So this possibility is ruled out, too

So the only remaining possibility is organic bound carbon.Only three forms of carbon? There are a hundred minerals here with carbon in them. (http://webmineral.com/chem/Chem-C.shtml) I don't understand how you conclude only this or that is possible with out knowing what kind of mix resulted in the absolute composition volumes.

I don't have any way of judging if you are correct based on your post. I see carbon in all those minerals on the list and in % from 1-100. Looks like lots of options to me. I already said I am not an expert in chemistry. But I do know what a living organism should look like and what one should find in it. These structures resemble organic shapes but other than that, they have little else to suggest they are organic in nature. They do not have the composition one would expect from something built of proteins.

So if you think the composition supports an organic structure, then be more specific. How are these things even remotely potential living organisms or made by living organisms, based on the total chemical composition? Suggest some specific compounds that they might be made of that give you the composition.

[granolaeater]

Searching for Minerals with only one of the components is quite misleading.

You have to search for minerals with all main ingredients found in the substance and no main ingredient that is not main ingredient of the unknown substance.

And if you look closer on your cited website http://webmineral.com/chemical.shtml you see that all these minerals, that come but remotely close to this requirement, are indeed made of organic compounds.

So I stand by my claim: Substances with this atomic composition are "definitely organic".

99% of the substances atoms are C, H and O atoms.
39% of the substances atoms are H atoms.
32% of the substances atoms are C atoms.
28% of the substances atoms are O atoms.

This composition is simply impossible without covalent C-H bonds. And having covalent C-H bonds means "organic" by definitition.

Of course no one should fall into any misconception here:

1)"Organic" is not exclusive to "mineralic". Organic Minerals do exist as you can see on your cited website http://webmineral.com/chemical.shtml

2)"Organic" does not mean "living". It does not even mean "made by living organisms". The orange haze in Titans atmosphere is organic too, and there is no connection to living organisms.

So yes, if the analysis is right this stuff is "definitely organic". But by no means this means it is "living".

I took the % of each element and looked for those minerals then looked to see what the rest of the composition was to see if any of them fit the rest of the pattern. None did. And the only organic mineral was the guanine. Acetamide is an organic solvent. None of the rest of the minerals listed were organic. (http://www.webmineral.com/Mineral_Definition.shtml)

Acetamide (http://webmineral.com/data/Acetamide.shtml) is described as a mineral in the clickable mineral descriptions to the list. There is even a photo of natural occuring acetamide crystals. And by the way, Acetamide melts between 78 and 80°C. Far above the summer temperatures of the locations where you find it.

There are 42 organic mineral substances in the carbon list (http://webmineral.com/chem/Chem-C.shtml). Namely:
Karpatite, Idrialite, Ravatite, Karpatite, Kratochvilite, Simonellite, Hartite, Fichtelite, Dinite, Evenkite, Hoelite, Amber, Refikite, Abelsonite, Kladnoite, Flagstaffite, Acetamide, Guanine, Uricite, Tinnunculite, Dashkovaite, Mellite, Earlandite, Hoganite, Paceite, Urea, Formicaite, Natroxalate, Oxammite, Whewellite, Glushinskite, Methane hydrate-H, Moolooite, Wheatleyite, Minguzzite, Weddellite, Zhemchuzhnikovite, Stepanovite, Humboldtine, Tongbaite, Methane hydrate-I

Edit:
1) I found just another 3 organic minarals in the list, Novgorodovaite, Methane hydrate-II and Lindbergite, increasing the total Number to 45.
2) With Tongbaite I slipped in the row. The real organic is Caoxite, one row below Tongbaite. Tongbaite is a carbide.
End of Edit

Click their names there and look up the descriptions. All of them are called "organic" there, except for the methane hydrates, wich are mainly ice, stabilized at higher temperatures by methane in its crystal lattice. But methane itself is organic, too.
Perhaps you should read the websites you cite a little bit more carefully.


Or look it just the other way around:
There are only three non organic natural forms of carbon:

1) Pure carbon like in Diamond or Graphite. Then the remaining O and H would have to be water. But since there is not enough hydrogen for this, this possibility is ruled out.
Some of the oxygen has to be in covalent C-O bonds.

2) Carbondioxide is a gas and thus ruled out, too.

3) C-O bonds are found in Carbonates and Hydrogencarbonates. But these are negative ions. So you need an equivalent of positive ions made from nitrogen or metals. But while at least one per carbon atom would be needed, these atoms make not more than 1% of the atomic composition. So this possibility is ruled out, too

So the only remaining possibility is organic bound carbon.


Only three forms of carbon? There are a hundred minerals here with carbon in them. (http://webmineral.com/chem/Chem-C.shtml) I don't understand how you conclude only this or that is possible with out knowing what kind of mix resulted in the absolute composition volumes.
I don't have any way of judging if you are correct based on your post. I see carbon in all those minerals on the list and in % from 1-100. Looks like lots of options to me

Any one who reads my post carefully can see that I did not speak about single compounds but about categories.

