Reflectorites
The following are some recent items I found of interest, and which may
be of interest to others. Some of the web sites may require a free regis=
tration
to access them. As before, I don't necessarily agree with all or any of =
the
points posted.
1) Another local newspaper article on the Huber/Wachtershauser
hydrothermal vent origin of life theory: Features interesting fervent
`creationist-bashing' from WA Museum biologist Ken McNamara.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
For starters, life was hell
By Carmelo Amalfi
IN THE beginning, life on the early Earth was hell.
The atmosphere was almost devoid of oxygen. Meteorites bombarded
the surface of the planet and volcanoes spewed dust across the globe.
On the active ocean floor, it was no picnic, either.
Away from the turbulent terrestrial events, early life forms huddled
around volcanic vents forming on the shifting tectonic plates of the
ocean floor about four billion years
Ancient microbes bubbled in high temperatures, withstanding great
pressures and total darkness saturated with poisonous metals spewing
from the vents called black smokers.
Such thriving microbial communities may have floated to the surface
to colonise the Earth, or the building blocks d hi may have come from
meteorites.
Until recently, most scientists believed that life emerged in the cosy
warm-pond scenario envisaged by biologists such as Charles Darwin.
But the discovery of unique life forms along the world's mid-ocean
ridges suggests life that amino acids can be activated under
geochemically relevant conditions," according to a paper published in
the United States journal Science by Claudia Huber and Gunter
Waechtershaeuser.
WA Museum evolutionary biologist Ken McNamara said if life could
be created artificially, it could emerge naturally given the right
conditions.
"If true, the experiment lends support to what people have been
saying for years that life can and will emerge with the appropriate
conditions," he said. "Those who don't believe in evolution have been
arguing vehemently that such a thing cannot happen.
"Their bottom line is you cannot create life so the rest of it doesn't
work-but sorry guys now you can. This pulls the rug from under their
feet."
WA Museum meteorite expert Alex Bevan agreed: "If the German
chemists are right, life could emerge anywhere where conditions are
right, anywhere in the universe."
In the infernal ocean floor nursery, also known as hydrothermal vent
fields, hundreds of new species have been found since the 1977
discovery of the first Pacific Ocean black smokers off Mexico.
(Amalfi C., "For starters, life was hell," The West Australian,
Wednesday August 12, 1998, p3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
2) Oldest hydrothermal "smokers" (featuring in Huber/Wachtershauser's
lastest origin of life theory), are only 11,000 to 37,000 years old and =
are
active for only 2,000 years at a time!
---------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.nature.com/Nature2/serve?SID=3D95901910&CAT=3DTOC&PG=3D
19980813/summaries.html
"Evolution of an active sea-floor massive sulphide deposit Hydrothermal =
circulation at oceanic spreading ridges causes sea water to penetrate to=
depths of 2 to 3km in the oceanic crust where it is heated to ~400 degr=
ees
C before venting at spectacular 'black smokers'. These hydrothermal
systems exert a strong influence on ocean chemistry, yet their structure=
,
longevity and magnitude remain largely unresolved. The active
Transatlantic Geotraverse (TAG) deposit, at 26 degrees N on the Mid-
Atlantic Ridge, is one of the largest, oldest and most intensively studi=
ed of
the massive sulphide mounds that accumulate beneath black-smoker fields.=
Here the authors report ages of sulphides and anhydrites from the recent=
ly
drilled TAG substrate structures - determined from 234U - 230Th
systematics analysed by thermal ionization mass spectrometry. The new
precise ages combined with existing data show that the oldest material
(11,000 to 37,000 years old) forms a layer across the centre of the depo=
sit
with younger material (2,300-7,800 years old) both above and below. This=
stratigraphy confirms that much of the sulphide and anhydrite are
precipitated within the mound by mixing of entrained sea water with
hydrothermal fluid. The age distribution is consistent with episodic act=
ivity
of the hydrothermal system recurring at intervals of up to 2,000 years. =
C-F
You & M J Bickle Evolution of an active sea-floor massive sulphide
deposit (Letter to Nature) Nature 394, 668 (1998)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
3) More on NASA's Mars rock fiasco:
---------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.newscientist.com/ns/980808/nfocus.html
"Money for old rock
By Charles Seife, Washington DC like most of us, William Schopf was
flabbergasted when he heard in August 1996 that NASA scientists claimed =
to have found evidence for ancient life on Mars in an obscure meteorite.=
But it was not merely the magnitude of the claim that amazed Schopf, a
palaeo-biologist at the University of California at Los Angeles. When he=
was let in on the secret several weeks before the news broke, it was a c=
ase
of d=82j=85 vu. More than a year earlier, a NASA team led by David McKay=
of
the Johnson Space Center in Houston had flown Schopf over to look at
some strange orange and black blobs in a chunk of rock chipped from the =
surface of Mars.
