Slashdot Mirror
Life On Mars: ALH84001
Celestius writes "This press release from NASA Ames states that 'An international team of researchers has discovered compelling evidence that the magnetite crystals in the martian meteorite ALH84001 are of biological origin,' and moreover that these crystals are not only older than any previously known form of life, but were also definitely formed before the meteor fell to Earth. Skeptics remain, of course, as quoted in this article from today's Chronicle, but suffice to say, NASA seems pretty confident." There's also a report on the BBC as well.
Haven't you *ever* seen Star Trek? This just isn't a problem.
Woof, evidently.
Yup. perdida, inside five minutes, outsmarts five years of scientific endeavor from some of humanity's best minds.
potheads 1 : 0 NASA
Let's try that again. perdida the pothead troll, with no biological knowledge other than recognising the taste of KTB's semen, has spotted something that years of scientific experience and knowledge failed to realise.
Despite this evidence, I'm waiting for Heidi Wall's take before I form an opinion.
We need to cut the population down somehow :P
Seriously though, the articles say that we already have similar bacteria living in lake bottoms. I doubt skinnydipping is going to kill off the human population.
*My* foundatation isn't shaken by this, why should it be? If God is God then why could he not create life on Mars or anywhere else? He is a creative creator. Look at all of the varity that's here on earth. He put life *everywhere* on earth. If God did it here why not anywhere else? We might be the center of creation, but that does not mean that He can't be creative anywhere else.
If you go the evolution route then what's to stop life from evolving on Mars or anywhere else. If there's enough random chance for it to happen here then why not everywhere? I personally don't buy this because there's not enough particles in the universe to allow that much random chance, but if you belive it's possible for life to evolve here then it seems logical to assume that it could evolve anywhere.
I don't think man is meant to fly. If the Creator, God Almighty, wanted us to speed through the ether, the upper atmosphere would not be an oxygen-deficient death trap. Ye must remember the tale of the tower of Braniff, when Man tried to reach Heaven, only to be stacked up over LAX for three hours. Must we risk God's wrath once more in an attempt to traverse the heavens?
.sig a .sog, .sig out loud, .sig out .strog"
".sig,
".sig,
Ooof. That'd be more effective if I hadn't mispelled "explorations". Mea culpa.
-
How can you possibly estimate those "strict odds"?
---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Since the moderators are seemingly out to lunch, I will blow a bit of auto-karma to quote this guy's post.
:-)
1) Skepticism is a healthy part of the scientific method.
2) Shaking bar magnets can result in chains, but it's unlikely. A lower energy config is clumping. (Try the experiment in 2D. Get a bunch of little bar magnets, put 'em in a shoebox, and shake. See what you get. Clumps?
3) Experiments are also a healthy part of the scientific method.
Well, since we've already sent craft to Mars there is the slight chance that we've already introduced organisms. Perhaps some particularly hardy microbes could have survived the journey and are even now multiplying on Mars.
Anyway, apart from the scientific question of whether or not life existed it might be good to introduce life on Mars. Maybe it can be terra-formed into a livable place, who knows?
(BTW, it was NOT Christopher Colombus that discovered America, but Leif Erikson. It was later surveyed by Amerigo Vespucci, leading to the naming of this land, "America," probably due to a clerical error.)
BTW, it was NOT Lief Erikson that "discovered" America, but the peoples that became "Native Americans".
Explorers need not be conquerors.
Of course not, but in some form or another they seem to always have been. Everybody here seems to think that "it is man's natural tendency to explore". I disagree.
It is man's natural tendency to try to take over and control everything it finds.
--
Give a man a match, you keep him warm for an evening.
Give a man a match, you keep him warm for an evening.
Light him on fire, he's warm for the rest of his life
LOL! Too bad this will be modded down. Mod it up please!
Execute? [Y/N] _
The chains of molecules spell out something...
A L L Y O U R B A S E A R E B E L O N G T O U S
Execute? [Y/N] _
Actually, microscopic organisms have been found near the poles before.
And if God created us, where do you take the arrogance from to think he did not create other life forms? Only us?
<sarcasm>
I would rather think us to be a failed experiment and he learned from it and did better someplace else. This of course means we will never meet the others.
</sarcasm>
Understanding is a three-edged sword. --Kosh
You're forgetting, of course, that in any such endeavor, a bureaucracy will be involved. If we don't use April 2012 as a deadline, that bureaucracy won't even have all of its rules figured out before detonation, never mind have us off the planet
GPL made simple: What was my stuff is now our stuff. If you improve our stuff, please keep it our stuff.
Your example supports the previous poster's conclusion - it's not a counterexample.
Female Prison Rape in NY
I doubt it. I think you'll find the "alternative science" communities were there long before. Charles Fort, for example - he could be more scientific than some of the scientists in his day. (Do you know scientists once claimed that meteorities could not exist, because "There are no rocks in the sky, therefore rocks cannot fall from the sky". Can't fault their logic!)
Today, the field may be defined as the research conducted by those scientists who have noticed the large pot of money earmarked for Astrobiology at NASA, and have tailored their grant proposals to suit the Research Opportunity Announcements.
Nearly all scientists need research funding. You say this as if this was something unusual. In fact you could replace "Astrobiology at NASA" with almost any other kind of science and this sentence would still hold true.
Just because a bunch of scientists have seen funding opportunities, doesn't mean they aren't interested in the subject for other reasons as well. Maybe they wanted to do it all along but they didn't want to stick their knecks out - which is actually quite rational risk-averse behaviour for beginning scientists.
particularly given the gales of laughter that greeted the equally breathless announcement about the last Mars rock with "strong supporting evidence" for life on Mars.
Well, arguably it was a lot stronger than any previous so-called "evidence". And it was good rhetoric, anywhere. The public are generally dumb and short-termist, so it helps occassionally to have a big front-page news story to whip up public support for increased NASA funding (assuming you're in favor of increased NASA funding). Even if the truth has to be stretched somewhat.
Of course, there may be some truth in what you say. But don't forget that funding priorities determine research priorities almost everywhere. This is not unusual.
Seriously guys, please remember that NASA is not a scientific agency. They don't really care about the science - they care about spaceflight, engineering, launch, astronautics. But not the science.
I think you'll find that accidents resulting in the desctruction of expensive experimental apparatus are taken very seriously.
Bottom line: the opinion of JSC researchers on the subject of that rock is not to be taken seriously.
Bzztt!! Ad homenim (yes, I know, wrong spelling - I didn't do dead languages at school). Minus 150 points to you. Let's see some arguments on the scientific evidence, please, not poorly-justified character assassinations.
You're probably just a jealous researcher in a less-well-funded area, aren't you? If so, maybe if you wised up and learned about the logical fallacies (like ad homenim), you'd become a better scientist.
I'm not joking, incidentally - the rate of serious errors in some scientific or part-scientific fields (e.g. medicine) is appalling. E.g. Statistically meaningless sample sizes, flawed statistic analysis, the common "correlation implies causation" fallacy (implicit or explicit), etc.
Female Prison Rape in NY
Non-sentent life has two values to us: (1) our survival (I say kill the fuckers who are cutting down the rain forest) and (2) research/information (I say kill the fuckers who are cutting down the rain forest or killing off the hump backs).
Clearly, only reason (2) is relevent to the studdy of life on another planet. We should be willing to take a few risks for the purpose of studing this life. Plus, we are likely to just be studing fossils since all the life there could be dead by now anyway. Regardless, I'm shure that NASA will take all reasonable efforts to limit contamination.
The Christian religion has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. -- Bertrand Russell
Isnt that the plot to Homeworld?
Didn't Mars do this to us? Here we were, Earth, just sitting there all nice and quiet, and WHAMO, a big-ass-teroid comes and causes havoc and more havoc, and again wreaking havoc, causing all these stupid creatures called humans to evolve.
The ignorance in this thread is amazing.
How many of you are exobiologists? None? Thought so.
For those of you who don't know, the field of exobiology is the study of non-terrestrial life, and was pioneered by Carl Sagan. (One of my personal heros.)
Exobiologists, especially Carl Sagan, have long searched for EXACTLY this kind of evidence. This particular configuration chain, which is impossible (note the impossible - I didn't say nearly impossible, nor did I say almost impossible - just impossible) outside of organic or artificially constructed containment, is the first really solid evidence of life off the Earth.