But, Yes, I was alittle bit sloppy here. I forgot to name carbides, Cyanides and Thiocyanates because Carbides do not contain oygen and Cyanides and Thiocyanates do contain to much nitrogen (one nitrogen atom per carbon atom) to fit the composition.

Edit:
The list (http://webmineral.com/chem/Chem-C.shtml) calls cyanides (Kafehydrocyanite) and thiocyanates (Julienite) "organic".
End of Edit

But all these Substances like Carbonates and Hydrogencarbonates require positive ions in the mix. So you can put them together into one category with Carbonates and Hydrogencarbonates as inorganic carbon containing salts.
But since it is impossible to construct a positive ion only from C,H and O that is stable at room temperature under air and in water all these are ruled out.

So let's go back to the list (http://webmineral.com/chem/Chem-C.shtml):

The first 5 are pure carbon. They are ruled out, because you can not construct stable compounds from H and O other then water.

Then there are 42 organic minerals. Even you saw that they came most near to the required composition.

After this I count 8 carbides ( Moissanite, Khamrabaevite, Tongbaite, Niobocarbide, Cohenite, Tantalcarbide, Isovite, Haxonite), one cyanide (Kafehydrocyanite), and one thiocyanate (Julienite).

Edit:
The list (http://webmineral.com/chem/Chem-C.shtml) calls cyanides (Kafehydrocyanite) and thiocyanates (Julienite) "organic".
End of Edit

The rest are roughly 330 Carbonates and Hydrogencarbonates and 3 exotic Silicates with less then 1.5% carbon.

So where are your additional options?


I don't understand how you conclude only this or that is possible with out knowing what kind of mix resulted in the absolute composition volumes....
I don't have any way of judging if you are correct based on your post. I see carbon in all those minerals on the list and in % from 1-100. Looks like lots of options to me. I already said I am not an expert in chemistry.

I showed that it is impossible by the laws of chemistry to construct an inorganic compound or a mixture containing no organic compounds from the cited elemental mix.

If you do not understand my explanation please ask specific questions.

If your knowlege of chemistry is so weak, that you can't even formulate specific questions, than don't make claims about chemistry you can not support.

But I do know what a living organism should look like and what one should find in it. These structures resemble organic shapes but other than that, they have little else to suggest they are organic in nature. They do not have the composition one would expect from something built of proteins.
...How are these things even remotely potential living organisms or made by living organisms, based on the total chemical composition?

First:
I know the difference between living and organic. :rolleyes:
If you know the difference between living and organic, then why do you bring the question if these thingies are living organisms into a dispute about their chemical composition?

Again, I do not claim that these thingies are "even remotely potential living organisms or made by living organisms".
I do claim that based on the elemental composition cited here on the thread, organic substances have to be a major component of their chemical composition.

Second:
Even if one would claim (I do not) these things to be living organisms, they would not have to be built solely of proteins. Living organisms do contain also lipids and carbohydrates and many other substances that contain no nitrogen. The substance contains roughly 28 carbon atoms per one nitrogen atom. When proteins contain one nitrogen atom per seven carbon atoms (coarse esteem by me), that means that nearly a quarter of its carbon atoms could be from proteins. That is quite low but not impossible for a living organism.
But again I do not claim that these things contain any protein or are living at all!


If you are so convinced these elements indicate an organic compound name it. Or name some possibilities.
So if you think the composition supports an organic structure, then be more specific. ... Suggest some specific compounds that they might be made of that give you the composition.

Ok, one example for a mixture of organic compounds that roughly fit the composition would be this:

Take the amino acid alanin:
CH3-CH(NH2)-COOH or C3H7O2N

Now oxidize the amino group to an amide group and put 10% of this compound into the mix:
CH3-(C=NH)-COOH or C3H5O2N

Now exchange the amide group for an aldehyde group and put 90% of this compound into the mix:
CH3-(C=O)-COOH or C3H4O3

Even the atomic composition of this easy mixture comes quite close to that of the unknown compound:

C: 30% as opposed to 32% in the unknown compound
H: 41% as opposed to 39% in the unknown compound
O: 29% as opposed to 28% in the unknown compound
N: 1% as opposed to 1% in the unknown compound

From this you get a mass composition of:

C: 41% as opposed to 43% in the unknown compound
H: 4.7% as opposed to 4.4% in the unknown compound
O: 53% as opposed to 51% in the unknown compound
N: 1.6% as opposed to 1.8% in the unknown compound

Of course 10% C3H5O2N and 90% C3H4O3 is quite surely not the composition of these thingies. But the example shows clearly that their composition is typical for organic mixtures.

Now I have shown by example that the composition is typical for organic mixtures.
And I have shown from the laws of chemistry that the composition is only possible with a high organic fraction in the mixture. Since high contents of elementary carbon and/or inorganic carbon containing salts are ruled out.

This claim is in principle easy to falsify. Just show me at least one example of an anorganic mixture (stable at room temperature under air and in water) wich fits the composition. Or at least try to show from your knoledge of chemistry how my reasoning about the impossibly of an inorganic mixture with this composition is flawed.

As long as you can not do that, your claim that there might be some inorganic composition you can not produce, is as invalid as a claim, that there might be some elefants having natural green skin colour with violet dots.

