2 ms·

Bullshit. Contamination (human error) seems far more likely than extra-terrestrial origins. The best comment from that page: WHAT ARE THE MACROMOLECULAR COMPOS

by eloff 13y ago

Bullshit. Contamination (human error) seems far more likely than extra-terrestrial origins. The best comment from that page: WHAT ARE THE MACROMOLECULAR COMPOSITION & THEIR GENETIC MATERIALS OF THE SUPPOSEDLY EXTRA-TERRESTRIAL MICRO-ORGANISMS? Are the 'ET organism' genetic materials also based a polymer of nucleotides (like those on earth), whereby each nucleotide composed of one of the 4 nucleobase (with base adenine, thymine, guanine or cytosine), a 5-carbon sugar (either ribose or 2-deoxyribose) & one or more phosphate groups. DNA profiles are made up of various combinations of the 4 forms (polymers) of nucleotides. For earth organisms (i.e. viruses, microorganisms, plants, animals), each codon (comprises of 3 nucleobase) code one of the specific 20 amino-acids (AA) of living organisms. A chain of codon in DNA would therefore specify UNIQUE AA chain – i.e. PROTEIN (like protein like enzymes, hormone, co-factors, etc), hence its unique form & function. Although if Earth life originated from the same extra-terrestrial source, this wouldn't be able to rule out that scenario.

vixen99 13y ago
Is the opposite of a 'far more' likely possibility, 'bullshit'? A bit harsh unless you can offer a critique of their methods.
- eloff 13y ago
  No, but I can still call bullshit like a poker player against someone claiming to have a royal flush. He might really have it, but I know the odds are heavily in my favor. This claim is made too strongly and too soon (maybe that's the fault of the media and not the scientists involved.) It is very hard to prevent contamination, something which has confounded the best and brightest at NASA time and again. I also know that when people say it's impossible for particles of that size to get up to that altitude, they are making a lot of assumptions about a very complex system. It's very likely that the correct explanation is human error, either in decontamination or in flawed assumptions.

by eloff 13y ago

vixen99 13y ago

Is the opposite of a 'far more' likely possibility, 'bullshit'? A bit harsh unless you can offer a critique of their methods.

eloff 13y ago
No, but I can still call bullshit like a poker player against someone claiming to have a royal flush. He might really have it, but I know the odds are heavily in my favor. This claim is made too strongly and too soon (maybe that's the fault of the media and not the scientists involved.) It is very hard to prevent contamination, something which has confounded the best and brightest at NASA time and again. I also know that when people say it's impossible for particles of that size to get up to that altitude, they are making a lot of assumptions about a very complex system. It's very likely that the correct explanation is human error, either in decontamination or in flawed assumptions.