Now, for those of you saying "well don't magnets arrange themselves in chains normally?" Yes - very good, you watched Mr. Wizard as a kid too... but you are completely ignorant of exobiology and of the basic patterns involved. So why post? Why not read up on the subject and actually be informed? Most people, unfourtunatly, either don't want to know the truth or don't care.
NASA may have been hasty in releasing this information only because the observations should be duplicated by many idependant scientists before a release of this scale happens, not because the evidence may not be what it seems.
Unless the observations are 100% wrong, as in the magnetite crystals don't exist as they are, or rather are of a different configuration (specifically, globular), which would be akin to saying the exact opposite of what they have already said, THERE WAS LIFE ON MARS!!!
The impacts of this discovery are incredible to say the least. For the first time we can confirm we are, or at least were (sorta), not alone in the Universe. Not sure what the Pope is gonna say... since this pretty much screws most of the Bible over (not that it's hard to do that anyway) but maybe people will decide to open their eyes and minds instead of swallowing the babble that most people beleive in today. Fat chance I guess... but I'm one of those silly people who wants to known what is really going on.
READ THIS BOOK: "The Demon-Haunted World" by Carl Sagan. As one review on Amazon.com said, it should be required reading for the planet. Then, once you're done, read every other book by Sagan. Sure, he often presents theory as fact... but as he has proven countless times, his theories usually are fact. May he rest in peace.
Delien Industries Inc, your Industrial solutions provider has documneted well the sounds of asteroid designation ALH84001. Check their website for more information HERE.
Dr00lArt.
The trick is to rememebr, ther is no
> Mars WAS JUST LIKE THE EARTH
:)
:)
Uh, not exactly. Please dont shout either, it makes you seem juvenile. Try using facts or references instead.
> life in this solar system originated on MARS and was carried here to this planet
Possible, not probable.
>my meteorites
Not from around here, are you
>In a few more years it will all be much clearer.
Yup
My Karma: ran over your Dogma
StrawberryFrog
> Just because one planet exhibits life in a certain way is NO indication that ALL life-bearing planets will exhibit the same features.
Right, so for now we have to extrapolate from a sample size of one, and some logic. As for the logic, note I'm not using any features of earthly life, aside from it's ability to evolve and adapt. If something evolves and adapts, it will therefor radiates and finds new habitats. If not then well, it's not life at all.
>If there were something recognizable as a bacteria found on Mars, and a bacteria is recognized as a living organism, then it's pretty safe to say we would have found life on Mars eh?
Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof. The new data from NASA is a step closer, but it not it yet. I'm trying to point out the claim of life on mars is a lot more extraordinary than most people seem to think.
> Oh wait, you're a troll
Yeah right, I research and maintain long writeups on E2 just to rile you (see the update BTW, I got some good feedback in this thread). Sheesh. Troll yerself.
My Karma: ran over your Dogma
StrawberryFrog
OK, so Mars was possibly once upon a time not barren, but now Mars is definitely barren. I will modify the writeup accordingly
My Karma: ran over your Dogma
StrawberryFrog
> preconceived notions as to what life is,
Um no. 'preconceived notions' would be that it has to use water as a solvent, DNA as a genetic information storage, have 2 limbs for walking and 2 for grasping. These may sound stupid, but I've seen them (especially the DNA one) here on Slashdot before. If an ET lifeform is found that uses DNA in the same way that we do, it would strongly suggets that we share a common origin.
However if you suggest that "evolve and adapt" may not be universal features of anything even remotely worthy of the name life, I have nothing but derisive laughter for you. As I never tire of saying, go read Dawkins or Dennet. They are better thinkers than I am, and have spent a lot of time & effort on this topic. I agree with them on this.
My Karma: ran over your Dogma
StrawberryFrog
Following this logic man would not be meant to fly, travel quickly, cross large bodies of water, etc.. Also following this logic but in a different way, one could say that if not for the wonders of the human mind, man would not have the cabability to reach Mars either.
I suggest you re-read Genesis 11:1-9, preferably using a Bible with good notes, since you seem to be having a hard time finding anything other than literal meaning there. First off, the Tower of Babel is a reference to the chief ziggurat of Babylon, the Esagila. we've already built buildings much, much taller than that, and God's not struck them down. the story of babel isn't about tall buildings, it's about building an urban culture in which God has no place. it's about pride and presumption.
if you're looking for scriptural backing of this sort of endavor (mars exploration, and indeed exploratory science in general), i'd point you at 2nd Timothy 1:7 - "For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind." i'd point further to the several parables about how not using your gifts (including the intelect and reason provided us) is sinful, and displeasing to God (sorry, can't find verse numbers right now).
i'd further point out that, in anything other than the strictest literal reading, one which ignores everything we know about astronamy, meterology, and general science, "heaven" isn't contained in the sky. in the Babel story, it's a metaphor; the same thing ticked God off there as it did in the garden of Eden, and in Sodom (no, that story isn't about homosexuality): pride and arrogance - thinking oneself equal to God. leaving the planet is no more offensive to God (from reading the Bible, anyway - i have no inside information here) than leaving your town; riding a space shuttle no worse than riding a horse.
i speak for myself and those who like what i say.
I'm not surprised that magnetite is arising again as evidence for early life. I can think of lots of reasons to question any of the claims made by scientists, but still it is very intriguing. If true, it will be really neat to see what life might have been like on earth billions of years ago. But this may mean that life is more likely, or as others may argue (I personally disagree) that life originated from extraterrestrial origins. -Moondog
NO NO NO. :(
I am thrice damned. I am damned once for "Vanilla Ice", twice for "Baywatch", and now a third time for Rupert Murdoch.
To atone I shall learn to play "Waltzing Mathilda" on an accordion, eat nothing but veg sandwiches for a month, and construct an altar to Dame Edna on my front lawn.
Get off my virtual lawn, you damned virtual kids!
Are you SURE this was the BBC's foul up? Sounds more like Rupert Murdoch's style.
BLOODY AUSTRALIANS! :)
I could understand the magnetic Martian lifeforms affecting cassingle sales, I mean ... Hello, magnets?! But CD's? Everyone knows CD sales are expect to rise due to global warming.
Get off my virtual lawn, you damned virtual kids!
but hey you can never disprove a good conspiracy.
How comically arrogant can people get? You can never prove the existence of god either.
:wq
Seriously, these bacteria had their chance and they obviously screwed it up. Time to let the away team play..
Official GOD FAQ.
I wonder how many people really understand the significance of this event, assuming the evidence holds up. The first verifiable evidence of life beyond Earth - most everything else kind of pales in comparison. If nothing else, hopefully this news will renew people's interest in the Mars missions, and particularly (!) the sample return mission scheduled for later this decade.
For those interested in getting more involved, by the way, the National Space Society lobbies Congress for more political and financial backing for NASA. They're always holding letter writing drives and needing new participants.
To see what the Church says about this. If life didn't start on earth, then suddenly we're no longer the center of the universe again (ala' copernicus). Should be interesting...
-- mikeDOTd
>>First of all there is the galaxy; it needs to be very very specific in both size, age, and type.
>Bullshit. Just because our galaxy has a certain configuration doesn't mean that's the only configuration that can support life. Do you honestly think that life can only occur in the uncharted backwaters of the unfasionable end of the western spiral arm of a particular type of galaxy?
Well, it certainly aint going to form in the middle of 47 Tucanane - you need time for life to form between stellar collisions - something you get plenty of in the unfasionable end of the western spiral arm of a particular type of galaxy.
>>The star has to be exacly the right size nad exactly the right point in its life
>Bullshit. Our sun is about 4.5 billion years old. Life has existed on Earth for better than 3 billion years of that. So the sun has been at "exactly the right point in its life" for 2/3 of its life. Uhmm, right. As for size, the only thing that matters is the luminous intensity at the planet's surface. A larger or brighter star simply requires a larger orbit, thicker atmosphere, or more temperature-tolerant life.
Well, actually, the sun will be too hot in 1 billion years for anything to survive, and I dont really know how hot it was 1 billion years ago, but I hazard a guess that something as complex as humans could not have existed 1 billion years ago.
>>The planet has to be composed of exactly the right material...