This is the way science works.

I have made a claim, I have proved it, and I have shown how to falsify it.
Now it is your turn to show your evidence.

[granolaeater]

Another Example with exact the same composition as the first example would be a copolymeric Polyester with these two building blocks:

10% C3H5O2N

-CH2-CH(NH2)-(C=O)-O-

And 90% C3H4O3

-CH2-CH(OH)-(C=O)-O-

[beskeptical]

Notes from The Chemistry of Living things (http://www.borg.com/~lubehawk/biochem.htm#ans%20org,form,DHS) (caps are in the text, I assume for emphasis but not relevant here)

Carbohydrates: H:O = 2:1 always
Proteins: carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, NITROGEN, (always those 4), phosphorus, sulfer, (possibly)

big proteiN molecules (which we call polypeptides) are long chains of amino acids, every (every) proteiN has nitrogen in it. Always.

Lipids: Carbon, Hydrogen, Oxygen, ONLY !, There is no specific H:O ratio.

You note a chemical mix that might be organic, but that mix wouldn't likely give you a structure such as observed here. The amount of nitrogen would seem to be way too low.

But I already said I am not the chemistry expert and perhaps did not concede enough ground to your position. So allow me to say, I see your point but don't see a cell here. However, I will look into fungal and plant cell structures and get back to the thread after checking there. I tried to picture a cell that was pure carbohydrate and/or lipids, but little or no protein and can think of nothing like that. But I will need to learn a little more about cellulose and other plant/fungal structures first.

[granolaeater]

So allow me to say, I see your point but don't see a cell here.

Yes, here I agree with you, I don't see necessarily a living cell here, either. If the analysis is right, these thingies are organic. But as I said before, "organic" does not mean "living". It does not even mean "made by living organisms". Plastics is organic, too.

By the way the substance of my second example could maybe form coarsly cell-like looking aggregates. As a polyester it is a kind of plastics, but due to its hydroxyl- and aminogroups it should be able to swell by sucking water into its structure, just like proteins do.

But of course there are literally thousands of other possibilities for its composition.


I tried to picture a cell that was pure carbohydrate and/or lipids, but little or no protein and can think of nothing like that.

If the coarse esteem, I made before is right, the situation for protein, woud not be soo bad.

The substance contains roughly 28 carbon atoms per one nitrogen atom. When proteins contain one nitrogen atom per seven carbon atoms (coarse esteem by me), that means that nearly a quarter of its carbon atoms could be from proteins.

With roughly 12 hydrogen atoms and two oxygen atoms per nitrogen atom, you could get roughly between 15% and 20% (mass) of protein in the dry mass of the substance.

For comparison: In bacteria Protein makes 50% of the dry mass, in wheat grains it makes 13.5% of the dry mass.


But the main problem with this calculation is that the rest of the substance would contain nearly equal amounts of atoms of carbon, hydrogen and oxygen, making a sum formula of (COH)[sub]n[sub], an extremely odd composition for biological material.

So the main problem for people who want to claim these thingies being living organisms is the low hydrogen content.

But anyway, no amount of guessing will compensate for a proper chemical analysis.

[Ian Goddard]

Media sources including the New Scientist are reporting that red rains in Kerala, India may have been colored by extraterrestrial cells. However, I located a report commissioned by the Government of India that found the rains were contaminated by terrestrial algae spores that were successfully grown in culture. That relevant official report has been overlooked by recent media reports.

Moving the alien-invader theory aside finds the real mystery at hand: How did so many terrestrial spores contaminate rains in Kerala during the 2001 monsoon season? That question was raised as an unsolved mystery in the official report. After researching that question I built what I believe might be the best explanatory model for the colored rains of Kerala:

Possible Causal Mechanism of Kerala's Red Rain (http://www.IanGoddard.net/redrain.htm)

[Duane]

I am merging this thread with another already running.

[beskeptical]

Media sources including the New Scientist are reporting that red rains in Kerala, India may have been colored by extraterrestrial cells. However, I located a report commissioned by the Government of India that found the rains were contaminated by terrestrial algae spores that were successfully grown in culture. That relevant official report has been overlooked by recent media reports.

Moving the alien-invader theory aside finds the real mystery at hand: How did so many terrestrial spores contaminate rains in Kerala during the 2001 monsoon season? That question was raised as an unsolved mystery in the official report. After researching that question I built what I believe might be the best explanatory model for the colored rains of Kerala:

Possible Causal Mechanism of Kerala's Red Rain (http://www.IanGoddard.net/redrain.htm)
I wonder how the original researchers failed to find DNA? A spore would have to have DNA to grow. It isn't like algae uses another system.

This supports my opinion of New Scientist articles, read them with a grain of salt.

[Ian Goddard]

I wonder how the original researchers failed to find DNA? A spore would have to have DNA to grow. It isn't like algae uses another system.

