What we see is only what we should believe? Or is there something surreptitious, the existence of which surmounts certain conventional presumptions, human race had always adhered to. My primitive knowledge base alleviates spontaneity to absorb certain sporadic discoveries, a reminiscence and then a bitter comparison or a reality check with would always plunge me more into wilderness rather than understanding the revolutionized concepts ( I term it revolutionized cause certain truths instilled in me are now down in the dumps) . I was running through the morning papers when all of a sudden my eyes stumbled on an article which I found sturdy but too hard to digest. Once again I found myself cornered and soporific as my mind shrugged “Oh No. Here we go again not another one of those distinctive discoveries.”
I never knew about Robert Folk neither did I ever try to. The name neither his activities least could have impressed me until the very day when I had to accommodate his feature in my prevailing database and thereby had to rectify my pampered assumptions nourished since my childhood. Robert Folk ‘s career graph did enunciate an illustrious one including a medal for his contribution in Geological Science. He established the naming systems of Limestones, as well as doing important groundwork in describing sediments and classifying sedimentary rocks. Then in due course of time he developed a penchant for electron microscope and got himself involved in paranormal bustles. Thus a geologist who had mesmerized the geological arena substantially pursued biological science.
I always believed that bacteria did remain the smallest living being and even we always interpret bacterial in liguistics to the smallest thus emphasizing its significance. But now the theory is vandalized. Robert Folk found out extremely small objects in various rocks which resembled fossilized bacteria , but grotesquely a fraction of micron only in size. Indeed a few biologists( Folk was not a biologist rather a geologist ) have found few signs of living bacteria this tiny. Folk named his sighting nanobacteria ( the usage of nano is synonymous to geologists but a derision to biologists) . He began thus a wider research into this thereby metamorphosing his parenthesis with signs of ancient life equating the presence of nannobacteria in the Martian meteorite. This cultivated an ideological feud as his opponents strongly criticized his recent unearthing sarcastically. But Folk did not simmer down. He published journals citing his claim and even made tele appearances as a surrogate to biologists. This propelled an international debate the vitality reflecting in every scientific corners of the world as the biologists around the globe lined up decided to pursue a rancorous approach to Folk as a question percolated in them “ How come a geologist pursue biology or are they tantamount to each other” .
Finally, a research team consisting of World renowned geologist Jurigen Scheiber and equally talented biologist Howard Arnott decided to break the jinx. On their experimentation with fossilized bacteria in the lab they concluded that the alleged nannobacterial structures in sedimentary rocks are probably by-products of bacterial degradation of organic matter and not evidence for minute life forms called nannobacteria. If this conclusion holds up, then Robert folk would find his theory slashed and discarded. But a few renowned geologists has not supported this theory. Thus Robert Folk’s penchant for electron microscope landed him amidst an international scientific debate highlighting the ideological battle between the geologists and the biologists.
Well, so far with the Robert Folk’s Folktale. But believe me neither I got interested in Robert Folk nor his Endeavour to link geology with Biology and thereby a fusion between these sciences. Be the waging war between the biologists and the geologists for this issue followed by the stigmatizing of a valuable discovery did not quite reasonably garner any proclivity to either of the two sciences although I firmly notch up the criteria that I am just a passerby in this scientifically resplendent world of today. But I have a sturdy Question to Robert Folk which I believe is aptly meritorious to all the common people who differentiate geology and Biology as two heads with the same tail. My question is just to Robert Folk not to the scientific warriors prolifically tarnishing their self sustained reputation through what they claim as an authentication of their existence. Mr. Robert Folk ,please explain to me should I use bacterial or nannobacterial to define smallest . This is a significant qualm for me but for others it might be of bacterial/nannobacterial importance.
Shereen Vijayan Kottikkal
No comments:
Post a Comment