>Bullshit. Earth is mostly iron and nickel. The crust is mostly silicon, aluminum, and oxygen. Only one of these elements is important for the basics of life. To produce Earth-like life, the planet needs certain amounts of carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, phosphorus, etc. at the surface. These do not have to be the primary constituents of the planet.
Those compound you mentioned are pretty restrictive enough - it seems Earth is the only planet in our solar system that has the correct ratios for these, anyway - suggesting their possible rarity.
>>...be the right size...
>Bullshit. Earth-like life requires a certain minumum size, to hold an atmosphere. There is really no definite upper limit on size, though. Life, especially simple life like bacteria, would have absolutely no trouble evolving on a planet 10 times as massive as Earth.
I find climbing up stairs hard enough these days - I sure wouldn't want to be 10 times heavier! A factor of two is not much of a range in astronomy - Mars would have a bit of trouble keeping an atmosphere for any length of time.
>>and be at exactly the right distance from the sun
>Bullshit. Again, Earth-like life requires the surface temperature to be within a certain range, but it's hardly exact. The primary requirements are that water be a liquid and proteins hold together against thermal disruption. Known life on Earth exists in temperatures over a range of better than 350 Kelvins. Even if you needed a
They do? I thought it was about -60 to +100 C - then again, I've been wrong before. You're not confusing farenheit with Kelvin, are you?
>smaller temperature range, you have 3 variables to adjust. Sun brightness, orbit distance, and atmosphereic reflectiveness. It's not too hard to find a combination of those that will produce the right temperature.
And greenhouse gasses - but this is dynamical - a kind of positive feedback. The earth's surface would be on average -15 C if it was not for greenhouse gasses - and you know how fragile that it.
>>There has to be a moon at exactly the right distance and exactly the right size
>Bullshit. Whose ass did you pull this statement out of? Do you honestly expect me to believe that chemical reactions on Earth's surface are dependant on the luminosity and gravitational pull of the Moon?! At least the other arguments sounded credible before you thought about them. This one's just ridiculous.
Cant comment on this one - not a marine biologist - but surely, the tides form some useful purpose, right?
The NASA guys have been studying the artifacts since 1996, and they are now convinced enough to put their reputation on the line. These aren't people to do that lightly.
Guys, please keep your salt handy.
First of all, "Astrobiology" is a field that NASA invented in order to have nice stories to tell the public about life on other planets. Prior to Dan Goldin's mandating it into existence, there was no Astrobiology community - no meetings, no journal, nothing. It never made the critical mass criteria that occasionally come together to create a new field of science. Then, overnight, it became one of the biggest-ticket items in the Office of Space Science budget.
Today, the field may be defined as the research conducted by those scientists who have noticed the large pot of money earmarked for Astrobiology at NASA, and have tailored their grant proposals to suit the Research Opportunity Announcements.
"Scientists" at JSC and at other NASA centers are under a great deal of institutional pressure to dignify this otherwise farcical field, particularly given the gales of laughter that greeted the equally breathless announcement about the last Mars rock with "strong supporting evidence" for life on Mars.
Seriously guys, please remember that NASA is not a scientific agency. They don't really care about the science - they care about spaceflight, engineering, launch, astronautics. But not the science. It's a cultural thing at Headquarters. Science is a bauble they often festoon themselves with in order to justify budgets for the programs they want. But they are completely prepared to corrupt the normal processes of science for their own purposes.
Bottom line: the opinion of JSC researchers on the subject of that rock is not to be taken seriously. Wait until a recognizable consensus forms elsewhere, if that ever happpens. Personally I doubt it ever will.
GNU Info is documentation optimized for machine readability
I'm don't argue that we shouldn't be exploring and advancing scientific research in space. Of course we should. For that matter we could discover tomorrow that a massive asteroid is coming to destroy our planet as we speak. It is your reasoning that is flawed. It is the year 2001. It hasn't even been 100 years since the first airplane. And we have until the year 5000000000 AD before the sun explodes. You can't argue that it is a driving reason to colonize other planets. That's ridiculous.
Black holes are where god divided by zero
Isn't anyone else bothered that some accursed Martian stromatolites have obviously evolved a bio-organic railgun and even now we are under threat of attack by the Martian aggressors.
All kings is mostly rapscallions. -Mark Twain, The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn
Asteroid impact, or volcano eruption for example, could throw small rocks to space ... it is of course unlikely that any organisms survive the initial blast, conditions of space, crashlanding to destination and last its completely alien environment, but it's not impossible...
Wow what an exciting theory! Maybe we could make a science fiction movie out of it! Oh wait we did: MISSION TO MARS.
Why do people think that shadows on satelite photos == alien life? I dunno. Oh wait I think I have an idea... At last count the polls say that 30%+ people still believe Hillary is telling the truth. There must be a connection... Hmmm... Ahh yes: these people are STUPID!!!!
--Richard
P.S. Don't pee on the electric fence!
I think the discoveries and new possibilities that arise from exploration vastly outweigh any fear of destroying an ecosphere.
Think smallpox and American Indian history
Oh man I wish I had some points.
This is the funniest post I've read in weeks.
Bravo!
So what are they saying? Something "alive" was once on that rock? It looks to me like someone's throwing shit at us. They know we're here. That was a warning shot. Who knows how long before the next one?
Beware the depths of the unknown...
"No, Occam's razor is a rule of thumb used by all scientists."
Unsupported claim.
"It doesn't limit enlightenment."
Anything that limits contemplation could possibly limit enlightenment, for we reach enlightenment through contemplation. Limiting the means can limit the ends.
"it limits speculation on matters before the evidence is there to support them. "
Yes, and this is an example of my above arguement. Limiting speculation on such matters could possibly limit you from looking for complex evidence for phenomenon - forcing over-simplification of your understanding.
"And if you don't think that's a good thing, you need to review some history." I claim the same, for my arguement, that if you don't think that's a good thing (contemplation of the complex), you need to review some history.
So you have failed at refuting my claim. Here is an example of Occam's Razor at work:
Imagine an apple tree, an apple lying on the ground next to the tree, and a man. The man wants to come up with a theory of how the apple came to be located on the ground below the apple tree. Applying Occam's Razor, the man comes up with the theory that the apple fell out of the above mentioned tree do to the biology of the tree, and the simple physics of gravity.
However, the apple actually came from a young boy who was eating his lunch up the street. The boy's mom usually packs him a lunch every school day, but today, his father packed the lunch, putting in the apple he received in business meeting in far-off country. The boy dropped the apple during lunch time, and one of the school bullies picked it up and threw it down the street, with the apple eventually landing in the street. Just as the apple landed on the street, a street cleaning truck knocked the apple another several yards, landing the fruit under the aforementioned tree.
And so, Occam's Razor failed limited the man's enlightenment. The reason for the apple coming to exist lying on the ground under the tree was actually far more complex than the man's rule of thumb allowed, forcing him to come up with an incorrect theory.
It doesn't take much imagination to think of other cases where Occam's Razor would cause the retardation or even total limiting of enlightenment.
Hmmm...that's pretty good logic. So, can you -prove- God does not exist? Sounds like you're just dying for a reason to say He doesn't...
------------------ D. A. Davenport: http://www.firebin.net
Yes, and where are your numbers? Do you know how to make that nice bit of complex proteins "evolve" into something else? Just because someone throws out an idea that is contrary to your own, doesn't entitle you to attack. Anyway, the particle comment, if you look at it more closely, was an illustration. He was saying that the ratio of particles in the universe and the chance of evolution occuring as proposed by modern theory are the same.
------------------ D. A. Davenport: http://www.firebin.net
Aah yes...the "Faces on Mars". Did you know that all they are is a result of bad lighting? As recent pictures have shown (check JPL's web site), they are just rock formations.
------------------ D. A. Davenport: http://www.firebin.net
Magnetite trails are created by organisms on earth. That's how we know they are formed by life. The reason they think these ones are special is that they believe they are older than life on earth.
-Brian
"Faith strikes me as intellectual laziness." -Robert A. Heinlen
I just hit cnn, yahoo news, nytimes, bbc, etc and this story, which apparently has nasa announcing some really compelling evidence for ancient life on mars, is no where to be found. its not on any of the major news sites. and i havent seen it on tv yet. isn't that a little strange? this is really big news, isnt it? why isn't it all over the place??
