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.

__________________
~~ ><>><> ~~ ><,,> ><,,> ...`;=;p d;=;' /\/\^/\ ^^ ^/\/\_
Democracy Now! - The lost art of investigative news reporting.

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.

__________________
"Our species needs, and deserves, a citizenry with minds wide awake and a basic understanding of how the world works."
Carl Sagan

Oops, spoke too soon.

on closer reading...

There you go.

__________________
"Our species needs, and deserves, a citizenry with minds wide awake and a basic understanding of how the world works."
Carl Sagan

interesting!!

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 and Wiki on proteins to see if there is even anything remotely organic here, DNA or not.

__________________
~~ ><>><> ~~ ><,,> ><,,> ...`;=;p d;=;' /\/\^/\ ^^ ^/\/\_
Democracy Now! - The lost art of investigative news reporting.

They conducted an 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.

__________________
"Our species needs, and deserves, a citizenry with minds wide awake and a basic understanding of how the world works."
Carl Sagan

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

Thats not much of an improvemnt

__________________
"I worry that, especially as the Millennium edges nearer, pseudo-science and superstition will seem year by year more tempting, the siren song of unreason more sonorous and attractive." - Carl Sagan, 1995

I understand that, but the elements suggest inorganic, not organic compounds here.

__________________
~~ ><>><> ~~ ><,,> ><,,> ...`;=;p d;=;' /\/\^/\ ^^ ^/\/\_
Democracy Now! - The lost art of investigative news reporting.

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.

__________________
~~ ><>><> ~~ ><,,> ><,,> ...`;=;p d;=;' /\/\^/\ ^^ ^/\/\_
Democracy Now! - The lost art of investigative news reporting.

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

__________________
My Music, 56k stream available -Check it out!

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.

__________________
~~ ><>><> ~~ ><,,> ><,,> ...`;=;p d;=;' /\/\^/\ ^^ ^/\/\_
Democracy Now! - The lost art of investigative news reporting.

Indeed the elemental suggests pretty much an organic composition:


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.

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


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.

__________________
~~ ><>><> ~~ ><,,> ><,,> ...`;=;p d;=;' /\/\^/\ ^^ ^/\/\_
Democracy Now! - The lost art of investigative news reporting.

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".

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.

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.

I know the difference between living and organic.

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

__________________
~~ ><>><> ~~ ><,,> ><,,> ...`;=;p d;=;' /\/\^/\ ^^ ^/\/\_
Democracy Now! - The lost art of investigative news reporting.

Only three forms of carbon? There are a hundred minerals here with carbon in them. 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.

__________________
~~ ><>><> ~~ ><,,> ><,,> ...`;=;p d;=;' /\/\^/\ ^^ ^/\/\_
Democracy Now! - The lost art of investigative news reporting.

Acetamide 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. 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.

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 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:

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 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 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.

First:
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!


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.

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-

Notes from The Chemistry of Living things (caps are in the text, I assume for emphasis but not relevant here)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.

__________________
~~ ><>><> ~~ ><,,> ><,,> ...`;=;p d;=;' /\/\^/\ ^^ ^/\/\_
Democracy Now! - The lost art of investigative news reporting.

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.


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

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

I am merging this thread with another already running.

__________________
All civilizations become either spacefaring or extinct.~ Carl Sagan ~

Humanity must rise above the Earth, to the top of the atmosphere and beyond, for only then will we fully understand the world in which we live.~Socrates, 500 B.C. ~

Let every man judge according to his own standards, by what he has himself read, not by what others tell him. ~Albert Einstein~

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.

__________________
~~ ><>><> ~~ ><,,> ><,,> ...`;=;p d;=;' /\/\^/\ ^^ ^/\/\_
Democracy Now! - The lost art of investigative news reporting.

The original researchers, Sampath et al, found in 2001 that the coloring agent was terrestrial spores (see an early media report and my report 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

__________________
Goddard's Journal

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

Manoj

"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 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 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, 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).

It is also known that mutant strains of at least Streptomyces ambofaciens spores can be "without DNA." 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

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

__________________
~~ ><>><> ~~ ><,,> ><,,> ...`;=;p d;=;' /\/\^/\ ^^ ^/\/\_
Democracy Now! - The lost art of investigative news reporting.

"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:

"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

__________________
Goddard's Journal

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) and the Tropical Botanic Garden and Research Institute (TBGRI). So without further ado, here's the abstract and here's the full official report (if you have trouble downloading, try from here).

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 (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