The original researchers, Sampath et al, found in 2001 that the coloring agent was terrestrial spores (see an early media report (http://www.indianexpress.com/ie20010806/nat10.html) and my report (http://www.iangoddard.net/redrain.htm) for more details). Louis & Kumar, who since 2003 have promoted the ET-microbe hypothesis, were not the original researchers. That their test failed to find DNA in the same class of objects researchers at the Tropical Botanical Garden and Research Institute grew into Trentepohlia algae suggests to me that something is wrong with their test. ~Ian

[mpai]

Any idea where the samples of this "Red Rain" is currently being preserved ? Maybe further analysis will uncover the truth.

Manoj

[Ian Goddard]

"Maybe further analysis will uncover the truth."

I don't see that the claims of Louis & Kumar carry sufficient evidentiary weight to bring into doubt the official results wherein the red objects in the rainwater were successfully grown into a known terrestrial algae. A possible reason why the no-DNA findings of Louis & Kumar stands at odds with the original findings might be found in their 2003 paper (http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0310120) wherein they state: "The cells were subjected to some physical and chemical conditions to test their ability to survive extreme conditions. [...] the temperature was increased progressively to a maximum of 370 C." However, this USDA research paper (http://www.ars.usda.gov/research/publications/publications.htm?SEQ_NO_115=109578) says: "Spore DNA was most resistant to thermal damage up to 100 C with minor hydrolysis." So Louis & Kumar heated the cells beyond a point where spore DNA resist damage.

Louis & Kumar do not mention such heating in their later 2006 paper (http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0601022), and they apparently performed the DNA test after their 2003 paper since it's not mentioned in their 2003 paper. They also don't mention if only some of the cells were heated, they just say, "The cells were subjected to [...]," which tends to imply all the cells. But just the fact that DNA could be degraded by heating (not to mention, what are the effects of being soaked in water for several years prior to testing?) is reason to doubt DNA tests and favor the growth-results found by the Tropical Botanic Garden and Research Institute in 2001 shortly after the colored rains fell (see (http://www.iangoddard.net/redrain.htm)).

It is also known that mutant strains of at least Streptomyces ambofaciens spores can be "without DNA." (http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1046/j.1365-2958.2003.03698.x) And even without that fact I don't see that the induction that's being made follows: All other cells I know of have DNA, but these cells do not; therefore, there is reason to believe these cells may have an extraterrestrial origin. That inference is simply without warrant given that the only known cases of spores with or without DNA are of terrestrial origin. So even if L&K's no-DNA results were accurate, they don't entail some odds of extraterrestrial origin. ~Ian

Possible Causal Mechanism of Kerala's Red Rain (http://users.erols.com/igoddard/redrain.htm)

[beskeptical]

They are talking about some spores in a group of spores missing DNA, not the entire batch.

[Ian Goddard]

"They are talking about some spores in a group of spores missing DNA, not the entire batch."

I'm not sure to what noun the pronoun "they" points in your statement. L&K or the authors of the abstract I cite about spores without DNA. If the latter (which I suspect), the point is to simply falsify the single premise of an argument proffered by Dr Louis (http://icwales.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/0200wales/tm_objectid=16834539&method=full&siteid=50082&headline=alien-particles-found-in--comet-rain--put-under-microscope-at-welsh-university---name_page.html):

"The genetic molecule DNA is present in all living organisms found on Earth. So the absence of DNA indicates that they are extraterrestrial."

So not only is the first premise not necessarily true for all spores, but more importantly it does not follow that finding a unique cell or cell-like structure on earth entails finding evidence of extraterrestrial life. I have big problems with the epistemics underlying such unwarranted leaps. ~Ian

[Ian Goddard]

I just received permission to post the official report (Sampath et al). Sampath et al was completed in November 2001, and was commissioned by the Department of Science & Technology, Government of India, and was conducted at the Center for Earth Science Studies (CESS (http://www.cessind.org/)) and the Tropical Botanic Garden and Research Institute (TBGRI (http://www.tbgri.org/)). So without further ado, here's the abstract (http://www.geocities.com/iamgoddard/SampathAbstract.pdf) and here's the full official report (http://www.geocities.com/iamgoddard/Sampath2001.pdf) (if you have trouble downloading, try from here (http://www.geocities.com/iamgoddard/)).

It was only after an enormous amount of research that I tracked down the report. The only clue to its existence was a brief summary of its findings in this Government of India document (http://www.iugg.org/members/nationalreports/india.pdf) (see pages 31-2). So it seems that this is the first time the full report, or even its abstract, has been available to the public. What is most remarkable here is that a lot of public and academic discourse has occurred on this topic (regarding the alleged possible extraterrestrial origin of the rain-coloring particles) without reference to and apparently without awareness of the official findings regarding those particles. ~Ian

Possible Causal Mechanism of Kerala's Red Rain (http://iangoddard.net/redrain.htm)

[beskeptical]

Thank you Ian, for the time you put into tracking down the report. The only question remaining now is, how was the ET hypothesis accepted for publication in the "peer-reviewed research journal, Astrophysics and Space Science" as the World Science article claims?

As to your comments about my comments, I only meant to say your example was of an organism in which a small percentage of cells form without DNA. Those aberrant cells would not be reproducing cells. The red rain material supposedly having been found without DNA I assume meant no DNA in any of the individual red round things they analyzed. It would be improbable for the researchers of the red rain to have only analyzed one 'cell' or to have just happened to find the few without DNA.

