OK, you may say that some scientists will rubbish the evidence, because they don't want to believe it and will therefore slur the journal/scientists making the claim, but the jury is still very much out on this one....Update: While the Journal of Cosmology says that “no other paper in the history of science has undergone such a thorough vetting,” some highly respected names in the scientific community are challenging the validity of Cosmology, and the findings of Dr. Hoover.
“[The Journal of Cosmology] isn’t a real science journal at all,” says PZ Meyers in Science Blogs, “but is the ginned-up website of a small group of crank academics obsessed with the idea of Hoyle and Wickramasinghe that life originated in outer space and simply rained down on Earth.”
So there you have it — this is either reality-altering news, or the work of kooks. Our hearts believe, but our brains are kind of bummed.
http://journalofcosmology.com/Life100.htmlWe went through this in the recent past with a meteorite from Mars. Electron microscope scans are difficult to hold up a definitive proof, because anything we would recognize as life would have to resemble forms of life here on earth. The naysayers would dispute a claim of proof, saying that, since it resembles a known form of life here, it must actually have been contaminated once it reached this planet.
The only conclusive way to prove the existence of life elsewhere is to find it somewhere else, like in the oceans on Europa.
The Bacteriological Code rules of nomenclature requires that prokaryotic microorganisms must be isolated and grown in pure culture and the designated type stain must be deposited in two international culture collections in two different countries before the genus and species names can be validated (Tindall et al., 2006). The absence of detectable nitrogen content the Ivuna filaments provides evidence that these embedded filaments are indigenous and cannot be dismissed as a modern biological contaminant.