Slashdot Mirror
NASA Says Mars Once "Drenched With Water"
NASA is currently holding a press conference (carried live on NASA TV) where they are discussing findings from the Mars rovers. They are saying that the crater that the second rover has landed in has convincing evidence that it was once drenched or covered in liquid water. They cite the tiny spherules, odd holes in the rocks, sulfur in the spectrometric analyses, and evidence of an iron sulfate hydrate (a hydrate is a chemical compound which includes water molecules in the crystal lattice). Update: 03/02 19:45 GMT by M : CNN has a story, or see the NASA press release.
If these rocks are sedimentary, then, as Squyres said, that has to be our main target for a sample return mission. Because sedimentary rocks are going to have fossils.
... for CowboyNeil saving money on his auto insurance...
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos
I wanted my free shrimp from Long John Silvers! Damn! Info Here
Bored? Why not join a decent mess
That there once has been water on Mars, considering that a lot of comets contains water.
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
I love how this story was posted during the opening remarks of the press conference before they could go into much detail.
Blaze a trail to the New World
Some creative company wants to find, and market this 'untouched natural' water?
The Mothership
So Mars haven't taken a bath or shower in ages. No wonder they're finding crusty salt brine residue.
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
"... the lense on the camera got really fogged up. That's when we really got suspicious."
Its not too late to watch: http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/mer/landing.cfm
I'm a big retard who forgot to log out of Slashdot on Mike's computer! LOOK AT ME.
Maybe I'm just an idiot, but where does the water go? Vapour in the atmosphere? Did the hydrogen and oxygen break apart somehow? Chemical reactions with something else? Did it just float off into space? Those all seem unlikely to me, but then, what do I know?
can be found here
-caf
And then there are fossils. Which means the next NASA mission will be funded by Halliburton after all.
Doing the Right Thing should not be preempted by making a buck.
Non-christian religions.
For example, as a Taoist, I fail to see how this would in any way effect my religious beliefs.
However, if I believed in a creator-god and in the uniqueness and specialness of human life in the universe, then yea, that would cause some issues. Thankfully, not all religions are like that.
You're gonna slashdot NASA TV now, dammit! I fully expect my satellite feed to start stuttering and flashing to black in a few minutes...
Hexy - a strategy game for iPhone/iPod Touch
To equip 2 Rovers with the best water detecting equipment known to man and how do you find water?
You get mud stuck to the tyres!
But in all seriosness, Good on NASA.
But it certainly makes a more life seeking mission like beagle 2 all the more important.
The next find I expect is simple life living on Mars.
Water != life
How can any religion survive that revelation?
I don't recall the Bible saying that there was no life anywhere but Earth. I've always believed it was possible that simple life could exist elsewhere. Intelligent life would throw religion a curve, though... I haven't thought as much about that.
I've got more mod points and GMail invi
Well here goes my karma...
...because no religion is dependent upon the earth being the only planet with life on it?
How can any religion survive that revelation?
I have discovered a truly marvelous
It will be interesting to see how the media handles this. By scope, this is probably the biggest scientific discovery in a lifetime!
[sig]darkfus[/sig]
As far as Christianity is concerned, where in the Bible does it say life only exists / was created on earth?
I see a pattern in your post. Every time religion is shown to be wrong, they internalize the error and come up with a new story that fits the truth that their flocks believe. In answer to your question, 'How can any religion survive that revelation?' Just as long as their are sheep out there who dont want to think for themselves.
Well, I think you were forgetting about the whole alien overtone. Also, the water isn't there anymore. They are still looking for the big alien device to bring it all back.
Also, I'm voting for Arnold when he runs for King of Mars. I'd like him to fix the drought.
...don't question it!!!
Well, the news may not have been announced by feb 29, but the evidence may have been found by feb 29.
Liberty.
Even though I am an atheist, I must disagree with what you say. The revelation only refutes a portion of the Judeo-Christian(-Muslim?) tradition of the creationism story (which could easily and eventually be modified and bent to the new evidence). But in terms of philosphies, especially in regards to how we treat one another and our surroundings, abundant life in the universe is a non-issue. Other religions like Buddhism aren't touched by the news either.
My $0.02...
[ insert your own witty .sig here ]
This would be great news for the space program, as Bush would make the invasion and conquest of Mars a national priority.
Finding God in a Dog
and at the end of the conference, they'll pretend that it's over and say:
and one more thing... we found life on Mars!
Interesting...That means we could possibly come back with a another rover that not only could look for life, but could possibly "repair/rejuvinate" the current rover by 'sweeping" the dust off of the solar panels? I would imagine just leaving the rover would be interesting to engineers and scientists to see what happens to a man made object that sits out in the open for extended periods of time....good information if you want to build stuff on Mars.
Anybody out there like to comment? Is it a possibility? Could we come back with another rover and get Opportunity working again after it runs out of juice?
Also, Methionine is an essential amino acid that is not synthesized by the body and must be obtained from food. It is one of the "sulphur-containing" amino acids and is important in many body functions.
It is likely that sulphur, coupled with the different ferrous hydrides can produce viable conditions for life.
This is a troll if I ever saw one but I'll bite.
The idea that God created the universe with countless planets, stars and habitable worlds is not in conflict with at least Catholicism. I'm willing to bet that there are a lot of other religions who would have no problem with such an idea but I'm no religious scholar.
If I recall correctly, nowhere in the Bible does it say that Earth is the only world in the universe or even the only one with life, intelligent or not. It's kind of an open question.
Please give me a verse if I'm wrong.
Blaze a trail to the New World
The common knowledge was that the ice caps are carbon dioxide ice - dry ice.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
All finding simple life on mars would prove is that it's scientifically possible for life to develop independantly within the parameters and rules that this universe operates in, and does not require what might be seen as miraculous occurences. This only renders God irrellevent if you believe that God didn't actually create _everything_ that exists in the first place. Ironic, isn't it?
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
The conference is going on now and theres new news: Not only was there a large amount of water, there's good evidence that it was salty.
I found the live video from NASA here:
http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/nasatv/index.html
They are talking about it right now it is real interesting.
How can any religion survive that revelation?
I know I'm going to get modded down as a troll, but why would you think this? Firstly, I don't think any mainstream religion DEPENDS on any of your ideas.