"They thought that these might be shells of Martian protozoa," Schopf
recalls. "But the size range was wrong, and some discs merged together. =
You never find that on true fossils." Eventually, he convinced McKay tha=
t
the blobs were not ancient microorganisms.
So when he received a draft paper from McKay's team, due to be published=
in Science, Schopf was surprised to see that the blobs had turned up aga=
in.
"But instead of being fossil protozoan shells, they were bacterially
precipitated minerals," he says. "It always sort of troubled me. They re=
ally
had decided, one way or the other, that there was life."
Schopf remains troubled, and he is not alone. Scientists now working on =
meteorites, prospective missions to Mars and the possibility of
extraterrestrial life are funded at levels that two years ago would have=
been
unimaginable. Had NASA's publicity machine not turned McKay's paper
into a global media event, this largesse would never have been granted. =
Some researchers see it as a victory of hype over science. They see a ta=
le of
a government agency that took inconclusive evidence and used the media
to help it win public funds. And some feel uncomfortable about the
Faustian bargain they have made by accepting their share of the proceeds=
.
The source of all the fuss is a lump of rock called ALH84001 that was
found in Antarctica. McKay and his team looked at carbonate deposits in =
its fissures. Employing the chemical expertise of Richard Zare of Stanfo=
rd
University--who was initially unaware that the rock was from Mars-
McKay's team concluded that it contained organic chemicals and magnetite=
crystals that were consistent with their formation by bacteria. The
researchers even thought they saw tiny "nanofossils". Science eventually=
agreed to publish their paper in its 16 August 1996 issue (vol 273, p 92=
4).
McKay's work then fired the enthusiasm of Dan Goldin, the head of
NASA. "Goldin had been a huge proponent of the search for life elsewhere=
in the Universe," says Ralph Harvey, a geologist at Case Western Reserve=
University in Cleveland, Ohio. When Goldin was briefed about the
research, he was delighted. "He gave me a big bear hug," says McKay.
But turning science into headlines that might boost funding for Goldin's=
pet
projects was never going to be easy. The first obstacle came from the
American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), which
publishes Science. Documents obtained by New Scientist show that NASA
wanted to bring forward the publication date by a week, to 9 August 1996=
,
to enhance media coverage. "You mentioned that the Republican National
Convention will be occurring during the week of August 12 and could have=
an impact on coverage of the Mars story," reads a letter from the AAAS
press office to its NASA counterpart, dated 31 July. But Science stuck t=
o
its schedule.
In the end, NASA got what it wanted by another route. Leonard David, a
correspondent for Space News who had been picking up rumours about
ALH84001, received a telephone call from an unnamed source who
dropped vague hints. David revealed what he knew about the meteorite in =
the 5 August edition of Space News. Within hours of the story appearing,=
other news organisations had picked up on it. The next day McKay's team,=
together with Schopf--included as a sceptic--were asked by NASA to fly t=
o
Washington DC for a press conference.
In their Science paper, McKay and his colleagues were careful not to cla=
im
to have found definitive evidence of Martian life. They were equally
cautious at a trial run of the press conference, held on 7 August. But o=
thers
present say NASA officials wanted the scientists to be more enthusiastic=
.
McKay insists that he was merely told to "speak up, speak clearly, and p=
ut
projection into it". But Schopf recalls Laurie Boeder, then a NASA
spokesman, asking for the tone to be much more positive. Boeder denies
trying to influence the scientists' tone. "I recall what I did say was i=
f you
feel enthusiastic about something, you should communicate it." Zare,
however, says that Goldin himself tried to strengthen McKay's language. =
According to one source, the NASA chief told McKay not to "wimp out"-a
phrase New Scientist asked Zare to confirm: "I'm not denying [that], but=
I'm not confirming it either." NASA officials deny the allegation.
