Talk:Allan Hills 84001

message: Is the comment about the word "Exogenesis" really necessary? It just redirects to the Panspermia article. Count Zero 08:48, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Exogenesis 

message: The article states that "most experts agree", and somewhat later cites a reference from the Associated Press that the finding has been discredited.  References should be from either scientific sources or from published surveys so that we do not have to simply trust that "most experts agree"... (I know a number of experts who do Not agree).
Moreover, nanobacteria have not been discredited; to the contrary, the evidence is growing that they do indeed exist. See for example the Wikipedia article on Nanobacterium, particularly the findings in 2005-2006 Nanobacterium.   
Bonnie108 17:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, you know a number of "experts" who do not agree? I'm impressed.65.7.5.159 (talk) 04:40, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opinion or Fact? 

message: :ALH84001 → :ALH 84001 — The official abbreviation for this meteorite is ALH 84001 and it is equally common. — Basilicofresco (talk) 19:46, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest to move it... is there any comment? Basilicofresco (talk) 13:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

text: why use an abbreviation.  The real name is Allan Hills 84001--JeffG (talk) 22:15, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, because it is more common the abbreviated form than the full name. However I have no objection for the use of the full official name. In my opinion the point is to use an official denomination. Basilicofresco (talk) 05:11, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

text: I strongly recommend using the full, formal name on the article, and making sure that the abbreviation, with and without the space, redirects there.  The policy for using abbreviations in titles says it must be "almost exclusively known only by its acronym and is widely known and used in that form."  This name fails the exclusive test and is not an acronym.  --JeffG (talk) 17:55, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

text: I absolutely believe that the title should go back to ALH 84001. It's absolutely more well known: Google has 24,200 hits for ALH 84001, but only 7,070 for Allan Hills 84001, and I've only ever seen it as ALH 84001 in publications before. Kuralyov (talk) 06:28, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Nobody would argue that it isn't better known by its abbreviation.  However, you are not correct about its use in publications: there are many that use the formal name.  This is simply not a case where it is "almost exclusively" known by the abbreviation.  You prove this with the google statistics, which show a quarter of the hits using the formal name (about the same ratio as in publications).  Contrast this with something like "NASA" or "BBC", where at most a few percent of google hits use the formal name. Finally, the Guidelines for Meteorite Nomenclature, published by the Meteoritical Society, say that correct usage is to write the full names of meteorites in titles .  We should try to do it correctly here too. JeffG (talk) 14:37, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name 

message: "Around 1 in 10 million meteorites from Mars arrives in less than a year, and around 10 rocks that weigh more than 100 grams make the journey in 2-3 years." Can someone please rewrite this sentence so that it makes sense? --Golbez (talk) 02:50, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legibility 

message: This section seems muddled to me:
:Several tests for organic material have been performed on the meteorite and amino acids and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) have been found. The debate if the organic molecules were created by nonbiological processes or are due to contamination from the contact with Antarctic ice is still ongoing.
What about the debate that they were created by biological processes on Mars? That seems to be the main point of interest, and it's not even mentioned.
:As of 2006, some experts still argue that the microfossils are not indicative of life, but instead are caused by contamination by earthly biofilms.
"Some experts still" sounds like a dwindling minority view. So, the majority view is that the microfossils are indicative of life, and, by implication, life on Mars? Is that really true? If so, it needs to be clearly stated. If not then the wording needs adjusting to avoid the implication.
:Nevertheless, evidence continues to grow that nanobacteria do exist, in spite of initial skepticism[10] (based on the idea that the particles were too small to contain RNA).
Does this mean nanobacteria on Mars, or on Earth?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.26.202 (talk) 01:58, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusing text 

message: There is a new news release today on new data obtained from this meteorite. Here it is for those interested in incorporating its info into this article: .  The document is part of the November issue of the journal Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, the journal of the Geochemical and Meteoritic Society. 
Its authors are Kathie Thomas-Keprta, Simon Clement, David McKay, Everett Gibson and Susan Wentworth. -65.207.116.226 (talk) 18:00, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "new secrets of possible life" 

message: The age estimate of this rock has been revised down to 4.091 billion years, based upon lutetium-hafnium isotope analysis.—RJH (talk) 19:58, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Age estimate 

message: From the article:
Furthermore, microbiologists have successfully cultured nanobacteria in the lab, with sizes within the range of at least some of the purported microfossils in ALH 84001.http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/eisromanek.html
The link (http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/eisromanek.html) does not work for me. The nanobacterium article calls into doubt the idea that nanobacteria are living organisms. --JWSchmidt (talk) 23:54, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nanobacteria 

message: 6 paragraphs down in the "Possible biogenic features section" says "Other initial skepticism towards the biogenic hypothesis focused on the idea that the nanometer-sized filaments were too small to contain RNA, but evidence continues to grow that nanobacteria do exist in nature.[14]" However, the actual reference concludes the exact opposite of that, stating that samples thought to be of nanbacterial origin are in fact derived from host cells, and "all fail to provide reasonable support for the existence of small microorganisms referred to as nanobacteria."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.227.89.35 (talk) 17:53, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  False Reference 

message: I assume the cube with 'N1' written on it next to the meteorite is there for scale - but what scale is it? Is it 1cm3? Could it be clarified in the caption please? 86.138.46.156 (talk) 10:06, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photograph scale 

message: Why no mention of the magnetite grains?  As I recall, these were central to the debate over whether there was evidence of life in the meteorite.  --Amble (talk) 22:01, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: You could write it into the article. The source sounds reliable, and if you have the book on hand, you'd be eminently suited to adding it yourself. Banedon (talk) 09:06, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: A a good point to mention, since McKay was involved, but keep unbiased. The experiments, observations and models (reported here) ruled out contamination; the magnetite was incorporated during rock formation from an outside source and it excludes inorganic synthesis by heat alone; but it does not "prove" biogenic origin.  Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 17:59, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Magnetite grains 