Looked at it another way:
The sun became the center of the universe. -Religion survived
We found out we were one star in a galaxy that was the centre of the universe.. -Religion survived
Then we found there were countless billions of stars. -Religion survived
Now we find another local planet with ancient water on it.. -Religion will survive
The next find I expect is simple life living on Mars. -Religion will survive
-Styopa
No link in the article. Here is the press release: NASA Press Release
Actually that is not entirely true...
St. Augustine, back in the day, posited that if there are other planets with life on them, Jesus would have had to visit them all in order to "save" them.
If Jesus did in fact do this, it would remove the uniqueness of Jesus. Since the bible states that Jesus' is unique, this could not have happened.
Thus he surmised that there is no life on other planets.
Still #1 -- Lonely Gay Geek
Why would most religions care?
Christians (at least _informed_ Christians, yes there are some) in particular, would not be disturbed to find that God had created life in more than one place. Why shouldn't He? It's not like the Bible says somewhere in it "Oh, and by the way... this planet is the only one with life on it."
C.S. Lewis discussed the subject fairly completely in an essay decades ago. In case you don't know, he was a famous and very influential Christian author, as well as writing some science fiction and fantasy. Besides writing a non-fiction essay about it, you could view his "Space Trilogy" fiction as an examination of the life-on-other-planets issue with a Christian background.
The more interesting question (also discussed by C.S. Lewis and many others) is how different religions would react to the discovery of _intelligent_ life somewhere else in the universe.
Microbes on Mars... scientifically, that's amazing. From a religious point of view... well, it's "just" another example of a Creator God at work.
Torrey Hoffman (Azog)
"HTML needs a rant tag" - Alan Cox
Why would finding life on Mars take away faith in a divine being? Surely a god could have created life there too...
Liquid water on Mars required the atmospheric pressures to be higher than they are right now. There was no proof, only speculation, that this was the case. Now there's something closer to proof.
Gentoo Sucks
Of course, I understand your criticism, which is, I think, directed mostly at dogmatic adherence to ancient traditions without questioning them. However, religion will survive, I am sure. Religion and science are not mutually exclusive. Science is concerned with one aspect of our reality - the quantifiable, and predictable. Religion is concerned with all those things that you cannot quantify - love, anger, thought, the experience of death, wonder, awe, consciousness. They are both parts of our reality, and neither can be used to explain everything.
Actually, an ellipsis usually has three periods. An ellipse is usually a conic section whose plane is not parallel to the axis, base, or generatrix of the intersected cone.
-no broken link
Genesis would be a good place to start. Only Earth is ever mentioned as the place where god created life.
Genesis does say that god created the heavens and the earth but nowhere does it say that god created life anywhere but Earth.
Of course the excuse, the same that is used to explain the story of Noah, is that god created life elsewhere but it just wasn't written down.
For reference
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/mars_2003_05. html
Bush Lies On the Record.
Why do you seem so eager to see religion eliminated?
Is it by any chance because they are always so "in your face" with their bible thumping and telling you that you're going to hell and all that?
Because if so, aren't you doing exactly the same thing as what you hate about them? Being intolerant of other people's values?
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
So can I marry a Martian microbe? The bible doesn't specifically prohibit that does it? Where does our president stand on this issue?
My religion can, but it depends on entirely different myths.
Finding God in a Dog
How can any religion survive that revelation?
Some can quite well actually. But I'll get to that in a second.
First off, we need to make the distinction between "theology" and "belief." A particular theology may not survive this sort of revealation, but in most cases that just means it will adapt. Most major religions of today have gone through huge adjustments and adaptions. This will just simply be another one.
Secondly, beliefs die hard. The fact that one's religious belief is based on faith and not evidence means that in most case no amount of evidence is going to shake a strong belief, especially if one is determined to hold it no matter what. So if this is the "end" of someone's faith, well, such an individual was bound to drop that faith at some point anyway.
Finally, there are many religions in the world in which this sort of discovery will not contridict their core theology and beliefs at all. In fact, to some, it may validate it. So don't be so quick to announce the end of religion. It has survived much and will continue to do so.
Who said Freedom was Fair?
They mentioned that they are going to go check the nearby rock outcropping named "Big Bend" and do basically the same that they did on this rock, in order to see if these rocks were laid down there. I think they're checking exactly that, i.e. whether or not this whole area is laid down with rocks of the same origin (soaked in water), or if they were thrown here by a collision or something.
They said that they weren't sure if the rocks were sedimentary or not. From the sounds of it they aren't, but they did happen to be "soaked in water" or whatever the quote was, allowing the concretions to form in spaces in already existing rock. They haven't found any evidence of layering yet, as far as I know, which would mean sedimentary.
Scientists have concluded the part of Mars that NASA's Opportunity rover is exploring was soaking wet in the past.
Evidence the rover found in a rock outcrop led scientists to the conclusion. Clues from the rocks' composition, such as the presence of sulfates, and the rocks' physical appearance, such as niches where crystals grew, helped make the case for a watery history.
"Liquid water once flowed through these rocks. It changed their texture, and it changed their chemistry," said Dr. Steve Squyres of Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., principal investigator for the science instruments on Opportunity and its twin, Spirit. "We've been able to read the tell-tale clues the water left behind, giving us confidence in that conclusion."
Dr. James Garvin, lead scientist for Mars and lunar exploration at NASA Headquarters, Washington, said, "NASA launched the Mars Exploration Rover mission specifically to check whether at least one part of Mars ever had a persistently wet environment that could possibly have been hospitable to life. Today we have strong evidence for an exciting answer: Yes."
Opportunity has more work ahead. It will try to determine whether, besides being exposed to water after they formed, the rocks may have originally been laid down by minerals precipitating out of solution at the bottom of a salty lake or sea.
The first views Opportunity sent of its landing site in Mars' Meridiani Planum region five weeks ago delighted researchers at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif., because of the good fortune to have the spacecraft arrive next to an exposed slice of bedrock on the inner slope of a small crater.
The robotic field geologist has spent most of the past three weeks surveying the whole outcrop, and then turning back for close-up inspection of selected portions. The rover found a very high concentration of sulfur in the outcrop with its alpha particle X-ray spectrometer, which identifies chemical elements in a sample.