When the press conference got under way later that day, the researchers =
did not wimp out. "The evidence is pointing toward biologic activity in =
early Mars," McKay declared. While Schopf was included as a sceptic, he =
believes his views were never likely to get across. For instance, he had=
not
been shown two of the photographs produced at the conference. "They
sandbagged me," he says. He also resents the fact that there was no scal=
e
on the photographs. This would have told reporters that the "bacteria"
were much smaller than any known living organism, indicating that some o=
f
the evidence for life was not clear-cut.
Reporters might have explored this issue--given enough time. If the AAAS=
had been allowed to follow its normal procedure, reporters would have
received a copy of the paper one week before the agreed date at which
media coverage could start. But in the rush to meet their deadlines afte=
r
NASA's press conference, reporters had little time to study the evidence=
.
Even as he spoke to the assembled media, Zare was worried about his
results being hyped. "I was against the press conference," he says. Boed=
er
says that NASA did not try to hide anything. "Whether there was a politi=
cal
or strategic importance was beside the point. We were concerned with the=
presentation of the paper in a credible, responsible way."
Since then, a succession of analyses has undermined the case for life in=
ALH84001. The scientific consensus now is that the meteorite provides no=
convincing evidence for life on Mars. But the possibility of extraterres=
trial
life still lingers in the public consciousness, and cash has flowed into=
NASA's astrobiology programme--its annual budget is set to grow from $9 =
million this year to between $15 and $20 million next year, and possibly=
as
high as $100 million after that. According to Wes Huntress, NASA's
associate administrator for space science: "I've never done the accounti=
ng,
but if you integrate over ten years, it increased funding probably by 50=
per
cent." Harvey says: "Whether or not it turns out to be bunk, it's done i=
ts
job."
Ironically, many of the most vocal critics of the life on Mars hypothesi=
s
have benefited from the funding. That leaves them torn between their
natural inclination to support any action that boosts their area of rese=
arch,
and their distaste at the way NASA achieved this end. "It's a smoulderin=
g,
angry spot in scientists' minds," says John Bradley, a meteorite expert =
at
the Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta.
Bradley has been left wondering whether scientific integrity is an inevi=
table
casualty of the need to attract funding for space research. "How do we
convince the public that it's important? I don't have the answer."
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen E (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ sejones@ibm.net
3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ senojes@hotmail.com
Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ Phone +61 8 9448 7439
Perth, West Australia v "Test everything." (1Thess 5:21)
--------------------------------------------------------------------
--_=_=_=IMA.BOUNDARY.HTML_4820800=_=_=_
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Reflectorites
The following are some recent items I found of interest, and which may <=BR>be of interest to others. Some of the web sites may require a free regis=tration
to access them. As before, I don't necessarily agree with all or any of =the
points posted.
1) Another local newspaper article on the Huber/Wachtershauser
hydrothermal vent origin of life theory: Features interesting fervent
---------------------------------------------------------------------
By Carmelo Amalfi
IN THE beginning, life on the early Earth was hell.
The atmosphere was almost devoid of oxygen. Meteorites bombarded
the surface of the planet and volcanoes spewed dust across the globe.
On the active ocean floor, it was no picnic, either.
Away from the turbulent terrestrial events, early life forms huddled
Ancient microbes bubbled in high temperatures, withstanding great
pressures and total darkness saturated with poisonous metals spewing
Such thriving microbial communities may have floated to the surface
=to colonise the Earth, or the building blocks d hi may have come from
Until recently, most scientists believed that life emerged in the cosy <=BR>warm-pond scenario envisaged by biologists such as Charles Darwin.
But the discovery of unique life forms along the world's mid-ocean
ridges suggests life that amino acids can be activated under
geochemically relevant conditions," according to a paper published in
Waechtershaeuser.
WA Museum evolutionary biologist Ken McNamara said if life could
be created artificially, it could emerge naturally given the right
conditions.
"If true, the experiment lends support to what people have been
saying for years that life can and will emerge with the appropriate
=conditions," he said. "Those who don't believe in evolution have been
"Their bottom line is you cannot create life so the rest of it doesn't <=BR>work-but sorry guys now you can. This pulls the rug from under their
WA Museum meteorite expert Alex Bevan agreed: "If the German
chemists are right, life could emerge anywhere where conditions are
=right, anywhere in the universe."
