[meteorite-list] NASA Finds New Life Form

[Chris Peterson]

There is a big difference between "junk science" and science which is 
incomplete, or published too early, or even of generally marginal quality. 
In the case of this recent work, the hypothesis is sound and the techniques 
used are reasonable. Certainly, there is reason to suspect that more work 
should have been done before publishing (although that is far from certain 
at this point).

I don't know how this will all shake out in the long run. I'm sure that 
others will be pursuing similar work, and applying additional tests. In any 
case, having read the paper, I don't think this work can fairly be called 
"junk science". At worst, it is incomplete.

Chris

*****************************************
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "JoshuaTreeMuseum" <joshuatreemuseum at embarqmail.com>
To: <meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com>
Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 2010 1:00 AM
Subject: [meteorite-list] NASA Finds New Life Form


> What's up with the NASA junk science? First it's psuedo-fossils in 
> meteorites, now a phony not-new life form. What's next,  cold fusion?