"The chemical form of this sulfur appears to be in magnesium, iron or other sulfate salts," said Dr. Benton Clark of Lockheed Martin Space Systems, Denver. "Elements that can form chloride or even bromide salts have also been detected."
At the same location, the rover's Mossbauer spectrometer, which identifies iron-bearing minerals, detected a hydrated iron sulfate mineral called jarosite. Germany provided both the alpha particle X-ray spectrometer and the Mossbauer spectrometer. Opportunity's miniature thermal emission spectrometer has also provided evidence for sulfates.
On Earth, rocks with as much salt as this Mars rock either have formed in water or, after formation, have been highly altered by long exposures to water. Jarosite may point to the rock's wet history having been in an acidic lake or an acidic hot springs environment.
The water evidence from the rocks' physical appearance comes in at least three categories, said Dr. John Grotzinger, sedimentary geologist from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge: indentations called "vugs," spherules and crossbedding.
Pictures from the rover's panoramic camera and microscopic imager reveal the target rock, dubbed "El Capitan," is thoroughly pocked with indentations about a centimeter (0.4 inch) long and one-fourth or less that wide, with apparently random orientations. This distinctive texture is familiar to geologists as the sites where crystals of salt minerals form within rocks that sit in briny water. When the crystals later disappear, either by erosion or by dissolving in less-salty water, the voids left behind are called vugs, and in this case they conform to the geometry of possible former evaporite minerals.
Round particles the size of BBs are embedded in the outcrop. From shape alone, these spherules might be formed from volcanic eruptions, from lofting of molten droplets by a meteor impact, or from accumulation of minerals coming out of solution inside a porous, water-soaked rock. Opportunity's observations that the sp
Victory is gained, not in knowing your opponents next move, but in preempting them.
http://spaceflightnow.com/mars/mera/statustextonly .html
There is no place in the Bible that claims that Earth is the only source of life in the universe. In addition, by "religion", you are most likely referring only to the three major monotheistic ones: Christianity, Judaism, and Islam.
Plenty of Christians believed that the earth was not the center of the universe even back when this was the prevailing worldview. The Bible itself does not stipulate that Earth is the center of the universe. Aristotle believed that Earth was the center of the universe (plenty of his contemporaries disagreed), and his works became "canonized" as the only view during the Middle Ages, along with other great thinkers of the ancient world such as Ptolemy, who used an overly complex method to explain the orbits of heavenly bodies, and Galen, who was the first doctor in the West to link the nervous system to the brain, but based all his findings on pig anatomy (couldn't dissect humans back then).
Having a religion does not exclude common sense. In persisting in this belief, many atheists (or at least ./ atheists) are often more intolerant and ignorant than followers of organized religion.
There's no sig like this sig anywhere near this sig, so this must be the sig.
Funny, but nowhere near as cool as when Taco Bell planted the Mir target in the south pacific.
Do you honestly expect every single thing God created to be written down?
And Sirius begat M-551, and M-551 begat Polaris, and....
Someone's going to say "Life elsewhere would be pretty important."
Sure, to you. Probably not so interesting to most people living 4000+ years ago, who would have been quite shocked to discover that there was more than one continent, or that the world was round.
I've got more mod points and GMail invi
Before they even got to the good bits about the Ewoks...
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Oooh... so maybe humans were originally on Mars... and they screwed up their planet with pollution, overuse of resources, etc., but managed to transport a few people to Earth to start over...
And maybe we'll look to terraform Mars and move there once we've hosed this planet too. The cycle continues...
Heh... yeah. Anyway, back to work now.
Obviously NASA knew this earlier, and held back their findings in deference to the all-powerful fast-food seafood lobby!!!
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Archeabacteria are closely related to the oldest life on earth. Many are thermophilic, acid tolerant, anaerobic, sulphur-loving microbes. Just the sort that would be happy in the acidic hot springs hypothesized on ancient Mars. And they go dormant when the conditions are not just right so the ride to Earth on some rock fragments splashed out by a meteor impact would have been in suspended animation. People who can't grasp the Out of Africa concept are really gonna have trouble with Out of Mars.
Excellent point. I think my fundamentalist brethren tend to forget that when God came to Moses, he wasn't dealing with a Carl Sagan or Stephen Hawking -- or even a Galileo. He was dealing with a guy whose claim to fame was running away from a life of luxury to tend sheep. At the best, Moses' idea of the universe might have dealt with Egyptian gods, and a universe whose origin was a direct result of some rather kinky onanism.
God came to Moses in a way Moses could understand, in a way that his fellow shepherds and stonemasons could understand.
Imagine Moses up on the mountain, getting the first four books of what we now call the Old Testament from the Almighty:A bit cheeky, but the point is: God comes to us in a way we can understand. That's different for an illiterate goat breeder in 2000 BC than it is for a nuclear physicist in 2000 AD. Whether you choose to believe doesn't have as much to do with how God appears as it does with your own faith.
Stressed? Me? Of course not. Stress is what a rubber band feels before it breaks, silly.
How. Tell me where the Bible, says that God did not make other life. It does say that God is infinite. In fact a Christian can easily accept life on another plant because, if God is infinite, that would lead to Him being infinitely creative. So why would he stop with life on earth.
Also as to the central reason for Christianity is that sin affects humans (read man on earth) how does that affect there being life on other earths.
C.S Lewis also had a sci-fi book about life on other plants.
Wasn't Dune (Arrakis), and the Sahara desert, once drenched with water? In Dune, the Worms were the cause of its climatic change while I forgot what happened to the Sahara (was it new mountain ranges forming in the north). I think that a lot of places on earth changed from forests to deserts because the mountain ranges blocked the flow of rainclouds inland. I doubt that Mars was dried because of mountain ranges so I have no idea what I am talking about here :p
Want some cheese with that whine?
Stupid sexy Flanders.
It's burried in huge subterranean (submartian?) cavens. These are all interconnected. Then there's this huge nuclear reactor, which if turned on, will terraform the surface in less time than it would take the governor of California to suffocate in the present Martian atmosphere.
The REAL jabber has the user id: 13196
What you do today will cost you a day of your life
Crap. Fine print says...