In the infernal ocean floor nursery, also known as hydrothermal vent
discovery of the first Pacific Ocean black smokers off Mexico.
(Amalfi C., "For starters, life was hell," The West Australian,
Wednesday August 12, 1998, p3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
2) Oldest hydrothermal "smokers" (featuring in Huber/Wachtershauser's
active for only 2,000 years at a time!
---------------------------------------------------------------------
19980813/summaries.html
"Evolution of an active sea-floor massive sulphide deposit Hydrothermal =
circulation at oceanic spreading ridges causes sea water to penetrate to=
depths of 2 to 3km in the oceanic crust where it is heated to ~400 degr=ees
C before venting at spectacular 'black smokers'. These hydrothermal
=systems exert a strong influence on ocean chemistry, yet their structure=,
longevity and magnitude remain largely unresolved. The active
Transatlantic Geotraverse (TAG) deposit, at 26 degrees N on the Mid-
=Atlantic Ridge, is one of the largest, oldest and most intensively studi=ed of
the massive sulphide mounds that accumulate beneath black-smoker fields.=
Here the authors report ages of sulphides and anhydrites from the recent=ly
drilled TAG substrate structures - determined from 234U - 230Th
systematics analysed by thermal ionization mass spectrometry. The new
with younger material (2,300-7,800 years old) both above and below. This=
stratigraphy confirms that much of the sulphide and anhydrite are
precipitated within the mound by mixing of entrained sea water with
=hydrothermal fluid. The age distribution is consistent with episodic act=ivity
of the hydrothermal system recurring at intervals of up to 2,000 years. =C-F
You & M J Bickle Evolution of an active sea-floor massive sulphide
deposit (Letter to Nature) Nature 394, 668 (1998)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
3) More on NASA's Mars rock fiasco:
---------------------------------------------------------------------
"Money for old rock
By Charles Seife, Washington DC like most of us, William Schopf was
=flabbergasted when he heard in August 1996 that NASA scientists claimed =
to have found evidence for ancient life on Mars in an obscure meteorite.=
But it was not merely the magnitude of the claim that amazed Schopf, a <=BR>palaeo-biologist at the University of California at Los Angeles. When he=
was let in on the secret several weeks before the news broke, it was a c=ase
of d=E9j=E0vu. More than a year earlier, a NASA team led by David McKay =of
the Johnson Space Center in Houston had flown Schopf over to look at
surface of Mars.
"They thought that these might be shells of Martian protozoa," Schopf
You never find that on true fossils." Eventually, he convinced McKay tha=t
the blobs were not ancient microorganisms.
So when he received a draft paper from McKay's team, due to be published=
in Science, Schopf was surprised to see that the blobs had turned up aga=in.
"But instead of being fossil protozoan shells, they were bacterially
had decided, one way or the other, that there was life."
Schopf remains troubled, and he is not alone. Scientists now working on =
meteorites, prospective missions to Mars and the possibility of
extraterrestrial life are funded at levels that two years ago would have= been
unimaginable. Had NASA's publicity machine not turned McKay's paper
=into a global media event, this largesse would never have been granted. =
Some researchers see it as a victory of hype over science. They see a ta=le of
a government agency that took inconclusive evidence and used the media <=BR>to help it win public funds. And some feel uncomfortable about the
Faustian bargain they have made by accepting their share of the proceeds=.
The source of all the fuss is a lump of rock called ALH84001 that was
its fissures. Employing the chemical expertise of Richard Zare of Stanfo=rd
University--who was initially unaware that the rock was from Mars-
McKay's team concluded that it contained organic chemicals and magnetite=
crystals that were consistent with their formation by bacteria. The
=researchers even thought they saw tiny "nanofossils". Science eventually=
agreed to publish their paper in its 16 August 1996 issue (vol 273, p 92=4).
McKay's work then fired the enthusiasm of Dan Goldin, the head of
NASA. "Goldin had been a huge proponent of the search for life elsewhere=
in the Universe," says Ralph Harvey, a geologist at Case Western Reserve=
University in Cleveland, Ohio. When Goldin was briefed about the
research, he was delighted. "He gave me a big bear hug," says McKay.
