Talk:Tissint meteorite

Correction of a scientific citation
Can you please correct this citation: Aoudjehane, H. C.; Avice, G.; Barrat, J. - A.; Boudouma, O.; Chen, G.; Duke, M. J. M.; Franchi, I. A.; Gattacceca, J. et al. (2012). "Tissint Martian Meteorite: A Fresh Look at the Interior, Surface, and Atmosphere of Mars". Science. should be: Chennaoui Aoudjehane H.; Avice, G.; Barrat, J. - A.; Boudouma, O.; Chen, G.; Duke, M. J. M.; Franchi, I. A.; Gattacceca, J. et al. (2012). "Tissint Martian Meteorite: A Fresh Look at the Interior, Surface, and Atmosphere of Mars". Science.

Thanks a lot for your interest on this so fantastic meteorite. Prof H. Chennaoui Aoudjehane — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.251.124.200 (talk) 21:42, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Current News
Is anyone qualified to explain the recent findings concerning this metorite? It seems like the media sensationalized important exciting findings and many people might come here seeking an explanation. It might be nice if someone who actually understood what the word "organic" means, in a scientific, rather than colloquial usage, were to write a few lines. "Fossil-fuel-like" substances that were encapcilated while the rock was on Mars are paradigm changing, as far as our understanding of Mars goes, a discovery that will have great impact in the years to ome, but are hardly "skeletal remains. It seems the few media sources who aren't ignoring this, don't want to understand that carbon doesn't originate in life forms. We should explain things, rather than leaving the ramification of recent claims to be explained by crackpots, people trying to sell papers and those who don't understand how groundbreaking this rock might be.71.235.31.212 (talk) 05:14, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I subscribe to the questions and suggestions above. It is 2018 now and I was not able to find any new relevant information on this topic online. I would be grateful for an update of the article including all recent stuff, unfortunately I am neither able nor qualified to do it myself. 93.198.202.34 (talk) 05:24, 9 January 2018 (UTC)


 * In science, "organic" does not mean living or biotic. "Organic matter" was living, but "organic compounds" are inanimate chemicals that contain carbon, nitrogen and oxygen atoms. This meteorite was exposed to immense pressure and temperature during the space collision that sent it on a course to Earth. Any organic compounds (carbon-, nitrogen, oxygen-containing molecules) were altered so radically that it is impossible to tell if they were once part of living matter or were always only inanimate organic compounds.  Many (or most) meteorites contain organic compounds of non-living origin (abiotic). BatteryIncluded (talk) 16:46, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

See --Ernsts (talk) 19:01, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * https://www.sci.news/space/tissint-meteorite-organics-11564.html Scientists Find Various Organic Compounds in Martian Meteorite
 * 10.1126/sciadv.add6439 Complex carbonaceous matter in Tissint Martian meteorites give insights into the diversity of organic geochemistry on Mars

Carbon 12/13 ratio
I'm surprised the article doesn't mention the carbon 13 depletion signature, one of the most interestign things about this meteorite.

It could be a signature of life, with a depletion of -12.8% to -33.1%, similar to coal. 

On the other hand, there are several non biological ways that the same isotope signature could be created on Mars. They could come from carbonaceous chondrites, which have wildly varying isotope ratios, but on the other hand their organics are insoluble so less likely to get into this native rock. They could also come from hydrothermal vents. Abiotic methane can have carbon 13 depleted to as low as -50%. See page 3 of this paper. 

I think this should be mentioned. If there is no response to this comment I will "be bold" and add a mention. Thanks! Robert Walker (talk) 17:52, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

The ratio interpretation in that paper is reported as a plausible, not as evidence. Yes, it deserves mention but without the hype. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 19:22, 28 April 2018 (UTC)


 * It's not hype, it's an astrobiological controversy.


 * Gillet himself says about the Tissint meteorite, as interviewed by EarthSky for their article Does this Martian meteorite contain traces of life?


 * "Insisting on certainty is unwise, particularly on such a sensitive topic. I’m completely open to the possibility that other studies might contradict our findings. However, our conclusions are such that they will rekindle the debate as to the possible existence of biological activity on Mars – at least in the past."


 * For a response, as interviewed by Live Science, Steele said


 * "I think the onus is on [the researchers] to provide that extraordinary evidence. I don’t think they have it at the moment."


 * Experts Cast Doubt on Meteorite Study's Claims


 * It's of interest because it shows how detection of a depletion of carbon 13 is not by itself sufficient to decide whether there is life in a sample. Robert Walker (talk) 23:30, 28 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I knew you were going to come up again with fringe stuff like that. No, it is not a scientific controversy, only in your mind. Biotic origin based on the carbon ratio was presented as the least plausible interpretation. There are other Mars meteorites with more organic compounds that have had a better chance for suspecting past life. I will not entertain again your walls of text claiming an imminent deadly Martian invasion through sample-returns, spiced with "modern" references where you cherry-pick sentences out of context. This is not your blog (which you spam here endlessly), and there are standards, one of them is scientific consensus. As usual, I will delete, edit, and /or tone down any fringe entry and show it the context it was presented. BatteryIncluded (talk) 01:01, 29 April 2018 (UTC)


 * For the other editors interested: I added the mention of the biogenic suggestion as a potential explanation for the low 13C content. I also added mention to another team that measured instead a high 13C ratio, and the likelihood of geophysical processes and meteoritic carbon contribution to Mars without invoking living Martians. To contain the hype proposed in this talk page, lets distinguish the normal (and often required) debates that happen in science and how this is different from a "controversy." A scientific controversy is defined as a heated, public and prolonged disagreement, such as climate change, steady state of the Universe, etc. A team stating that the low 13C may be indicative of biological selection is not a controversy, but one of many plausible interpretations proposed in their paper. As the scientific consensus now shows, no one else but the fringe and non-peer reviewed predatory journal managed by Chandra Wickramasinghe claims Martians in that meteorite. That is not a controversy, just pathological science. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 16:23, 29 April 2018 (UTC)