If only they could have booked the conference room for the press conference 2 days ago instead of using it to hold Jerry's retirement party.'cause I *really* wanted to have that free jumbo shrimp.
dammit.
Actually, the standard line for several years is that the polar ice caps are a mix of CO2 and water ice. It's fairly clear that there is still a very significant amount of sold water on Mars. The contention these days is how prevalent liquid water is.
The downside being, if there was any chance of saving hubble before, it's gone now. I heard the story on NPR a few days ago... something like $200 million in parts are built and ready to go, just waiting on a shuttle mission that would extend hubble's lifespan beyond 2006. "safety concerns" were cited as the cause, but reduced budgeting due to mars' popularity is a far more likely reason. (listen to the audio stream of the program)
*sigh* The bell tolls for yet another victim of society's apathy.
Considering the difficulty evolution has in explaining the origins of life, finding life on Mars would not boost evolution as much you'd like to think.
Even Dawkins admits that selection can't work until the right proteins are in place and can replicate. In his book the Blind Watchmaker, he basically admits that abiognesis is required involving some VERY unlikely chemical combinations, before evolution can get started and then, in my opinion, offers a huge copout by basically saying: Well, with so many planets in the universe, the odds of it happening at least once may not be so improbable.
The odds of it happening twice in the same solar system strain credibility.
I suspect the explanation will be that life on Earth actually started on Mars.
You can tell a great deal about the character of a man by observing those who hate him.
Add some mass to the planet for added gravtiy, massive heat increase to melt the ice caps and creat liquid water...
Make it pay per view to keep it profitable!
We can call it a Weapon of Mass Creation!
WE CAN'T LOSE!
St. Augustine, back in the day, posited that if there are other planets with life on them, Jesus would have had to visit them all in order to "save" them. If Jesus did in fact do this, it would remove the uniqueness of Jesus. Since the bible states that Jesus' is unique, this could not have happened. Thus he surmised that there is no life on other planets.
Well, you could say the same thing for different continents. Jesus didn't have to visit all the continents to save everybody. The word of God was carried there at a later date by evangelists. Sam thing could be said for other planets with life.
Perhaps Jesus was on all these places, and then I'm sure that angels will come down and reveal themselves and the truth just as they did with the Mormons and Jesus' history in the new world.
Frankly I'm disappointed. Until now they roam around and claim that the findings are not wholly conclusive:
"The images obtained to date are not adequate for a definitive answer. So scientists plan to maneuver Opportunity closer to the features for a better look. "We have tantalizing clues, and we're planning to evaluate this possibility in the near future," Grotzinger said.
Besides hydrated minerals were already hinted by Spirit. One of the very first press releases pointed to that fact. Besides this is not the only weird thing between Opportunity and Spirit outputs. If one compares the first wave from results from Spirit with Opportunity's then it seems that the second robot is clearly giving very thiny results. Until now I could not see broadscale spectral and infrared analysis like the ones Spirit did. Maybe I'm missing something but frankly it seems that data feed from Meridiani goes a long way from it could.
PS: To those who are discussing theologies... Frankly don't get you people. Try to find a super SF author by the name of Nicolau Cusanus and his bestseller "De docta ignorantia". He already discussed a lot of what you keep rumbling till now...
...and your Sea Monkeys (tm) will come to life!
Well, if you believe the ads run by cable companies then the mere mention of water should cause your signal to go out.
If Mars does have water and possibly life, wouldn't that mean that we would have effectively quarantine Mars from human or any other biological contact? If not, we would run the risk of destroying an entire planetary ecosystem no matter how small or primitive it might be.
Life on Mars would prevent terraforming or perhaps any human colonization at all.
I printing off my "Save the Martian Microbes!" bumper stickers right now.
The results they are finding imply water was in a liquid state for a significant amount of time. It was long enough for hydrated minerals to form and salt lake signatures (sulfur and bromine deposits) to form, similar to what forms in dry salt lakes.
It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
God: Well, it took a few billion years to... oh, never mind, let's call it "seven days".
The opening story in Gensis resembles a Pharaonic Drama. It is more poetic than literal. People sometimes need to look beyond the words written on the page...funny how my fellow members of a religion, where the founder was dissatisfied with how the current religious leaders had lost sight of the meaning of the words and instead focused on strict literal adherence to the law, are hell bent on making people accept a little story written a very long time ago in a very different time literally.
HAL 7000, fewer features than the HAL 9000, but just as homicidal!
The grandparent poster must work for Diebold.
You have to account for the Martian pressure.
gotta love em
;)
If we bring back a few samples with the help of a robotic probe, EVEN IF they dont contain any fossils, those samples will still be invaluable to science.
But hey, we can always hope the samples contain Sand Kings...
2) ???
3) Life on Mars
4) Profit!
Marvin's going to be awfully mad when we come there to drill for oil.
Chris Knight is my hero.
It may take a century or two to be useful, but if Mars was once "livable", it's easier to live on, I would think.
they had found some Spice.
Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
The odds of it happening twice in the same solar system strain credibility.
I wouldn't go that far. The odds on the particular reactions occuring at any given time are low, but we're talking about extraordinary time scales: hundreds of millions or billions of years. Even very unlikely things happen several times during a period that long.
The trick with life processes is that once it happens, it tends to replicate, so it "sticks". Once you have life, it's really, really hard to get rid of it entirely. That's one unique feature of life that makes it distinct from non-living processes. (The other is change, the key element of evolution and distinct from, say, growing crystals, but the exact defintion of life isn't the purpose here.)
None of this comprises proof, of course. Working out the exact odds involves way too many assumptions for me (or anybody else) to be specific. But it does not, to me, strain credibility that somewhere in the hundred-million-year history of "wet Mars", the reactions that kick off life to have started.
Nor does it conclusively rule out intelligent creation or many of the other competing theories. But the discovery of some sort of life on Mars would tend to suggest that evolutionary theory has good explanatory power, which is all you can ask of a theory.
Other images show the rover tracks clearly are being made in "mud", with water being pressed out of that material, Levin said. "That water promptly freezes and you can see reflecting ice. That's clearly ice. It could be nothing else," he said, "and the source is the water that came out of the mud."
Why they are all talking about the water of the past and not about the "mud" which is more exciting news about the "current" water. Also why nobody asking the question regarding this?