However, in using your example to discredit the "no DNA must be ET" statement, I actually think you need not even have presented an example to challenge that baseless premise. It was absurd on its face.

As it turns out, since the material was found to be spores, it would have had DNA. AFAIK, only prions propagate without either RNA or DNA. So the researchers publishing in Astrophysics and Space Science either did poor research or misrepresented their results. And the editors of the journal were either misled or failed to do their homework.

[Ian Goddard]

Thank you Ian, for the time you put into tracking down the report.

Thanks! I tracked it down in January, but got too busy to assemble a webpage. When I found Sampath et al it toppled a terrestrial causal model I was developing to explain no-DNA cells involving waterspout-to-cloud injection of protocells emitted via oceanic geothermal plumes. (For those who may not know, protocells are cell-like structures without DNA that have been created in lab and that are suspected as possibly being produced near underwater geothermal vents). So I'd tracked down all kinds of data on waterspouts and known geothermal vents in the Arabian Sea (over which monsoon winds pass to Kerala). But alas, the need for such a complex multi-entity hypothesis to explain no-DNA cells collapsed when I found the official study. The ultimate result for me was a much simpler causal hypothesis (http://users.erols.com/igoddard/redrain.htm).


As to your comments about my comments, I only meant to say your example was of an organism in which a small percentage of cells form without DNA. Those aberrant cells would not be reproducing cells.

Understood.


However, in using your example to discredit the "no DNA must be ET" statement, I actually think you need not even have presented an example to challenge that baseless premise. It was absurd on its face.

Right, my response to you was poorly worded and as such seems to imply that refuting the inference from odd cells to ET evidence was contingent on finding an example of no-DNA spores. But to your point, the inference is unwarranted irrespective of any such example. It would only be warranted, in my view, if there had been a known case of ET cells, then based on that case we could infer that some similar cell might be one of those. Otherwise, the inference simply invents a category of things (ET cells) without empirical and thus without scientific basis. ~Ian

Possible Causal Mechanism of Kerala's Red Rain (http://users.erols.com/igoddard/redrain.htm)

[snabald]

This whole "red rain" ordeal has shown me something.

Looking back through this thread, I see quite a few posts claiming that the chemical composition is not even right for it to be biological, yet is was, and terrestrial, no less.

If some folks has such a hard time identifying something of biological origin from our own planet, how can we ever expect to identify something of biological origin from somewhere else?

[01101001]

If some folks has such a hard time identifying something of biological origin from our own planet, how can we ever expect to identify something of biological origin from somewhere else?

Well, you know they took some rain, or some puddle contents, and looked for DNA -- on this the planet of life -- and didn't find any. How likely is that?

Yeah, they did some processing on what was collected. I haven't read the papers, but I suppose they centrifuged it to separate the interesting red solids from the water. But, how did they separate the red stuff from other non-interesting stuff that most certainly did contain DNA? With tweezers? As I understand from reading here, they baked the red solids, perhaps destroying any DNA there.

What were all the steps that were performed on a mixture of water and stuff that must have started out containing DNA to get to the point of analyzing some separated-out stuff that didn't contain DNA? How do you sterilize a sample from planet Earth that way -- while thinking you haven't sorted out DNA or destroyed it?

[beskeptical]

This whole "red rain" ordeal has shown me something.

Looking back through this thread, I see quite a few posts claiming that the chemical composition is not even right for it to be biological, yet is was, and terrestrial, no less.

If some folks has such a hard time identifying something of biological origin from our own planet, how can we ever expect to identify something of biological origin from somewhere else?
Hey, I was wrong. But don't generalize from the hasty conclusion of an infectious disease person that it is hard to identify the organic nature of substances. And, all we had to go on was the report. Scientists examining the actual substance would not have had the same problem.

[snabald]

Hey, I was wrong. But don't generalize from the hasty conclusion of an infectious disease person that it is hard to identify the organic nature of substances. And, all we had to go on was the report. Scientists examining the actual substance would not have had the same problem.

It's not really a matter of who's right or wrong, you drew your conclusion based on the evidence presented. It appears that the process that they used to separate the material from the water is what messed things up and made it look like the samples were non-biological in origin.

What is to keep this from happening with samples we might one day get back from Mars, or some other extraterrestrial location. It just makes me wonder how we will ever find life out there if it does indeed exist when there is so much that can go wrong.

[01101001]

It's What is to keep this from happening with samples we might one day get back from Mars, or some other extraterrestrial location. It just makes me wonder how we will ever find life out there if it does indeed exist when there is so much that can go wrong.

You process it in a way that doesn't destroy signs of life. The first thing I'd do is take pristine unprocessed representative samples, kept in conditions of their origin, and immediately check for signs of life -- metabolism, movement, reproduction, biogenic chemistry.

Like Astrobiology Magazine: Dry Signs of Life (http://www.astrobio.net/news/article1484.html)

"We saw very clear signals from chlorophyll, DNA and protein. And we were able to visually identify biological materials from a standard image captured by the rover. Taken together, these four pieces of evidence are strong indicators of life," said Waggoner. "Now, our findings are being confirmed in the lab. Samples collected in the Atacama were examined, and scientists found that they contained life. The lichens and bacteria in the samples are growing and awaiting analysis."

