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.
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.)
However, I have no idea what this group used to date the rock.
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.
You are in DIRE need of a statistics class.
The odds that there is NO life on this planet is zero.
The odds that there IS life on this planet is 1.
If there are N planets in this universe, and a percentage of them have life on them, the odds that you exist on one of the planets with life is 1.
This is a statistical FACT regardless of what the percentage is. It doesn't matter how many planets there are. There may ONLY be one planet with life. Even if that were true, the odds are exactly 1 that you are living on it.
Your (sad) statistical analysis is analogous to rolling a 100 sided die, then claiming that because you rolled, say, a 43, that ONLY a miracle could have caused it. After all, the odds of you rolling a 43 are 1/100 right?
Dig?
As somebody already pointed out in a different thread, mixing a box of magnets will form clumps, not chains.
;)
Try it.
Then post your results
As usual, religion is very resistant to any criticsm. I doubt very much anybody's faith is going to be terribly shaken.
Start with the concept of an omnescient, omnipotent being, and anything that follows is pretty much impervious to logic.
The faithful, of course, see this as a feature, not a bug, however.
You may as well try to explain nuclear physics to a tree sloth.
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.
Care to back this unfortunate bit of psuedo-science with some actual numbers? Do you have any REAL grasp as to how easy it its to get a bunch of complex proteins to form in a nice warm bath of hydrocarbons and water and a bit of electricity? Do you have any real grasp of exactly HOW large the universe is? Do you have any real grasp of exactly how OLD the universe is? How about the Earth.
Oh wait, I forgot. Earth is only 6000 years old. Gosh, you're right! There is NO way life could develop in the span of 6000 years!
chortle
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.
Just compare Mars with Antartica. There is life on the most inhospitable places of Antartica but it is difficult to see it. It evolves very slowly and is often dormant and frozen. Why wouldn't it be the same on Mars?
I'll do it for cheesy poofs.
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
when you replace the big slimy-looking mosters with strings of bacteria filled with magnets...
:o)
Well, yes and no. There is quite some debate going on about our origin, and there's a theory floating around that situates the origins of life (I mean, earth life) on Mars. The main point is that Earth cooled down much later than Mars did, and that the timespan between the cooling down of Earth and the appearance of life on our planet is somewhat short. No proof, of course, but it's sufficient to make scientists wonder. "We don't know" has become the standard answer.
If we find proof that some kind of life emerged on Mars, and that it can travel between Mars and the Earth (asteroid piggybacking involves quite severe conditions), then we have one thing to do: go to Mars, find life (or remains of it) and determine wether it has the same structure as ours - read: DNA.
This is why it is very important to preserve the natural lifeforms of Mars, or what remains of them: If we ever find evidence of native DNA-based life on Mars, it will mean that life on Mars and the Earth have almost certainly the same (presumably martian) origin.
In other words: it would be proof that the "big alien monsters" do exist. It's you and me.
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
LOL, This is funny and actually quite correct. Perdida get's a gold star for seeing what most would miss.
More race stuff in one place,
than any one place on the net.
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.
Of the 66 values quoted on the website, only the first 15 or 20 pertain to the formation of life in general. All others are only required for the formation of humans. I'm sure I could find more holes, but I don't feel like doing more research into Dr. Ross' numbers as I could use some sleep.
In addition, 20 of the 89 citations are to Dr. Ross' own publications, every single one of which is in Facts & Faith. If Dr. Ross ever gets his work sufficiently well accepted by the scientific community to be published in a non-religious journal, let me know.
I don't think you made all this up, not anymore anyway. I do, however, strongly suspect that your single source is less than credible. He seems best known for his work in trying to scientifically disprove evolution, and also seems to recieve very little recognition from his colleagues. I have yet to find any reference to Dr. Ross which is not in a religious context.
Bugrit! Millenium hand and shrimp!
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.
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?
>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.
>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.
>...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.
>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 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.
>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.
>...this is not a troll...
Sure had me fooled.
Bugrit! Millenium hand and shrimp!
That means that the chances of wierd sex with some alien chick with 3 breasts just got so much better.
:)
http://cgs.wox.org