Mars has a very weak magnetic field since we speculate that its core has mostly cooled. This means that the planet is poorly protected from harsh solar and cosmic radiation, which is strong enough to break down water into oxygen and hydrogen. These atoms would indeed just float off into space, since the gravatational pull of the planet is not strong enough to retain such light atoms.
That's why I'm not holding out much hope for terraforming Mars. But that doesn't mean we can't still live on it, just in protected chambers on the surface.
Water alone isn't enough to create life. You need that water to exist for millions of years. So, the next task is to try to determine how long that water existed for.
Not all religions consider man to be centrally important in the universe (in fact some, like Taoism and some forms of neo-Paganism, stress man's existence as a nondistinct part of the cohesive whole of nature). Furthermore, many practitioners of religions which do assign a special value to humanness or sentience understand that such value is entirely spiritual and not to be confused with any external physical value. Even members of western religions which feature an active creator God (Christianity, Judiasm, Islam, etc.) are often open to the possibility of even intelligent extraterrestrial life, as they see such beings as also being God's children. Theories as to the religious inclinations of such extraterrestrial beings abound (I heard from a Berkeley astronomer working on extrasolar planets that he had recieved a letter from the Vatican asking if he had any inkling as to the hypothetical religious beliefs of hypothetical aliens. He replied that his data was as yet insufficient for a meaningful answer). Even assuming that intelligent extraterrestrials do not possess practices akin to human religion, I'm sure some members of "missionary" faiths (i.e. some sects of Christianity, Islam, and Mahayana Bhuddism) might believe that such beings would need to be exposed to the tenets of their religion and possibly converted. Less aggressive religious persons might find very interesting insights in the philosophical ideas of an alien race, even as people today can learn a great deal from other religions and cultures.
You need to remember that religion and science need not be antagonistic. I, for one, am a scientist and also a man of faith. I do not believe in the literal truth of any religious text, but I do believe that many different faiths around the world contain spiritual truth or "divine inspiration" if you will. I personally was raised in a (mainstream protestant) Christian environment and today choose to worship as a (Quaker) Christian, but I do not, by any means, believe that my religion has a monopoly on the truth.
I also believe that science is another powerful source for truth, and a unique one in that its claims can be tested, measured, and verified (unlike religion). Science has in the past disproven the very literal-minded interpretations of religious conservatives with regard to cosmology and biology, and it will likely continue to do so in the future. Keep in mind, however, that there are those of us who hold religious beliefs and also believe in the veracity of Evolution, the Big Bang theory, and even consider the prospect of extraterrestrial life likely. I recognize that science does not offer proof of my belief in a diety, or in a moral purpose for intelligent life, but I also know that science does not disprove these beliefs. I accept that, going on empirical evidence, Atheism is just as valid and just as likely a belief system as my own, and so I don't seek to disprove it. Saying that science disproves all religion, however, is just as ridiculous as the claims of so-called "creation scientists" who insist that scientific evidence proves that the Universe was created by God some ~6000 years ago, and thus that science disproves Atheism.
In the end, you'd do well to remember the scientific method. In order for a scientific hypothesis to be valid, it has to be falsifiable. A statement like "God created two human beings in Eden 6000 years ago, and the entire human race is decended from those two ancestors" is falsifiable, as we can find older and more varied human remains around the world. A statement like "God exists", however, is not falsifiable, and therefore is not testable by science. You can disprove certain ideas about God's interaction with human affairs, or you can disprove the literal correctness of certain creation accounts, but you can not disprove the existence of God (him|her|it)self. And, even if you could, many people would still choose to believe in God anyway, just as many people choose to believe in a literal creation now. As a scientist, I have
Anonymous Luddite: "What do you think of the dehumanizing effects of the Internet?"
Andy Grove: "Not Much."
You didn't even read my comment. Evolutionary theory as it currently stands requires some form of abiogenesis to get started. It would NOT have good explanatory power for the life getting STARTED.
If you do the math on the chances of the right precursor molecules spontaneously forming without selection pressures, the odds are ridiculously low. I'd have to look it up, but it's on the order of 10^26 against, and that's with ridiculously optimistic concentrations of the right chemicals in the soup. In that time frame, a trillion years is nothing, thus Dawkins' comments.
To be fair, Dawkins does try to get around the limitation by assuming that the precursor molecues got a kick start from a non-organic matrix that could undergo selection (clays), but he fails to explain how the molecules would be embedded in the right amounts in the clay (a random process). A critical analysis shows the argument to be basically flawed, and we're back to the abiogenesis requirement again. Even Dawkins' doesn't give the clay idea much more than a "just-so" story treatment.
You can tell a great deal about the character of a man by observing those who hate him.
Where does it say the sun revolves around the earth? That didn't stop the Catholic church from holding to that belief for over a thousand years. Religion isn't based on science anyway, it is based on faith and believers shouldn't look to science to confirm their faith. It has to come from the heart, not the head. Believers tried that with Copernicus and they learned their lesson, someday the anti-evolution crowd will do the same.
I guess that is why it is called "faith".
It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
Let's play a little game. Pretend you are God (pick your denomination, doesn't matter). You are going to reveal your existence to the primitive people living in your world and get some serious worshiping going.
Now since you created everything, you understand how cells, quarks, thermodynamics, astrophysics, and non-Euclidian geometry work.
HOWEVER, do you really think you are going to get into that with people who are struggling with the concept of simple tools? I don't have any particularily strong feelings on the topic either way, but it seems awfully silly when everytime a scientific discovery is made, someone points out that because the $RELIGIOUS_TEXT didn't deal with it, then that religion must be bogus. The arguement really then becomes: "Because the Bible did not explain every single thing about the universe around us, it must be bogus".
Of course the excuse, the same that is used to explain the story of Noah, is that god created life elsewhere but it just wasn't written down.
Oh perhaps it was and was lost, or we just don't know about it. When was it ever said that the Bible was a complete and comprehensive history of those times. To believe that you would have to believe there were only a few hundred people in the world at the time. Or perhaps the Bible (like any religious text, or history for that matter) doesn't tell the personal story of every living human on earth at the time.