[beskeptical]

...
What is to keep this from happening with samples we might one day get back from Mars, or some other extraterrestrial location. ....Science. You are drawing a silly conclusion here that a sample cannot be analyzed.

[snabald]

Science. You are drawing a silly conclusion here that a sample cannot be analyzed.

I'm not saying the sample can't be analyzed (nor do I feel I am drawing a silly conclusion) I am just voicing concern that something containing what may be a significant discovery may be one day shelved because of a situation similar to what we saw with this analysis of the "red rain".

I'm sure this is not the type of thing that happens every day or even often, it just concerns me that it can happen, kind of the same way it concerns me when the gas gauge sticks on my car.

[01101001]

I'm not saying the sample can't be analyzed (nor do I feel I am drawing a silly conclusion) I am just voicing concern that something containing what may be a significant discovery may be one day shelved because of a situation similar to what we saw with this analysis of the "red rain".
Yeah. False negatives are possible. So?

I don't think you can eliminate false negatives unless you simply determine in advance that all tests will yield a positive -- but then, of course, you have a bit of a problem with false positives.

[snabald]

I don't think you can eliminate false negatives unless you simply determine in advance that all tests will yield a positive -- but then, of course, you have a bit of a problem with false positives.

That's true,

I was just voicing a concern... that's all.

[beskeptical]

The way the question was worded offered a false premise. However, if it's only a statement that something may be missed, I have no issue.

[Ian Goddard]

Chandra Wickramasinghe, an advocate of the panspermia (http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/biology/b103/f01/web1/baird.html) hypothesis, is investigating the theory that the colored rains that occurred in Kerala, India in 2001 were colored by extraterrestrial (ET) cells discharged from an exploding meteor, or bolide event. The evidence for the bolide exists in reports of "thunder" during a storm from which red rains fell. While a study commissioned by the Government of India concluded in 2001 that the rains were colored by red algae spores (see (http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=711800&postcount=60)), Wickramasinghe's team has to date not mentioned that study at their Cardiff University website (http://www.astrobiology.cf.ac.uk/redrain.html).

British Satellite News (BSN) recently posted an inverview (http://www.bsn.org.uk/view_all.php?id=11615) of Dr Wickramasinghe. Therein he reports that his team has found DNA in the red cells, which refutes the findings of Louis and Kumar (http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0601022), who reported that the cells had no DNA. In the BSN report, this criterion for knowing if the cells are ETs is presented:

"if no known DNA from Earth matches, the only remaining possibility would be that it is an alien life form from outer space."

The problem with that knowledge criterion is that the set of unknown terrestrial DNA is not proven to be empty. New terrestrial microorganisms are periodically discovered. So if no known terrestrial DNA match some DNA he might find, then a reasonable inference would be that it is uncataloged terrestrial DNA.

The logical fallacy in the criterion rests on is the false dilemma (http://skepdic.com/falsedilemma.html). To see this, note that the argument takes the form ~P -> Q, which is to say: If not P, then Q. A logically equivalent statement is P v Q, meaning simply: P or Q. Their equivalence is proven by way of two transformation rules:


1. ~P -> Q assume
2. ~~P v Q conditional exchange, 1
3. P v Q double negation, 2

So the following two statements are equivalent and the second makes the false dilemma clear:

1. If they do not match known terrestrial DNA, then they are extraterrestrial life.

2. Either they match known terrestrial DNA or they are extraterrestrial life.

Then the form of the indicated false-dilemma argument is:


1. P v Q assume
2. ~P assume
3. Q disjunctive syllogism, 1,2

However, while the argument form (disjunctive syllogism) is valid, in the given case assumption 1 should include as a disjunct "they are unknown terrestrial DNA"; which we could express in sentential logic as, P v Q v R , or naturally as:


Either they match known terrestrial DNA or they are extraterrestrial life or they are unknown terrestrial DNA.

and by conditional exchange back into the original form as:

If they do not match known terrestrial DNA, then they are either extraterrestrial life or unknown terrestrial DNA.


Of course that assumes that we're even inclined to include "or they are extraterrestrial life," which I find to be perfectly silly given there was no genuinely identified bolide event and thus not even a correlation between the colored rains and any astronomical event. Moreover, the rains fell on Kerala sporadically from July to September 2001, hardly like the fallout from a bolide event. Anyway, it will be interesting to see what Wickramasinghe concludes about the Keralan rains. ~Ian

Possible Causal Mechanism of Kerala's Red Rain (http://iangoddard.net/redrain.htm)

Edit: oops, the fallacious argument in the BSN report is not directly attributed to Wickramasinghe.

[beskeptical]

They won't find unknown DNA unless they fake the data or pretend to look but aren't thorough. Our genes are so interrelated there is more in the "known" than you might otherwise suspect.

You know of course humans are even related to plants? (http://tolweb.org/Eukaryotes/3) It conjurs up quite an image but it's true.

