[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Response to ALH84001 nanofossil skeptics

Steve Arnold asked: "Which scientists think the 'fossils' are NOT fossils?"

You may want to use your favorite search engine to look for the following scientists (who have challenged the finding of the NASA/Stanford team's finding of nanofossils in ALH84001):

William Schopf (UCLA), an evolutionary biologist, who discovered some of the oldest and smallest fossils on Earth (who appeared at the NASA news conference to refute McKay's findings).

Jeffrey Bada (Scripps Oceanographic Institute), who studies pollution from Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocardbons, and believes the organic material in ALH84001 (PAHs) is Earthly contamination.

John P. Bradley (MVA, Inc.), who believe the fossils are magnetic rods that form naturally under high temperature.

Edward Scott (Hawaii Institute of Geophysics and Planetology) who does not believe the worm-like shapes are nanofossils.

Harry "Hap" McSween (U. of Tenn.) and Ralph Harvey (Case/West.Reserve & ANSMET) who argue for a high-temperature origin for ALH84001 precluding fossil-forming life.

Steve Arnold also asked: "Where can they [skeptical scientists] be found on the internet?"

Lot's of great sites by the skeptics of ALH84001 nanofossils:

New Studies of Martian Meteorites Launched
http://www.xs4all.nl/~carlkop/marsdeb.html 

Origin of Minerals Key to Theory of Life on Mars: UT Researcher [U of Tenn. news release re McSween's findings]
http://loki.ur.utk.edu/news/aug96/marslife.htm


Martian meteorite misclassified, according to Harvey [Case Western Reserve news release]
http://www.cwru.edu/orgs/observer/092096/news4.html


Carbonates in ALH84001: An Alternative View [Harvey & McSween's entire paper]
http://www.cwru.edu/artsci/geol/ANSMET/pages/alh84001.html

Did Martians Land in Antarctica?
http://www.earthsky.com/specials/mars_meteorite2.html 

New UCLA Research Casts Doubt on Ancient Life on Mars
http://www.xs4all.nl/~carlkop/lifemars.html

Steve Arnold also asked: "Who out there has an unbiased opinion about the matter [ALH84001 nanofossils]?

I can heartily recommend Allen Treiman's summaries of the "pro" and "con" scientific papers examining the evidence.  While Treiman works for NASA's Lunar and Planetary Institute, he was extremely objective in summarizing the current scientific literature.  I've read each of the abstracted papers and can vouch for his efforts at being objective.  This site is an opportunity for everyone in this discussion group to read summaries of all of the current evidence and to judge for themselves.

"Recent Scientific Papers on ALH84001 Explained, with Insightful and Totally Objective Commentaries [by Allan Treiman]"
http://cass.jsc.nasa.gov/lpi/meteorites/alhnpap.html

My personal conclusion:
There is a lot of good science being conducted by honest scientists on both sides of this debate.  Neither side has yet clearly "won a victory" or even a mere consensus among a majority of scientists who study these things but are not directly involved in analyzing ALH84001 itself.  A lot of multi-disciplinary science (geology, astronomy, and microbiology) is involved here which means it will take some time to get definitive answers as various disciplines debate within their own ranks.  There is also very little funding (few federal dollars and almost no foundation grants) for this type of research at most universities and that always slows progress.  However, I believe we now have the technology to discern the ultimate answers and that in another few years (2-10) we will know for sure whether the NASA/Stanford team was right or wrong.  If right, it will go down in history as one of the greatest scientific discoveries in the history of the world (or should I say, the solar system?).  If wrong, it joins the ranks of cold fusion, the flat-Earth, Piltdown man and the Earth-centered solar system because it did not ultimately bear up under scrutiny.  Even if wrong, the ensuing debate has already advanced research into extraterrestrial life-forms and fossil research at the nano-scale (1/billioneth of a meter). In my view, the current research and debate is science at its best.