Finkployd
Actually, bacteria do in fact leave fossil records
I don't know much (actually, anything) regarding purported non-carbon "life," but regular ol' bacteria can leave fossils, believe it or not.
The NASA scientist held up a sample of Jarosite. For the curious, here's a definition. Note -- the page referenced has several very cool links for more information.
THE MINERAL JAROSITE
Chemistry: KFe3(SO4)2(OH)6, Potassium Iron Sulfate Hydroxide.
Class: Sulfates
Group: Alunite
Uses: Only as mineral specimens.
Specimens
Jarosite is not a common mineral. It is closely related to the mineral natrojarosite. Jarosite is isostructural with natrojarosite which means that they have the same crystal structure but different chemistries. In this case, jarosite contains potassium instead of natrojarosite's sodium (natro is derived from the Latin for sodium, natrium, from where sodium gets its symbol, Na). The two minerals are difficult to distinguish without a chemical test.
Both minerals are isostructural with alunite with a formula of KAl3(SO4)2(OH)6, who lends its name to the Alunite Group of which all three minerals belong.
The symmetry of jarosite is the same as the members of the Tourmaline Group. Crystals of jarosite however do not form prismatic crystals like those of the typical tourmaline mineral. Jarosite's crystals are more flattened and resemble nearly cubic rhombohedrons. The "rhombohedrons" are actually a combination of two trigonal pyramids.
PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS:
Color is an amber yellow or brown.
Luster is vitreous to resinous.
Transparency: Crystals are transparent to translucent.
Crystal System is trigonal; 3 m
Crystal Habits include tabular to flattened rhombohedral looking crystals. The "rhombohedrons" are actually a combination of two trigonal pyramids. Crystals are somewhat scarce and small, more commonly as earthy masses, films or crusts, botryoidal and granular.
Cleavage is good in one direction but only seen in the larger crystals.
Fracture is uneven.
Hardness is 2.5 - 3.5.
Specific Gravity is approximately 2.9 - 3.3 (average to slightly heavy for translucent minerals, but hard to obtain from crusts)
Streak is a pale yellow.
Associated Minerals are barite, turquoise, galena, goethite, limonite, hematite and other iron minerals.
Notable Occurrences include Jaroso ravine, Sierra Almagrera, Spain and Iron Arrow Mine, Colorado; Maricopa Co., Arizona; Idaho and California, USA.
Best Field Indicators are crystal habit, associations, color and hardness.
Stressed? Me? Of course not. Stress is what a rubber band feels before it breaks, silly.
My kids are growing up in a conservative Christian household and I am highly encouraging them to choose what they want and what they're good at for a career. I hope that they want to study science, but will support them every step of the way regardless of their decision.
I know that doesn't help you any, but I thought you should know that Christianity and a love of science are not mutually exclusive. Any belief system (or lack thereof) will have a few bonehead adherents, but that doesn't mean that's the norm, or even particularly common.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
Personally I wasn't eager to combine our "bouncing with airbags" landing approach with nuclear power -- until I googled a little and found the RHUs (Radioisotope Heater Units) on Sojourner. The Viking missions also used nuclear reactors in some capacity. As of a year ago, there also seemed to be specific plans for a long-term Mars rover with a reactor, to be launched in 2009.
They've worked some on the idea, anyway: Design Concept for a Nuclear Reactor-Powered Mars Rover.
"Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
There are international guidelines on the amount of biological hitchhikers that are allowed on the probes that are sent to other planets. Presumably, Spirit and Opportunity were de-contaminated to these standards (as was Pathfinder/Sojourner). Incidentally, Viking landers were both put in ovens a sterilized before launch, but these days the standard has been to only sterilize certain parts like this and wipe-down disinfect others, which is probably better on the electronics in any event.
Bush Lies On the Record.
Do you mean "water alone isn't enough for life to evolve"? Is there an 'evolutionary recipe' of some sort for life to come into being for which H2O and Time are the main ingredients?
Your monitor is staring at you.
http://www.enterprisemission.com/tides.htm
ABSTRACT
Conventional models of Mars, based on measurements by initial Mariner unmanned spacecraft, found an arid, apparently ancient environment without current liquid water. This prompted subsequent, highly negative assessments regarding Mars' history, and the difficulty for the origin and/or evolution of higher forms of life. Later, the unmanned Viking missions (as well as the 1997 Pathfinder Lander) seemed to confirm this barren model. Complex, sometimes contradictory geologic theories to explain this desolate Mars environment have been proposed, based on a wide variety of observed surface phenomena and features. A new model that reconciles major puzzling contradictions among past models is now put forth, using new observations from MGS high-resolution images of Mars and a reevaluation of certain Viking era experiments. Small-scale surface features are identified which, it is proposed, are the direct product of wide spread ancient and recent bursts of subsurface liquid water. These water "stains" are shown to cluster (beyond statistical chance) in an unmistakable tidally-determined, bi-modal distribution on the planet: centered near the Tharsis and antipodal Arabia "bulges." A revaluation of Mars ancient history is therefore proposed, suggesting that Mars (well after solar system formation) was captured into synchronous orbital lock with a larger planetary companion ("Planet V"), accounting for the clustering of present day water bursts around the former beds of two bi-modally distributed "Mars ancient oceans" as a direct result. The current Tharsis and Arabia mantle uplifts are shown to be an inevitable additional fossil signature of such former tidal stresses, induced by a close gravitational relationship with Planet V. Other heretofore inexplicable Martian surface features are shown to be consistent with such a simple "tidal model": Valles Marineris (as an eroded ancient tidal bore, formed immediately post-capture); the presence of the extremely flat terrain covering the northern hemisphere (via deposited sediments from the once tidally supported oceans, when released); and the current trench or "moat" around the Tharsis bulge (from relaxation of Tharsis back into the mantle, after tidal lock was broken). The long-mysterious "Line of Dichotomy" is explained as a remnant of a "blast wave" of debris from this sudden severing of the former orbital lock relationship with Planet V, due to either a catastrophic collision or explosion. Chemical signatures of this extraordinary destruction event on Mars are shown to be consistent with the model; including the distribution of olivine preferentially below the line of dichotomy; the presence of primitive mantle and core materials such as iron and sulfur in unusual abundance on Mars surface; and the concentration of proposed "water stains" in areas bereft of olivine. Mars unusual magnetic field "striping" is now shown to be another unique southern hemisphere signature of this destruction event, caused by standing P and S waves reverberating through the planet's crust as a result of the massive simultaneous impacts from Planet V debris. Recently published research showing unprecedented outflow channels from the Tharsis and Arabia bulges are shown to be consistent with the sudden relaxation of the two tidal oceans, as is the sculpting of huge amounts of material by fluvial processes north of the Arabia bulge. Two possible mechanisms for the destruction of Planet V and the breaking of this tidal lock are outlined. Finally, a new timeline for Mars geologic evolution is proposed that is consistent with these observations, placing these events between capture ~500 MYA and the destruction of Planet V at 65 MYA.