=
But turning science into headlines that might boost funding for Goldin's= pet
projects was never going to be easy. The first obstacle came from the
publishes Science. Documents obtained by New Scientist show that NASA
to enhance media coverage. "You mentioned that the Republican National <=BR>Convention will be occurring during the week of August 12 and could have=
an impact on coverage of the Mars story," reads a letter from the AAAS <=BR>press office to its NASA counterpart, dated 31 July. But Science stuck t=o
its schedule.
In the end, NASA got what it wanted by another route. Leonard David, a <=BR>correspondent for Space News who had been picking up rumours about
ALH84001, received a telephone call from an unnamed source who
dropped vague hints. David revealed what he knew about the meteorite in =
the 5 August edition of Space News. Within hours of the story appearing,=
other news organisations had picked up on it. The next day McKay's team,=
together with Schopf--included as a sceptic--were asked by NASA to fly t=o
Washington DC for a press conference.
In their Science paper, McKay and his colleagues were careful not to cla=im
to have found definitive evidence of Martian life. They were equally
present say NASA officials wanted the scientists to be more enthusiastic=.
McKay insists that he was merely told to "speak up, speak clearly, and p=ut
projection into it". But Schopf recalls Laurie Boeder, then a NASA
spokesman, asking for the tone to be much more positive. Boeder denies <=BR>trying to influence the scientists' tone. "I recall what I did say was i=f you
feel enthusiastic about something, you should communicate it." Zare,
According to one source, the NASA chief told McKay not to "wimp out"-a <=BR>phrase New Scientist asked Zare to confirm: "I'm not denying [that], but=
I'm not confirming it either." NASA officials deny the allegation.
When the press conference got under way later that day, the researchers =
did not wimp out. "The evidence is pointing toward biologic activity in =
early Mars," McKay declared. While Schopf was included as a sceptic, he =
believes his views were never likely to get across. For instance, he had= not
been shown two of the photographs produced at the conference. "They
=sandbagged me," he says. He also resents the fact that there was no scal=e
on the photographs. This would have told reporters that the "bacteria" <=BR>were much smaller than any known living organism, indicating that some o=f
the evidence for life was not clear-cut.
Reporters might have explored this issue--given enough time. If the AAAS=
had been allowed to follow its normal procedure, reporters would have
NASA's press conference, reporters had little time to study the evidence=.
Even as he spoke to the assembled media, Zare was worried about his
=results being hyped. "I was against the press conference," he says. Boed=er
says that NASA did not try to hide anything. "Whether there was a politi=cal
or strategic importance was beside the point. We were concerned with the=
presentation of the paper in a credible, responsible way."
Since then, a succession of analyses has undermined the case for life in=
ALH84001. The scientific consensus now is that the meteorite provides no=
convincing evidence for life on Mars. But the possibility of extraterres=trial
life still lingers in the public consciousness, and cash has flowed into=
NASA's astrobiology programme--its annual budget is set to grow from $9 =
million this year to between $15 and $20 million next year, and possibly= as
high as $100 million after that. According to Wes Huntress, NASA's
associate administrator for space science: "I've never done the accounti=ng,
but if you integrate over ten years, it increased funding probably by 50= per
cent." Harvey says: "Whether or not it turns out to be bunk, it's done i=ts
job."
Ironically, many of the most vocal critics of the life on Mars hypothesi=s
have benefited from the funding. That leaves them torn between their
and their distaste at the way NASA achieved this end. "It's a smoulderin=g,
angry spot in scientists' minds," says John Bradley, a meteorite expert =at
the Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta.
Bradley has been left wondering whether scientific integrity is an inevi=table
casualty of the need to attract funding for space research. "How do we <=BR>convince the public that it's important? I don't have the answer."
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------
=Stephen E (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ sejo=nes@ibm.net
3 Hawker Avenue =; / Oz \ senojes@hotmail.com
Warwick 6024 &=nbsp;->*_,--\_/ Phone +61 8 9448 7439
Perth, West Australia =; v "Test everything." (1Thess 5:21=)
----------------------------------------------------------------------_=_=_=IMA.BOUNDARY.HTML_4820800=_=_=_--