Thomas-Keprta said the new study strongly supports the original claim and may even suggest that there is still microscopic life on Mars.
``If it existed there at one time, we would expect it to exist today,'' said Thomas-Keprta.
More-or-less. Isotope ratios more than bulk chemical composition, actually. Very diagnostic.
They don't. According to their press release (I know, I know, another "reliable" source
Who knows where the 4.6 came from...
However, is this the responsible thing to do? Wherever man travels he brings with him a shower of varied microrganisms, which adapt to local conditions.It would be extremely difficult to rid any travelling ship or astronaut of the organisms. If they got free in the Martian environment, they could wreak havoc.
Woah, that's scary. They could completely destroy Mars' delicate ecosystem. The damage to the food chain would be irreparable! This is serious, folks. We need to take every precaution to prevent Mars from turning into a cold, dry and entirely lifeless planet.
I'm going to write my congressman!
Remember "Bring 'em on"? *sigh
This is the funniest comment I've read in a long time.
I wish I had mod points.
--
Soma: because a gramme is better than a damn.
Bar graphs!
We need brightly colored bar graphs.
They don't have to represent anything signifigant, random values will do.
To really get peoples attention and comprehension we need clipart scattered around a large bar graph.
And also a few phone-in surveys.
Those are always a statistically acurate representation of the average citizens' oppinion on matters such as these.
We need one master list of who believes this and who doesn't.
From this list we can use trial-and-error to eliminate the impossible and all that's left must be the truth!
--
Soma: because a gramme is better than a damn.
I just tried dropping 8 (separated) cylindrical magnets on the floor, one at a time. Don't ask why I would have 8 similar cylindrical magnets lying around. I don't know either. They happen to rest on the side a donut shaped cylindrical magnet (with a hole about the size of the cylindrical magnets). Sigh, no one has yet ever wondered why I don't store the magnets inside the hole... :-)
They ended up forming a column, even when I dropped new magnets right on the side of the column. Feel free to try this at home, away from your computer monitor. I would have tried mixing them in a box, but they are far too clingy to separate with just a shaking.
I don't have spherical magnets to test, and I haven't read enough of this press release to see if the organisms are cylindrical or spherical, but my unofficial test seems to show there is a chance this could happen naturally. Maybe.
If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
ROFLMAO. Man, you rock.
Carousel is a lie!
Carousel is a lie!
This is one of those days I'm truly glad I was alive to see.
My own pointless vanity vintage computing page
C12/C13 are stable isotopes. Biological things deal with them as seperate entities. Abiological things don't. When you see a disproportionate amount of C12/C13 in a certain mineral deposit, it was likely created by a biological system. This is how life is dated on C12/C13 ratios.
Also note the paper: Nature, Vol 384, p55-59, 1996 for a full description of the method.
Look, the SFgate article dates the meteorite to have hit 4.6 bya, but the magnetite crystals were encased in carbon from 3.9 bya. Assuming this is true, how does NASA account for this .7 byr discrepancy?
Now it has been suggested that the magnetite crystals were older than life on Earth, but this is likely not true. We have fossil records of complex life on Earth dating to 3.5 bya and C12/C13 abundance records dating life on Earth to at least 3.8 bya. The techniques used to examine C12/C13 abundances were developed in 1996 (Nature, Vol 384, p55-59, 1996) and references a similar isotope formation "from nearby Akilia island that is possibly older than 3,850 Myr". Curiously, that's not much of a gap considering the accuracy of carbon dating from 4 billion years ago.
In this situation, where you want to prove that Martian bacteria left a footprint on a meteorite, things get much more complicated. For example, what if the crystal chains were actually formed by bacteria after the meteorite hit but before it was found?
Actually, some scientists theoretize that the moon is the reason that life exists at all, or outside of a few 'hot spots' on the sea bottom, through the tidal forces and circulation of water they cause. In completely still water (or actually, the planets rotation would cause some *small* movement), the nessecerry ingredients of life would have a very hard time to get together. While I don't think it's vital to the existance of life, it has had an enormous impact on the evolution of life on our planet, and as we're still dealing with a sample of one (I haven't accepted any proofs of life elsewhere yet), it's hard to say.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
First of all I don't buy into evolution. However that is a different topic. Second this is not a troll I am serious.The point I wish to make here is buy strict odds we should not be here so the chances of there being other life in the universe is slim. For the sake of this post I will even assume evolution can and did take place on earth. When you look into the sky you see thousands of Stars. When you look through a night vision telescope you see millions times that. When you consider that every one of those stars might have 9 planets or more you cant help but wonder if life may have evolved on one of those planets. But that is before you take into account the conditions that are neccisary for even the simplest life to exist let alone evolve into higher life forms. First of all there is the galaxy; it needs to be very very specific in both size, age, and type. The star has to be exacly the right size nad exactly the right point in its life. The planet has to be composed of exactly the right material be the right size and be at exactly the right distance from the sun. There has to be a moon at exactly the right distance and exactly the right size. The list goes on and on and on. The odds of all the things that need to be just right are astronomical(pun intended). And this is just for the simplest bacteria! After you calculate all the odds WE SHOULD NOT EXIST! Personally that is why I believe we were created by God. But if We should not exist then we have no reason to believe there are other life forms in the universe. But hey I could be wrong about God and lightning does strike twice. But even if I am wrong on both counts If there are aliens WE WILL NEVER KNOW ABOUT THEM(unless they are from mars). We will not know about them strictly from physical limitations. Well that ends my rant. It just pisses me off when people talk about other life in the universe, but hey you can never disprove a good conspiracy.
curious go to www.reasons.org or read a book by Hugh Ross
But that guy did die from natural causes. It's quite natural to die when you have 17 stab wounds in your chest.
Bugrit! Millenium hand and shrimp!
Newton said, "everything in the universe is attracted to everything else."
how many times can a planet get hit by something big enough to launch chunks of itself in to space and still be round?
That's the question I think we should REALLY focus on... the fact remains that a piece of Mars is on our planet. We didn't go get it. It came here. That would indicate SOMEthing forced it from the surface of Mars.
If we consider that most theories of the Astroid Belt between Mars and Jupiter suggest the destruction of a planet or other large body; and if we consider that the conditions on Mars indicate that water was once in great supply but is no longer present in any measurable quantity on the surface, we might wonder if the two are related. Perhaps whatever event destroyed the planet(or planet-like) body between Mars and Jupiter affected Mars' environment.
If a large astroid/comet, large enough to completely alter a planet's environment and/or remove it's ability to sustain life, struck Mars, it would very well "force" part of the planet into space. Enter Newton's Law.
Cheers
cfeagans
Okay, you make a reasonable argument that Mars is barren, but let's acknowledge that this can be consistent with what the NASA scientists are saying. They're saying that life was present on Mars in the distant past. Barren now? Possibly.
"That a small meteorite from Mars presumably contained large numbers of bacteria suggests that such bacteria were widespread on the surface of Mars"
"The team says these chains could have been formed only by living organisms, though those organisms are long since dead"
"The finding indicates that photosynthetic organisms, the source of oxygen in Earth's atmosphere, must have been present and active on Mars 3.9 billion years ago."
So if life was widespread on Mars and now it's barren, that's pretty interesting in itself, right? How long was it around for? Was it doomed from the beginning?
It's illogical to presume that eons of isolated life in the barren Martian atmosphere constitute any kind of preparation for the excessively hostile environment that is our bodies.
Yes, quick! We've only got a few billion years left of tolerable sunlight. I think we should set a deadline for full colonization of another solar system by April 2012, just to be safe.
Asikaa
Asikaa
Come in, twenty-seventy-seventy, your time is up.
The cheese in my refridgerator is from the moon.
:)
I know this, because the grays told me.
Asikaa
Asikaa
Come in, twenty-seventy-seventy, your time is up.
All the big slimy-looking monsters can do is probably tear you apart, eat your entrails and use your body to hatch more monsters. That's bad.
But the strings of magnet-filled bacteria could wipe out your hard drive and tape backups, making you lose all 2.3 gigabytes of your pr0n collection. That's worse.
Tongue-tied and twisted, just an earth-bound misfit, I
Learning to fly, Pink Floyd.
One or the other of those two groups will get to Mars first.
Whoops... that should read:
"One or the other of those two groups will get to Mars eventually."