The common knowledge was that the ice caps are carbon dioxide ice - dry ice.
This is 5, Informative in a sneaky small print kinda way. Yes, common knowledge was that the caps are carbon dioxide.
Today common knowledge is that the ice caps are a mix of CO_2 and water. In the last couple years, there has been mounting evidence that it is actually mostly water ice, with some CO2.
Google mars polar caps if you don't beleive me.
Posted anonymously 'cause most moderators today wouldn't notice anyways.
That's assuming life is somehow "special" in the first place. "Special" is a subjective quality... how do you measure how "special" something is?
---
Never criticize religion on Slashdot. You will be modded down for "Troll" no matter how factual it is.
It's kind of unfortunate that God wasn't more accurately predictive. I'd be much more inclined to believe if, for instance, God had provided some information that wasn't known at the time, but was later proven or discovered to be true. Like, "the world is round." Why didn't he mention that to the people living 4000+ years ago? Maybe drop a hint or something? It might have helped them out a little. Why not provide a piece of true information that is unlikely to have been known or invented by an author at that time?
The reliance on faith (God won't provide proof because he relies on faith to bring people to him) is a sticking point. The same data can be just as validly analyzed as "non-existence".
Apart from welfare money, that's the best spent money in the US budget for years.
I think, therefore I am...I think.
I'm sorry, what the hell does finding water on Mars have to do with religious belief? I don't see anyone of any religious faith claiming that there was no water on Mars because their religion says so.
Celebrate the finer things in life
regardless of religion, lets say for a moment that you were an all powerful diety, would you seriously create an entire universe to support but ONE intelligent life form?
i sure as hell wouldn't, and i don't think anyone else imaginative enough to create something as simply beautiful as our planet would either...
ones creative urges would prevail, and other intelligent life forms would be created; simply for the hell of it if not for any other reasons...
If there was water, there could have been snow. If there was snow, there could have been snowmen. Hence there could have been life.
Steve Squires for President!
95.32% Carbon Dioxide - CO2
2.7% Nitrogen - N2
1.6% Argon - Ar
0.13% Oxygen - O2
0.07% Carbon Monoxide - CO
0.03% Water - H2O
0.00025% Neon - Ne
0.00003% Krypton - Kr
0.000008% Xenon - Xe
0.000003% Ozone - O3
This does not take into account nitrates in the ground, which might have contributed to atmospheric nitrogen in the past. Also, the water % in the table above is probably going to be revised, perhaps, studies on Nitrogen density are likely.
Further, nitrosomas and nitrobacter are extremely common bacteria in earth water - ask anyone who's run an aquarium - I predict they may be among the first bacteria discovered on Mars.
My .02 cents
Agreed.
I also think that it's important not to patronize the ancient scholars who put Genesis together. Clearly the account has been compiled from several sources, a fact that the compilers, if not future generations, would be quite clear on. I also suspect they were also well aware that they were not writing a natural history text, although they probably attempted to be consistent with the known cosmology of their time.
The main point of the creation story, in particular the story of the fall is this:
To this, they answer the question with another question:
This way of answering is especially poignant if you imagine the compiler as a religious scholar or scribe, an educated sensitive person who would as part of his job think about things like the inevitability of death. What he is saying that knowledge and self awareness may be a blessing, but they are also a burden.
Taking Genesis as a text on natural history reduces a profound statement about the human condition to an obsolete and disproven speculation.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Building on my last post on this topic - true - the Bible does not say that there's no life anywhere but Earth. But SOME Fundamentalists do take that to mean that things not explicitly stated in the Bible, can not be true. These are the same people who go to extreme lengths to explain why Pi=3, the Earth is really flat (round-earthers are a leftist conspiracy), and the Earth does not circle the Sun. And, of course, the moon landing and this mars junk were just a hoax filmed in some garage in Palmdale.
It all really depends on how literally the religious adherents take scripture. There is a strong Bible Literalist movement within Christianity. Intelligent Extraterrestrial Life could easily be rationalized away as demons trying to steer us from the truth, etc.
But there are also a great many Christians who don't believe that the Bible is the literal unaltered Word of God. (Like me). Often, I feel like we're a dwindling minority. It's as if the strength of their faith depends on the crutch of rationalized physical evidence the Bible represents to them. Sad that their faith is really so weak that they require physical evidence.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
One signature may be small magnetite crystals. One the controversies with the "fossils" in the martian meteorite was how to be sure they were really fossils. The argument pretty much devolved into two lines of reasoning when it was reduced to the simplest form. The objects pro) looked like fossils, but con) they were far, far smaller than expected from comparable earthly forms, but pro) contained magnetite (hematite) in a form that ONLY occurs in lifeforms on earth, but con) they came from Mars, which totals up to "no one has the vote." Interestingly, hematite was one of the attractions of the Opportunity landing site.
Today President Bush announced an emergency $5million to fund writers for employees at NASA upon hearing their speeches.
Seriously though, very cool. =) But my god people, get WRITERS!
I'm still amazed some corporate sponsor didn't get their name on one of those rovers. I'd think some water company would be all over that opportunity.
The ISS and Mars have the forest. Hubble needs a tree.
The cost so far for this most recent mars mission is over $800 million. Budgeting through further missions is set to exceed $15 billion. The ISS outdoes even this, with an expected cost of near $30 billion to finish the station, and estimated operating costs of $1.5 billion a year once completed.
Hubble needs about $100 million for a single shuttle launch. $200 million in equipment has already been constructed and is only waiting in a warehouse for a mission.