[Ian Goddard]

They won't find unknown DNA unless they fake the data or pretend to look but aren't thorough. Our genes are so interrelated there is more in the "known" than you might otherwise suspect.

They indicate that genetic sequencing can differentiate the DNA of different species. So I'm assuming that so long as new microorganisms can be discovered, as they are from time to time, there could be DNA in any given terrestrial sample that differs from known species, however slightly.

But even if what they find is mostly similar to known terrestrial DNA but just slightly different, Wickramasinghe may not see that as evidence against extraterrestrial origin. The BSN report (http://www.bsn.org.uk/view_all.php?id=11615) quotes him saying: "Our genetic cousins are everywhere in the universe and all that happened on the Earth is that these bits and pieces of genes got together and made the entire spectrum of life that we see here on our planet." That statement seems to call upon the concept of overall similarity between terrestrial and extraterrestrial DNA such that Wickramasinghe may accept a finding of any slight difference from known species as evidence of extraterrestrial origin.

What I can't figure is how Wickramasinghe could claim as a given that "Our genetic cousins are everywhere in the universe"? He seems to assume as a given a state of affairs wherein extraterrestrial DNA have already been well documented. However, we don't have sufficient data to falsify the claim that we have no genetic cousins elsewhere in the universe. But perhaps the media report lost the context of a stipulated qualification, under the panspermia theory "our genetic cousins are everywhere in the universe." ~Ian

[beskeptical]

They indicate that genetic sequencing can differentiate the DNA of different species. So I'm assuming that so long as new microorganisms can be discovered, as they are from time to time, there could be DNA in any given terrestrial sample that differs from known species, however slightly.

But even if what they find is mostly similar to known terrestrial DNA but just slightly different, Wickramasinghe may not see that as evidence against extraterrestrial origin. The BSN report (http://www.bsn.org.uk/view_all.php?id=11615) quotes him saying: "Our genetic cousins are everywhere in the universe and all that happened on the Earth is that these bits and pieces of genes got together and made the entire spectrum of life that we see here on our planet." That statement seems to call upon the concept of overall similarity between terrestrial and extraterrestrial DNA such that Wickramasinghe may accept a finding of any slight difference from known species as evidence of extraterrestrial origin.

What I can't figure is how Wickramasinghe could claim as a given that "Our genetic cousins are everywhere in the universe"? He seems to assume as a given a state of affairs wherein extraterrestrial DNA have already been well documented. However, we don't have sufficient data to falsify the claim that we have no genetic cousins elsewhere in the universe. But perhaps the media report lost the context of a stipulated qualification, under the panspermia theory "our genetic cousins are everywhere in the universe." ~IanI would say the evidence to date, and there's plenty of it for at least a "most plausible" conclusion, indicates no cousins.

If life were seeded here 3.5 or so billion years ago, then there is 3.5 billion years of evolution separating us genetically. That would be a bit more distant than a cousin.

There is no evidence to date that abiogenesis
occurred more than once, or if it did, the conditions required for such an event were transient and abiogenesis occurred for a time and then no more. Once life was established, the gene pool might have mingled in single celled organisms. That occurs today.

The evidence to date leads all life forms back to a single source with 3 main branches and viruses sort of unclassified. Tree of Life project (http://tolweb.org/Life_on_Earth/1)
Eubacteria: true bacteria, mitochondria and chloroplasts
Eukarotes: protists, plants, fungi, animals, etc.
Archaea: methanogens, halophiles, sulfolobus, and relatives
VirusesThe rooting of the Tree of Life, and the relationships of the major lineages, are controversial. The monophyly of Archaea is uncertain, and recent evidence for ancient lateral transfers of genes indicates that a highly complex model is needed to adequately represent the phylogenetic relationships among the major lineages of Life. We hope to provide a comprehensive discussion of these issues on this page soon. For the time being, please refer to the papers listed in the References section.So when you look at the DNA of lifeforms in the Eukarotes branch, there are large portions of DNA in common even in organisms as diverse as plants and people. If you found even small segments or genes in common, it isn't likely ET. Life seeded on another planet isn't going to have genes in common with life here. Even given the fact certain genetic combinations might be selected. Since genes perform different functions in different organisms depending on interaction with other genes, and there are many genes that perform the same functions in completely different ways, selection pressures are still not going to result in the same gene patterns in two organisms separated by 3.5 billion years of evolution. Keeping the open mind of science perhaps if two organisms which had evolved a considerable amount of DNA before separating were compared there might be some DNA that matched. But that's not what the evidence currently indicates and you couldn't draw that conclusion without corroborating evidence like finding a life form sealed within a meteorite.

[Ian Goddard]

Good points beskeptical ! Another problem occurs to me regarding the panspermia theory advanced by Wickramasinghe et al wherein ET microbes are held to be frequently raining down on the Earth. Those theorists hold that comets are the primary delivery mechanism of ET microorganism (see (http://www.panspermia.org/comets.htm) and section 3 here (http://www.astrobiology.cf.ac.uk/Virus.htm)). However, the comets (and asteroids) that orbit the Sun are believed to have formed from the solar nebula (http://www.lpi.usra.edu/education/timeline/gallery/slide_1.html), a cloud of gas and dust that once surrounded the Sun and from which the planets were formed. Comets are believed to have formed in the outer parts of the nebula, their frozen-gaseous contents being similar to the atmospheres of the outer planets. For that reason, the contents of comets are believed to reflect the early state of the solar system.