"And like that
My previous understanding of the magnetites found in that rock were that they were apparently too smooth to have been created naturally. This is the first I've heard about their configuration in chains. It does seem a bit premature of NASA, though.
The obvious thing to claim, when you see mineral features that you haven't seen before, is that you are witnessing some new geologic effect. Given the large differences between the climate of Mars and Earth, it makes sense that we should see some new things. Invoking life into the picture is easy but far less likely, and in the end explains a lot less.
Maybe ours is the only solar system that supports life.
I think that the main point here is that we all accept life bagan elsewhere, probably being started by a grat intergalactic dictator called Xenu, who told Earth that 'All your base are belong to us' and then began the religion of Scientology, which I strictly adhere to, yessiree I sure do. You can't fault Scientology......nor Earth's colonisation by martian microbes....both are equally valid theories......yep www.xenu.net -Nano.
I just have to say that the most important religion on earth...i.e. scientology....accepts the fact that we are all offspring of Xenu the intergalactic ruler and all of his H-bombed body thetans...You just haven't been told the truth yet..
-Nano (written with *incredible* tongue in cheek....www.xenu.net)
Right, so for now we have to extrapolate from a sample size of one, and some logic. As for the logic, note I'm not using any features of earthly life, aside from it's ability to evolve and adapt. If something evolves and adapts, it will therefor radiates and finds new habitats. If not then well, it's not life at all.
So if we find something that does fit our preconceived notions as to what life is, based on our limited experience with a single life-bearing planet, it's automatically not life at all? OK, so you may not be an outright troll, but I still say your logic is fucked.
LEXX
"Gold still represents the ultimate form of payment in the world." - Alan Greenspan, 1999
Errotica Gumbulbits, the triple breasted Whore from Eroticon 6.
You can't prove that God does not exist, but for that very reason "God exists" is not a valid scientific theory, so it's annoying when people try to mix science and religion.
-- Somebody call for an exterminator? - Terran Ghost, Starcraft
I don't think man is meant to go to Mars. If the Creator, God Almighty, wanted us to visit other planets, outer space would not be a vacuum filled death trap. Ye must remember the tale of the tower of babel, when Man tried to reach Heaven. Must we risk God's wrath once more in an attempt to reach the heavens?
The truth about Michael
Seems to me that we're too late anyway. With the number of items we've sent to Mars, it could already be polluted with earthly bacteria. We might as well take the chance on this one, and think about this in places like europa which definitely haven't been touched by us.
how are these metorites of 'martian' origin getting to Earth. Realizing of course that they have shown up here over a course of millions of years, how many times can a planet get hit by something big enough to launch chunks of itself in to space and still be round?
I wonder if years from now we will colonize other worlds and find chunks of 'earthian' meteorites on those planets.
I wonder still is it possible that these meteorites might possibly be from something of martian-like consistancy and not actually from mars?
And lastly I wonder WHERES LEANORD NEMOY AND THE IN SEARCH OF TEAM WHEN YOU NEED THEM! Im sure he/they could answer everything in 30 mins or less.
RA7
--
"Consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds" - RWE
you fuxors slashdotted the pictures of the magnetite crystal comparison on the NASA website.
Second of all,
The researchers found that the magnetite crystals embedded in the meteorite are arranged in long chains, which they say could have been formed only by once-living organisms. Their results are reported in the Feb. 27 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
Uh, don't magnets normally form chains, orien ting north poles to south poles?
Just wondering..
Goat sex free since 2001
Don't come a nocken when the Mystery Van's a rocken... mod me down please...
When our Sun dies, we'll just build a new sun, with some chewing gum, a box of matches and a ball of string... easy peasy
Mod me down please
The assumption that we are the most important species to ever exist is a dangerous one at best, and a downright stupid one at worst. ---Me
------------
Or perhaps try to fit ourselves into other planets/bodies in space. At some point we will have that ability. I'm not saying we should sit idly by until such a time, we should be trying to get 'out there' and colonize something, the moon perhaps as a starting point? But the concept that we need to warp everything we touch to fit our current needs seems a little over-reaching to me.
The easiest way I can think to describe it comes from the Dan Simmons novels in the Hyperion/Endymion series. The 'common' man changed planets to fit themselves, killing native species without thought, destroying native life-forms where ever they were found. The 'Ousters' were seen as barbarians by the common man, but they changed themselves to fit into the environments that they encountered. Some were actually capable of living in deep space for extended periods of time. I realize it's sci-fi, but the ideas behind it are already in development. Genetic engineering, robotic implants, and other body modifying technology is already feasable in the foreseeable future. Why not take it to that next logical step?
And for those that say this would remove our humanity, I would ask if that matters. I would want to see the memories of our time up to now remembered for a long time to come. Who cares if that means we have to change our bodies a little to make that happen? I certainly don't.
------------
While a share a small bit of concern, the one thing we can be completely confident in is that the stupidity of humanity will prevail. No life on Mars? Well, we have no business being there. What there is life? Quick, we've got to get our asses there so we can destroy it, tear it apart, study it, and make our mark. Don't let it survive unchanged! Don't let it exist as is!
Not to be alarmist, but humanity could deal with a little more forethought on subjects like this. Unfortunately, we should realize that no amount of 'realistic' discussion is going to cause the collective mind of society to consider reality in any way shape or form. If it's new, and it exists, we must have, destroy and maim it. It's the way we work.
The Sci-Fi writers that say humanity is the cockroach of the universe are wrong. Cockroaches aren't nearly as destructive as we are.
------------
which religion?
there's nothing in Islam that rules of extratrestrial lifeforms. in fact, if you read the holy qoran you will see that it talks about 7 different worlds, earth being one of them.
I like meat helmets.
-----
-----
so i says to mable, i says
-----
-----
so i says to mable, i says
-----
-----
so i says to mable, i says
I suggest you read Kim Stanley Robinson's Mars Trilogy (Red, Green, Blue). It covers the (fictional) colonization and terraforming of Mars. In later books, a group called the "Reds" comes around, who are opposed to the terraforming. They see the old environment as something to be respected, and not conquested. It's a great read, and the author covers the topics quite well. I can see how this would be even worse if there is life there already.
If this meteor does contain a martian micro organism of some kind, you would think that their would be some DNA-like structure still embedded in the rock somewhere. If magnetotites can survive the martian climate for 3 billion years, surely DNA could.
You stupid bastard, you don't have no arms left. It's just a flesh wound.
It seems compelling, I'll admit, but it's hardly conclusive. Friedmann is basically arguing from ignorance.
What is wrong here people? Well can anyone cee it? Yes! The American public, or for that matter, the world public, needs tangible evidence that it can understand! Those of us more science minded people, namely most slashdot er's, can understand such evidence or at least comprehend it's possible meanings. So this info is all good and well to us, but to others? Worthless.
- - - - Irony? Yes, it's life everyday. May the Quanta laugh.
Why should be care about preserving what's essentially barren rock, with perhaps a few microbes? I'd much rather see it made useful for mankind by terraforming.
first answer.- even if the formation looks just like a face and isn't quirky light and poor photography, do you ask that question about the faces you see in a cloud or a rock formation that looks just like a chicken or whatever. Humans have a poor appreciation on the time scales involved in existance and the saying nothing new under the sun pretty much covers it.
second answer - dried riverbeds
If you people would just do as you're told, everything would be OK.
I've heard about this before but never understood it. Just HOW does the rocks jump from, say, earth to Mars? What causes them to leave earth gravity??
-- Cure for Cancer instead of SETI! (only w32 yet - mail and beg)
Apparently, despite the built-in compass they all veered left.
Hey! Murdoch's an AMERICAN now!
Just to be clear I'm not trolling, just interested. I am not a person of religion. It would seem to me that this discovery along with the recent evidence backing evolution would shake the religious foundations of many. Saying the devil did it to confuse us just isn't cutting it anymore. Any thoughts?
The most important thing any republican needs to know.
These are 'nascar' bacteria
The most important thing any republican needs to know.
yeah and in a clump of shit there are carbon chains but guess what it is still a clump of shit
-----------
-The American people have overpaid; I am here to ask for a refund.
According to my mother, Mars used to be inhabited by two major tribes which are the ancestors of the Jews and the Germans and they had a big battle which destroyed the atmosphere on Mars and then migrated to Earth on big spaceships and thus this explains why the Germans hate the Jews so much.