message: Are you sure? 88.106.39.215 (talk) 10:25, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Carbon 14 used to date 

message: Whoever owns this page Talk:BatteryIncluded please may I offer this additional information: 
In Jan 2012, the results of a study by the Primordia Institute of New Sciences and Medicine and by grants
from Chang Gung University (FMRPD2T02) and Ming Chi University of Technology (0XB0)were published. For those who were hoping that this analysis would confirm evidence for fossilized remains of living microorganisms, the results were disappointing. The researchers offer alternate, equally possible, explanations of what was observed, using nonliving chemical processes. They argue that minerals can display biomimetic properties and even can produce structures that resemble terrestrial bacteria as well as more complex forms that resemble platelets and films by amorphous-to-crystalline transformations and by binding to substrates. 
They remind the reader that so-called nanobacteria described in geological samples as well as the putative nanobacteria observed in human body fluids and tissues have been shown to represent nonliving biomimetic mineral nanoparticles; and that Morphology is a poor indicator of biogenicity, and it should not be used as the sole evidence for life.
BSmith821 (talk) 20:53, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  History Update 

message: I'm sorry if I missed it in the article be  assumingly given all of the opposition to it being a lifeform there must be some suggestion to what it could instead be in that picture? Shouldn't this be expanded upon more or should we assume or is it just assumed it's a strangely shaped rock? Robo37 (talk) 19:16, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The scientists' consensus is that it is not a fossil, and that microscopic shapes alone cannot be used as a reliable  indication of life. Had it been a microfossil, the premise is that it resembles a chain of bacterial cocci (spheres), not a worm. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 00:42, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think it is more accurate to say that the consensus of many - but not all scientists - is that it could be formed by inorganic processes. They haven't proved that it is not a fossil, and the hypothesis of life remains compatible with all the observations. But the bar is very high for proving existence of past or present day life on Mars, as indeed it should be, and most scientists would say the case has not been proven that this was life as it could be due to inorganic processes. We might well find more meteorites from Mars of the same age as this meteorite that clarify the situation, or evidence from our rovers from Mars may make it all clearer and prove either way that it is inorganic or that these are fossil microscopic lifeforms. That's common on Earth also, in particular evidence of early microscopic life on Earth is often controversial, with various fossils held to be microbes or stromatolites by some researchers and not by others, and then sometimes the situation is resolved by more data, e.g. presence of organics clearly dated to the time of origin of the structures. Microsocopic fossils of alleged early microbes on Earth are often particularly controversial. Robert Walker (talk) 11:35, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Theories on what the unknown "worm" object could be? 

message: I've just added this as a new section. I was astonished to see that the article didn't even mention magnetite, the strongest evidence originally presented for life in the meteorite. Nor did it mention the carbonate modules or the workshop on the limitations of size for living cells which was held in 1999 soon after the discovery. 
Anyway I took some material recently deleted from the Life on Mars article as a basis, and re-read the original 1999 paper and some other material and then wrote up this list of some of the main hypothetical biogenic features. Robert Walker (talk) 11:29, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: List of Hypothetical Biogenic features in ALH84001

message: The cites are
1. A chapter in the book "Frontiers of Astrobiology" published in 2012 by the Cambridge University Press, in the chapter "Towards a Theory of Life" by Steven A. Benner (notable as the first person to synthesize a gene amongst many other accomplishments) and Paul Davies. 
::: 
2. The 1999 workshop on Limitations of Size published by the =Soace Studies board and published by the National Academy Press. 
:: 
Are these WP:RS?  argued that the 1999 workshop cite is too old to be mentioned in the article - though he didn't come up with any later refutation of its conclusions by anyone else. The 2012 cite shows that these ideas are still current in my view. The 2012 cite validates the 1999 cite as still valid in my view so long as both cites are accepted as WP:RS. Note that Benner, the principal author of the 2012 cite, is one of the contributors to the 1999 workshop with 34 mentions in the section on the conclusions of Panel 4.
The only question under consideration here should be whether these cites are notable and WP:RS. If they are, surely the RNA World cells hypothesis should be mentioned in the article. Please leave my hypothesized motives for suggesting this addition out of this discussion! Please just discuss whether it is WP:RS and whether it should be included. Thanks! Robert Walker (talk) 10:52, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I plan to reinstate this material in the next day or two.  came up with no good reasons to remove it, and he is no longer contributing to wikipedia. I am not sure why - his talk page mentions a block for abusive language and another block for alleged sock puppetry - but I'm not sure if he is still blocked, or has voluntarily stopped editing here. Robert Walker (talk) 12:30, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Have just added it in as a new section, see Allan Hills 84001#RNA World Hypothesis and other proposals that could be consistent with such small structures as cells Robert Walker (talk) 21:04, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: RNA World Cells Hypothesis - summary of the cites - do they pass [[WP:RS]]?

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Allan Hills 84001. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130123132429/http://astrobiology.ucla.edu/pages/res3e.html to http://astrobiology.ucla.edu/pages/res3e.html
*Added  tag to http://www.uni-muenster.de/Planetologie/en/members/stephan/Stephan_MAPS38_109.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:48, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: *Allan Hills 84001 - I'm no expert but when I  clicked on the link to Science, it said "Science  16 Aug 1996: Vol. 273, Issue 5277, pp. 924-930" which I  assume means it was published in  Science on 16  August, not 6 August?  Perhaps someone with some subject-matter expertise could opine.  The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 09:23, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Announcement date