However, while the contents of comets represent a very early stage of the solar system, microorganism would most likely arise only after an extensive period of time on a planet close to the Sun versus in a gas cloud far away from the Sun. Moreover, life would most likely arise on a suitable planet that was not continuously bombarded by asteroids, and so well after the initial stages of planetary formation, which would be well after the comets had formed. In short, the origin of comets seems contrary to their being likely carriers of microorganisms. Of course one cannot rule out that some comet came in from a distant planetary system, but then it likely originated in an early pre-life stage there too. It's also possible (for ought we know) that life could originate in gas clouds, but then we've got a highly speculative theory relying on another highly speculative theory such that Occam's razor tends to get in a parsimonious mood. ~Ian

[Grand_Lunar]

I provided a comment on the original article with the one provided in this thread, the one that mentions the probable cause being fungus (http://telegraphindia.com/1030620/asp/nation/story_2086578.asp

He had this to say:


the article you refer to was published in 2003 and proposes what louis has since deflected (and continues to), that the particles are merely dust or fungus swept up from arabian peninsula dust storms.

the article i referred to and posted was published just this month as louis' research and findings have remained hotly debated by the scientific community for nearly 5 years since the initial discovery. my point being, the debate continues.


Does the debate really continue?
Could this fungus rain happen more than once?
Did that Popular Science website simply bring up old news again?

[01101001]

The unreliable Linda Moulton Howe is hot on the trail of red rain. There's the usual leading questions, and misinterpretation of statements, but it's more enjoyable fuel for the fire.

Red Rain Cells of Kerala, India - Still No Definite DNA (http://earthfiles.com/news/news.cfm?ID=1129&category=Science)

There was another red rainfall in July this year over Kerala, almost exactly five years to the day of the first red rain.
Hmm, apparently, those panspermia red-rain comet bombs favor Kerala as a target.

THIS FLUORESCENCE HAS NOT PROVED ANYTHING ABOUT DNA IN THE RED RAIN CELLS?

Not totally, not definitely. To get definite results of DNA, the best way is to break open the cells and get the DNA, PCR the DNA, and then sequence it. That would be a definite answer for DNA."
So, what's the hold-up?

There are some generic similarities to yeast cells, but doesn’t exclude yeast cells coming from outer space – a totally different yeast type cell with totally different DNA. Or maybe no DNA, as we still have to determine.

So, I think there is a continuing puzzle. But between the two alternatives, an Earth-based origin and an origin from space, I would err on the side of an origin from space.
Why on Earth...

In mid-September 2006, Prof. Wickramasinghe will host 30 astrobiologists from around the world at Cardiff University, including Dr. Godfrey Louis, who is flying in from Kerala, India, to present his research on the red rain cells since 2001.
I can't wait. Yes, I can.

[Ian Goddard]

There is a new report of a red rainfall in Kerala (http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/Infotech/ITeS/Red_rain_again_in_Kerala/articleshow/2298667.cms), India just a few days ago. Forum members may recall widespread media reports last year giving credibility to the theory that red rains that fell in Kerala in 2001 were alien microbes falling from a speculated-to-exist bolide event overhead. That dramatic theory is promoted by Louis (http://education.vsnl.com/godfrey/), Kumar and Wickramasinghe (http://www.astrobiology.cf.ac.uk/redrain.html).

Every now and then over the last two summers I've been doing Google News searches for "red rain" and Kerala, predicting that the same terrestrial forces that created the red rains in the summer of 2001 would strike again. So it seems I finally got a hit (above). Moreover, last summer I came upon a report of a fish fall in Kerala (http://www.deccanherald.com/Archives/Jul232006/index2038362006722.asp). Yes, believe it or not, it happens. Waterspouts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterspout) over the sea can draw up small fish into the clouds from which they fall shortly thereafter. I cite numerous credible reports of such in my full report (http://www.megasociety.com/noesis/180.pdf) on the 2001 Keralan red rains. I also explore the idea that those red rains were caused by waterspouts drawing up red-tide algae.

One wonders: how could Louis, Kumar and Wickramasinghe support their alien-microbe explanation in light of another red rain in Kerala years later? Are we to believe that Kerala is somehow a magnet for alien-microbe infested meteors?

[rtomes]

Charles Fort wrote a book called "Book of the Damned" (available free here (http://www.resologist.net/damnei.htm)) about various phenomena of this general type. Two of the most common were red rain and fluffy white stuff like asbestos. He collected hundreds of thousands of reliable reports from around the world. The funny thing was that just after I read the report there was an item in the newspaper of the fluffy white stuff falling in Sydney. The red slush has frequently been referred to as containing organic material, but I think in the sense of carbon based stuff rather than living. Mind you, falls of fish and frogs also happen, so who knows what goes on up there. Although the Fortean Society is a bit crackpot, Fort himself was a brilliant man.