She also has quite a bit to say about the lizard people following the Hale-Bopp comet in UFO's.
God bless ol' mom.
--
$ chown -R us:us yourbase
The problem with this argument 'Before x we should y' is ...
:-)
1. It assumes it is impossible to do x and y at the same time.
2. It assumes there is no way that y will help us achieve x
3. It is applied to a particular 'x' that the poster views as unimportant, and ignores all others.
Suppose you wanted to go to the cinema, and were told that first you should solve Third World debt
The actual proportion of the American, and other budgets spent on space is very small. If you want problems on this planet fixed work towards that, you do not aid your cause by picking on one particular expenditure you can do without.
The comments on magnetite in that link specifically mention that it is possible they produced by inorganic means. The new indications of life are not based on the presence of magnetite, they are based on its arrangement.
If many magnetite crystals were found in addition to the 'biological' ones, then why (humor me for a moment) couldn't the 'biological' magnetite crystals also have a non-biological origin?
But, your honor, if so many people die every day from natural causes, why couldn't the guy I'm charged with murdering also have died from natural causes?
When I go in to see a doctor and complain about stomach aches, the doctor begins down a list of common explanations -- flu virus, food poisoning, etc. He _doesn't_ simply leap to the conclusion that I have a demon in my belly which must be exorcized.
And, of course, there's absolutely nothing wrong with the simple explanations, but the NASA scientists who spent four years studying the meteorite rejected them anyway.
If you're going to complain about somebody's conclusions, actually make sure you're well-informed about what the conclusions are and how they were reached. (Hint: the Slashdot summary doesn't count.)
And you sure aren't going to find a rational discussion on any remotely controversial topic here.
(Yeah, I know that's cynical view.)
I am really curious how they can be so sure that the rock is from Mars. Simply because it has the same chemical composition as Mars stones?
things. take. time.
Maybe he meant the guy who created Babylon 5. Isn't he J. Michael?
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
Does it have DNA made up of 3 strands of RNA? :-)
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
First let me tell you one thing. NOTHING still fully proves that this and other similar rocks did come from Mars. As far as i know, this is some silly telltale that started somewhere in the 80's to shortly explain their origin. However i have noted that some serious meteorite researchers still pointed facts that put doubt to these ideas in a more fundamental manner. They point some physico-chemical characteristics and isotope differences that point an origin to another planet which probably was even smaller than Mars.
Second - Lovelock, Horowitz & Co. made a lot to prove that "We are alone". Even in the middle of the 60's this group actively opposed the sterilisation of Mars probes and made a whole fuss how Mars was death, barren and dry. Even before we had clear pictures or data about Mars, I know that these people were actively bombing every reasonable search for life in this planet. i should specially note the fight Dr. Horowitz had with Dr. Vishniac. Horowitz, Cameron and some other investigators claimed that Antarctida Dry Valleys were abiotic in most of their extention. Dr. Vishniac nearly proved the opposite. The only thing that stopped him from doing this, was his strange death in one of these valleys. And this allowed Dr. Horowitz to continue his theory of Dry Death Mars for quite a long...
On what concerns particularly Dr. Lovelock, I would cite him:
"There was much argument about the need to sterilize the spacecraft before sending them to Mars. I could never understand why it should be thought so bad to run the small risk of accidentally seeding Mars with life; it might even be the only chance we had of passing life on to another planet. Sometimes the argument was fierce and macho; full of adolescent masculinity. In any event, feeling as I did -- that Mars was dead -- the image of rape, sometimes used, could not be sustained; at worst the act would be only the dismal lonely aberration of necrophilia. More seriously, as an instrument designer I knew that the act of sterilization made all but impossible the already superhuman task of building the Vikings and threatened the integrity of their exquisitely engineered internal homeostasis. To this day I appreciate the toleration and generosity of my colleagues at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory and in NASA, especially the personal kindness of Norman Horowitz, who was then head of the team of space biologists. In spite of the "bad news" I had brought, they continued to support my researches until the Viking missions to Mars were ready to go. The soft landing on Mars in 1975 of these two intricate and almost humanly intelligent robots was successful. Their mission was to find life on Mars, but the messages they returned as radio signals to the Earth returned only the chill news of its absence. Mars, except during day in the summer, was a place of pitiless frigidity, and implacably hostile to the warm wet life of Earth. The two Vikings now sit there brooding silently, no longer allowed to report the news from Mars, hunched against their final destruction by the wind with its burden of abrasive dust and corrosive acid. We have accepted the barrenness of the Solar System. The quest for life elsewhere is no longer an urgent scientific goal, but the confirmation by the Vikings of the utter sterility of Mars has hung as a dark contrasting backcloth for new models and images of the Earth. We now understand that our planet differs greatly from her two dead siblings, Mars and Venus.
The only reaction to this text: No comments, or else I would heart child ears...
Yeah, wait until the last minute. THAT'S a survival strategy.
You meek folks go right ahead and inherit the Earth; we'll be out among the starts. Maybe we'll preserve a few of you in zoos or something later.
-
Pardon me for channelling Joe Straczynski while he's still alive, but if we don't start exploring other worlds with an eye toward eventual colonization, we're doomed. The sun will explode, and all of this, from Plato to Moses to Slashdot to ALL YOUR BASE ARE BELONG TO US was a waste of time.
Allowing the GUARANTEED destruction of our species (the sun won't last forever) because we might hurt another would be immoral.
Yes, I realize we have hurt people and critters in our explanations. My wife and son are part American Indian. But they're also 100% alive.
-
Images of the magnetite chains inside the ALH84001 meteorite and, for comparison, inside a modern magnetotactic bacterium are at:e s/magneticbacteria/bacteria.html
http://amesnews.arc.nasa.gov/releases/2001/01imag
WWJD for a Klondike Bar?
The Viking landers found excess oxygen in the
martian soils, indicating there might be life.
Then scientists discovered inorganic chemical
reactions in martian-like environment that could
cause this.
We'll need stronger evidence.
The authors of the study claim that the magnetite samples found could _only_ have a 'biological' origin. Yet the Chronicle article points out that there were many magnetite crystals found in the rock sample, and only the ones with a presumed 'biological' origin were studied in detail.
This appears contradictory. If many magnetite crystals were found in addition to the 'biological' ones, then why (humor me for a moment) couldn't the 'biological' magnetite crystals also have a non-biological origin? A non-biological origin would seem to be a much simpler hypothesis.
When I go in to see a doctor and complain about stomach aches, the doctor begins down a list of common explanations -- flu virus, food poisoning, etc. He _doesn't_ simply leap to the conclusion that I have a demon in my belly which must be exorcized. This basic principle of simplicity of hypotheses is well-known, and is sometimes referred to as Occam's razor, or the 'Keep-it-Simple-Stupid' (KISS) principle. This paper, along with much of the recent work on water/life on Mars completely neglects this principle, which to me appears to be a very dangerous position to take.
Science, like Nature, must also be tamed, with a view turned towards its preservation.
First of all, the life on Mars is probably extinct, except perhaps for isolated pockets that wouldn't be likely to be contaminated by a few manned probes.
Second, who the fuck cares about primitive bacteria? It's scientifically interesting, so we probably want to study it, but there's absolutely no good reason just to leave it alone. It's not sentient, it doesn't look cute, and it doesn't play an important role in our ecosystem.
Also, it's unlikely Earth bacteria would be able to out-compete Mars bacteria in their native environment. Our bacteria--particularly the ones that would be carried by humans--are not well-suited to surviving in the Mars environment, whereas Mars bacteria are presumably well-adapted.
Finally, if you haven't noticed, the Martian environment isn't exactly friendly right now. It's hard to imagine how we could make it worse (from a human habitation point of view).
The link on the NASA page to the full article is incorrect. It should point to here.
Even more humorous than the bad link n the page, is that the page was generated by:
<META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="Microsoft Word 73.1">
Over a decade ago I proposed the National Science Trust that would be a trust fund that paid out only for information delivered, from whatever source and by whatever lawful means. In other words, new information flowing in causes new cash to flow out.
I'm no longer one to advocate political action about anything, but The National Science Trust idea can easily be adapted to private philanthropy as well.
Seastead this.
Seriously, humans can't even share diseases with most other mammals.
Yeah - except for a few exceptions. Example:
Creutzfeld-Jakob variants
AIDS
Get it ?
Thomas Miconi
The rock in question was supposedly ejected into space 3.9 billion years ago. All the mars missions that haven't crashed and analysed rock samples have found no evidence of continuing life.
I think the knowledge we could gain from studying alien bacteria cultures would contribute enormously to our understanding of genesis here and elsewhere in the universe. You can bet researchers would take every imaginable precaution to ensure their beloved data are not contaminated, and they're probably capable of pulling it off.
And calling bacteria cultures an 'ecosphere' is a bit much. I can't speak for everyone else, but my conservationist leanings on this planet derive from a weird sense of kinship with other creatures on this planet, and awareness of their symbiotic relationships. I couldn't care less about bacteria on mars.
:wq
Just a thought.
This link presents the theory they announced today a couple years ago, search it for magnetite.
>>...who or what formed that face on the Martian surface?
*I* formed that face on Mars. And I would have gotten away with it too, if it wasn't for those meddling kids.
Here is space.com's coverage.
To say that the sole reason that we should look to colonizing other planets is the eventual exploding of our sun is ridiculous. It is theorized that our earth will become uninhabitable for human as the sun expands to the width of Venus's orbit in approximately 5,000,000,000 years, when in about 50 years our space program has completely developed the technology to land probes on mars and even asteroids and send a man to the moon. Certainly there are many important reasons that we need to look to colonizing other planets and solar systems, such as the exhaustions of out resources here or a catastrophic life ending event, but to single out the end of our sun as a reason is irresponsible. Even if it took us until the year 7000 AD to leave our solar system, one could slow our rate of technological progress by a factor of 1 million and we would still leave before the sun exploded. In short, future space exploration and colonization is necessary and inevitable, but to cite the explosion of our sun as grounds for future research in space is ridiculous.
Black holes are where god divided by zero
*SIGH* - I know the rules, don't feed the trolls... but... I gotta respond to this one.
yeah and in a clump of shit there are carbon chains but guess what it is still a clump of shit
Yep. And you know what's interesting about that statement? A "clump of shit" would indicate the presence of life - ya can't have a clump of shit without someone to take a dump. Think about it...
Davis Ray Sickmon, Jr - looking for something to read? Check out my three free novels at MidnightRyder.org
Terra-formed? Are you insane? WTF have you been soking. Here the post is speaking to not fucking up the environment and you're speaking of terra-forming it>? Now that's the way to leave it un blemished. Screw it up like we are own planet. LOL Dude, you need to turn off the TV, go outside and see real life for a little while.
More race stuff in one place,
than any one place on the net.
Puhleeze.
The ecosphere on Mars will be completely unchanged by mans presence. Look at antarctica, save for a few hundred oil drums and some old buldozers it's just like we found it.
More race stuff in one place,
than any one place on the net.
1) Skepticism is a healthy part of the scientific method.
:-)
2) Shaking bar magnets can result in chains, but it's unlikely. A lower energy config is clumping.
(Try the experiment in 2D. Get a bunch of little bar magnets, put 'em in a shoebox, and shake. See what you get. Clumps?
3) Experiments are also a healthy part of the scientific method.
I know, the headline is a little inflammatory, it's designed that way... :-)
although the chances are so very small, we would be risking a lot - an entire ecosphere.
What we call ecological "destruction" is not usually "destruction" in the common sense. Usually, an ecosystem just changes, it doesn't get destroyed. I suspect that true ecological destruction can only occur due to massive changes... and I don't even mean on the scale of the atmospheric pollution we humans are pumping into the air. I firmly believe that the terran ecosystem will adapt to accommodate it. (Which is NOT to say that we shouldn't reduce emissions!)
True ecological destruction will occur when the sun burns out, or say, a passing nebula renders the entire solar system poisonous, or a black hole knocks the Earth out of orbit. Think of it: there was once a collision with a massive meteorite, and there were huge changes in the ecosystem (enough that I grant you could call it "destruction") but it eventually recovered from the catastrophe, and we are its result.
The only way of not "destroying" an ecosystem is not to go there at all. In fact, our spacecraft may have already carried terran microbes to Mars. Come to think of it, dust and other flotsam that drifts away from Earth could "contaminate" Mars, without any action on our part at all! Should we wrap our planet with a giant sheet of plastic, to hold in our terrestrial germs?
Ecological preservation makes a lot of sense, but only to a point. Beyond a certain point, it just becomes an unreasoning attachment to a status quo... Remember, an ecosystem is supposed to change; that's what makes it alive.
Disclaimer: IA-in-No-way-whatsoever-ABiologist. If I said something idiotic, feel free to set me straight.
--
Accountability on the heads of the powerful.
Power in the hands of the accountable.
(BTW, it was NOT Christopher Colombus that discovered America, but Leif Erikson. It was later surveyed by Amerigo Vespucci, leading to the naming of this land, "America," probably due to a clerical error.)
Just for the record, I'm well aware of this. The NASA scientists didn't "discover" Mars, either, so the point is moot.
If you're implying something about the destruction of the Native Americans and their way of life, all I can say is it was not exploration into America that killed the Indians, but ignorant, racist conquerors.
Explorers need not be conquerors.
No, but ignorance can do just as much damage. Just look at the dolphins and whales.
Now, I'm not saying that we shouldn't go; as you said initially, someone eventually will, and I'd rather the people who go be the least ignorant people possible, which probably means scientists rather than "explorers". What concerns me is the attitude you voiced in your comment; if I misinterpreted it, feel free to correct me, but it sounds too much like "as long as we benefit side effects don't matter," or "screw the natives, give us our gold." I don't want to see that attitude become common, or even the scientists may become affected by it, or pressured by government/business into obeying it.
--
BACKNEXTFINISHCANCEL
Imagine those (or similar) words coming out of Christopher Columbus's mouth, and then think back to your 16th-19th century American history...
Believe me, I thought about the exploration that eventually led to the discovery of America.
(BTW, it was NOT Christopher Colombus that discovered America, but Leif Erikson. It was later surveyed by Amerigo Vespucci, leading to the naming of this land, "America," probably due to a clerical error.)
If you're implying something about the destruction of the Native Americans and their way of life, all I can say is it was not exploration into America that killed the Indians, but ignorant, racist conquerors.
Explorers need not be conquerors.
"And like that
What concerns me is the attitude you voiced in your comment; if I misinterpreted it, feel free to correct me, but it sounds too much like "as long as we benefit side effects don't matter," or "screw the natives, give us our gold."
I thought I was pretty clear in my original post, when I said both, "I think the discoveries and new possibilities that arise from exploration vastly outweigh any fear of destroying an ecosphere," and "there are always good and bad side effects from exploration."
I think far more good has come from exploration than bad.
"And like that
But not to worry. It seems the extra-terrestrial life forms, in spite of being millions of years dead, got married in Los Vegas over the weekend to a colony of algae. This means that their green cards will remain in tact and they may all one day become citizens.
If you want to get the new couples a wedding present, they are registered at Nordstroms- for sun lamps and stagnant water.
Elian as fossilized microbe...
What about the converse? Consider this passage:
What happens when the astronaut returns to Earth?? Our immune systems have evolved defenses to bacteria in OUR environment. What are the chances that an extraterrestrial bacteria could wipe out our civilization?
If we ever become capable of really exploring the galaxy, and the universe really is as diverse as this article suggests, then i'd say our chances wouldn't be that good. Of course, there might not be any bacteria alive on Mars today. But that still doesn't exclude further extraplanetary explorations.
-- juju
Poster B: And calling bacteria cultures an 'ecosphere' is a bit much. I can't speak for everyone else, but my conservationist leanings on this planet derive from a weird sense of kinship with other creatures on this planet, and awareness of their symbiotic relationships. I couldn't care less about bacteria on mars.
Wow, I'm flashing back on Kim Stanley Robinson's Mars trilogy.
I'm somewhere in between the two posters with my opinion, though. Life on Mars does make it sort of sad that we'll be bringing all our microbes over there soon, but not sad enough (IMNSHO) that we ought not to do it. Not only is moving some people over to Mars a really good Get Some Eggs Out of This Basket(tm) policy for humans as a species, but dammit, isn't it just about time that we stopped talking about it and just did it?
Besides, maybe the microbes over there are lonely! ;)
Cyclopatra
"We can't all, and some of us don't." -- Eeyore
"We can't all, and some of us don't." -- Eeyore
Just because one planet exhibits life in a certain way is NO indication that ALL life-bearing planets will exhibit the same features. "Expect..." my ass. And of course we look at Mars for signs of past or present life. It IS right next door to the only planet on which we have found life to date.
It is likely that the concept of a planet having traces of life is not a valid one: there will be diversity and many filled niches, or nothing. Even if there are or were a few bacteria on mars, then it's not what we think of as life: there is no ecology, no biosphere, no diversity.
Hello, McFly? If there were something recognizable as a bacteria found on Mars, and a bacteria is recognized as a living organism, then it's pretty safe to say we would have found life on Mars eh? Ecospheres be damned.
Oh wait, you're a troll. Never mind...
LEXX
My cornflakes tasted funny this morning...
"Gold still represents the ultimate form of payment in the world." - Alan Greenspan, 1999
I mean, didn't they try this a couple years ago to suck some more money out of the US government?
...
hell, its 2001, they ought to have found something by now...
I like meat helmets.
i bet you're a lota fun at parties.
If you people would just do as you're told, everything would be OK.
I just don't know if I can buy this meteorite as absolute proof. It certainly suggests there's a high probability that life on Mars created the formations, but it doesn't guarantee it. Too many others things could be the cause and too many variable affected the meteorite....who's to say it didn't happen on earth? But now that we have this -good idea-, we should send a probe (or manned mission - pick me! pick me!) up to Mars to look for more rocks that exhibit this same formation and search for more conclusive proof.
"Maybe for once in my life people will call me 'sir' without adding 'you're making a scene'." -Homer Simpson
Despite the general lackadaisical attitude of your average Joe on the street, the discovery of extra-terrestrial life - if proven - will be the most significant scientific discovery ever.
Mankind has speculated for centuries that earth could not be the sole cradle of life, and proof of this intuition will result in a massive shift in how mankind relates to the cosmos. Instead of regarding ourselves as its sole intelligent organisms, we will be forced to reevaluate our role in the universe.
However, it will be a grave and perilous time for our species, and one made graver still by philosophies that now or subscribed to by our technological elite. Surely we must display unity and purpose as we go to meet or destiny, yet so many among us cling to a model that encourages - nay, demands - fractured individuality.
Yes, I'm talking about open source software. Software represents the pinnacle of man's achievement up to this point. In terms of sheer complexity and operability, it is unparalleled in our history. Yet, we are expected to trust its development to the whims of individuals.
This is not right. May this monumentous discovery of alien life drive us closer together, and force us to reevaluate the destructive and futile practices that open source demands.
- qpt
--
Domine Deus, creator coeli et terrae respice humilitatem nostram.
...they're special magnetic particles.
Unless we invent a time machine this won't be a problem.
Where in the article were you led to believe that there is CURRENTLY life on Mars?
Or perhaps it was a different article than I read.
The one I read indicated the rock was 3.9 billion years old.
What are the chances that an extraterrestrial bacteria could wipe out our civilization?
About as close to zero as anything can get. Seriously, humans can't even share diseases with most other mammals. You think we'll make good hosts for something that hasn't even evolved on the same planet? I doubt these things would even survive in our hot, wet, dense atmosphere. Chances are that these things never adapted to infect any host of any kind, since they were probably the most complex life on Mars. And as if that wasn't enough to protect us, life on Mars is almost certainly very long dead.
--
This space unintentionally left unblank.
The full text is Here on everything2, but for those you who don't like to click, I will exerpt the most important part:
Dr James Lovelock was first to articulate the reasons why Mars is barren. Put simply, let us look at the only example that we have of a world where life exists: Earth. How could we devise a subtle test to determine the existence of life on earth's surface? We don't need to; it sticks out a million miles away. Green continents. Atmospheric composition.
Life radiates to all available niches, it diversifies, it takes over, it envelops and transforms. Life doesn't just keep a foothold on a planet. If it is present at all, expect it to be almost everywhere on or near the surface. Expect entire geological phenomena such as coal and chalk to be caused by living things. Expect the planetary atmosphere to have puzzling components, like 21% highly reactive oxygen and traces of methane.
Sure, earthly life would have a tough time just keeping a foothold on Mars. But with Martian life, we would even expect like to not arise at all unless it did so in a form suitable to the prevalent conditions, and be further honed by hundreds of millions of years of adaptation.
It is likely that the concept of a planet having traces of life is not a valid one: there will be diversity and many filled niches, or nothing. Even if there are or were a few bacteria on mars, then it's not what we think of as life: there is no ecology, no biosphere, no diversity.
Looking for life on Mars is like the old story of the drunk looking for his keys under the lamppost because there's more light there. We look for life on Mars because it's nearby, not because it is a good place to look.
My Karma: ran over your Dogma
StrawberryFrog
For those that can't be bothered to read the articles, at least check out the pics. This could be really huge. The arguments will surely go on until more blatant evidence comes out, but this looks pretty solid - magnetotactic bacteria leave pretty distinctive, if small and fragile, artifacts, and the stuff buried in these rocks sure look like it.
The NASA guys have been studying the artifacts since 1996, and they are now convinced enough to put their reputation on the line. These aren't people to do that lightly.
"That old saw about the early bird just goes to show that the worm should have stayed in bed."
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
Earth and Mars have been transferring tons of bacteria-laden rocks to one another for millions of years. This means that each planet has already been exposed to the other's bacterial life. At any rate, Mars's soil is full of peroxides. Between that and the high UV flux, there's not much likelihood of Earth bacteria surviving.
InstaPundit! Ahead of the Curve Since 30 Minutes Ago
I just can't believe what passes for journalism these days:
"Scientists have published what they claim is conclusive evidence that bacteria once lived on Mars.... But some British experts are sceptical, saying the study falls short of absolute proof.... One thing is for certain, though. The crystals, regardless of origin, are agreed to have been a major factor in plummeting CD sales over the past year, and may have single handedly caused the recording industry wordwide losses of over a billion dollars."
Just uncalled for. Truly sloppy journalism. Fact checkers?
Perhaps NASA should try crashing some more shit into Mars. We sure could use some more meteors to look at. This time, though, they could just leave out all of the expensive electronics and save some money! :o}
forth ?love if honk then
I think the discoveries and new possibilities that arise from exploration vastly outweigh any fear of destroying an ecosphere.
Imagine those (or similar) words coming out of Christopher Columbus's mouth, and then think back to your 16th-19th century American history...
--
BACKNEXTFINISHCANCEL
The great irony of the War of the Worlds is that the precise opposite of the conclusion to that great tale could occur if we visit Mars - Earthly microrganisms could leak into the Martian environment and cause havoc.
I think the discoveries and new possibilities that arise from exploration vastly outweigh any fear of destroying an ecosphere.
I'm not saying we shouldn't be extremely careful, but what exactly would we gain by not visiting Mars? The preservation of micro-organisms that we will never meet, which may after trillions of years form a civilization that we will never know?
There are always good and bad side effects from exploration... but it is man's natural tendency to explore.
So you must ask yourself this one question... do you want NASA and related scientists to be the first to explore Mars, or some unregulated (perhaps largely unscientific) group of people?
One or the other of those two groups will get to Mars first.
-thomas
"And like that
However, is this the responsible thing to do? Wherever man travels he brings with him a shower of varied microrganisms, which adapt to local conditions. It would be extremely difficult to rid any travelling ship or astronaut of the organisms. If they got free in the Martian environment, they could wreak havoc.
The great irony of the War of the Worlds is that the precise opposite of the conclusion to that great tale could occur if we visit Mars - Earthly microrganisms could leak into the Martian environment and cause havoc.
Although this is unlikely, extremely unlikely in fact, even assuming that life exists on Mars now, the chance is not one we should take. I do not support a manned mission to Mars in the light of this discovery - this is rational because although the chances are so very small, we would be risking a lot - an entire ecosphere.
You know exactly what to do-
Your kiss, your fingers on my thigh-
You know exactly what to do-
Your kiss, your fingers on my thigh-
I think of little else but you.
That means that the chances of wierd sex with some alien chick with 3 breasts just got so much better.
:)
http://cgs.wox.org