I don't deny the importance of the ISS and Mars missions. All these projects have significant importance for science, technology, and society as a whole. Hubble is about far more than "getting to see a black hole". We have made dramatic advances in astrophysics with the help of the telescope. We have gained immense insight into the depths of our universe, to an extent that won't be possible again for a very long time.
Taking relative cost of the three projects into account, Hubble is by leaps and bounds the most effective. Do the math. Fixing the hubble will only take 0.2% of the cost of the ISS and Mars missions. Given the advances in science and technology we have extracted from Hubble, the return on this small investment is tremendous.
That's why I sigh.
Given infinite time even the most improbable event will happen again... and again... and again...
Speaking as a thoughtful Christian who still holds some of the beliefs that many of my Slashdot bretheren would take great pleasure in savaging... I've asked myself a few times what it would take to firmly disprove my religion, short of dying. For instance, a device that can "look back" in time and disprove the Ressurection once and for all. (Without that, we have nothing; that's said directly by Paul in the Bible.)
Encountering an intelligent, human-or-above race with absolutely no conception of God as I know him, and absolutely no conception of such anywhere in their history (perhaps they've strayed, after all), is another one. The logic is hard to verbalize but at least for myself it would be a deathblow. It is possible that something in the encounter would cause some other belief to be viable (perhaps they had some other conception that clearly showed ours to be a misinterpretation), and I can see middle grounds where it would a toss-up, but if they were clearly 100% atheistic and always had been, that would leave my faith in tatters.
On a somewhat weaker note, I don't expect to actually meet any extraterrestrials in this life; Original Sin is clearly highly contagious and we should be kept isolated. There's been some science fiction in similar veins. On the "100% confirmation" note, it would be interesting if we encountered a race that had no original sin. Regardless, while I can't speculate what would happen well until it actually happens, meeting extraterrestrial intelligent life would have some effect on me.
Non-intelligent life doesn't faze me in the slightest; besides, it may still be of Earthly origin even if it's on Mars. If life is found and it has identical DNA (same acids, et. al.), that will be the most likely conclusion, that both planets have the same basic source of life, carried via cosmic events like asteroid impacts. (Which planet it started on would probably be absolutely impossible to determine, if it turns out both were capable of supporting life at roughly the same time.)
Ahem. _The_RNA_World_. Get it. Read it. Accept it. I worked with the authors during a lab rotation at the University of Utah.
Points to keep in mind: amino acids and nucleic acids are abundant in the universe. They form naturally in the interstellar medium. They are detected in nebulae all over the sky. They are part of the basic building blocks that exist all over the universe.
Next point: there are numerous other helpful items in nature that lead to SELF ORGANIZATION. Self organization is an area of scientific study if you are inclined.
Next point: there are various scaffolds available that can act as substrates for projected proto lifeforms (self-replicating nucleic acids, RNA molecules).
All life involves is basic chemistry that exists everywhere in nature, abiotic and biotic.
Combine all the above naturally occurring elements and you have all that is needed to produce, ultimately, life from non-life. Life is not magic. It is ultimately about self-replicating, sustained, chemical reactions.
It is possible to derive self-replicating RNA molecules. Once such a molecule exists, it is subject to evolution, plain and simple. There are no "buts", there are not "wait a minutes". Once you have a self-replicating ANYTHING, it is immediately subject to evolutionary forces. Given time and range(and we are talking BILLIONS of years here and a virtually infinite sized universe) you have plenty of time and opportunity to evolve virtually any type of possible lifeform. No magic. Just plain old chance, chemistry, and evolution. All plain logic and mathematical simplicity.
It took something like a billion years for life to evolve on earth into a form that is recognizable as life. A billion years is a LONG time. It is much longer than you imagine, much longer than you CAN imagine. You cannot take in that amount of time and really get a grasp on what it really means. A billion years is a long-frickin'-time. Time enough.
In Bushworld, they struggle to keep church and state separate in Iraq as they increasingly merge the two in America.
What was that Rabbit thing. opportunity photographed on Mars and why did Nasa destroy it ??
echo '[q]sa[ln0=aln80~Psnlbx]16isb572CCB9AE9DB03273snlbxq' |dc
They have found extremely compelling evidence that there was/is water on mars. Essentially the only questions that remain are, "How much water?" and "How long was there water?". True, the evidence isn't 100% conclusive, but it is definitely within a range that several scientists are willing to place their reputations in jeopardy to announce.
To know is to have knowledge....to understand is to be enlightened.
(j/k)
Omnes arx vestrum sunt adiuncta nobis.
Yeah, that's kinda the same thing as discriminating against racists. What was the question again?
The ignorance here is astounding. It is NOT possible to derive self-replicating RNA molecules simply by mixing the precursor chemicals together. They won't form. The intermediary chemicals are unstable and will collapse back into the primordial goup. That's why the time frame is so ridiculously long.
And many of the precursor chemicals do NOT exist outside of living organisms. You may find Adenine in a nebula, but I don't think you're going to find N10-Formyl-THF in an interstellar gas cloud.
You can tell a great deal about the character of a man by observing those who hate him.
You need to re-read the book; Dawkins makes the exact opposite claim in Watchmaker. Namely, that ever-increasing chains of replicating molecules eventually build to the point of reaching self-replication.
So you start with molecules that self-organize -- crystals. These molecules tend to provide a focal point for other similar molecules; the crystal structure grows bigger and bigger.
Eventually, parts of the crystal recombine in a way that produces faster replication, at the expense of having a larger and more complex molecule. You now have a different crystal, one which is more complex, and which is 'better suited' towards survival because it can increase in size more rapidly (eating food, in effect).
Repeat this a number of times, and you eventually get a molecular structure that is both complex and capable of self-replication; you would expect that this molecule would follow its crystaline roots, by having a more-or-less fixed structure composed of simple compounds that interact with other readily available compounds to replicate.
Sounds like DNA to me.
--
I Hit the Karma Cap, and All I Got Was This Lousy
Because if life developed independently on two planets in the same solar system, that would imply that the development of life in any similar star system is not just possible, but likely..
Look at it this way: if life is so common that it had evolved multiple times in the same little nook of the galaxy, then it's a very good bet that nearly every planetary system anywhere, with even remotely the right conditions, probably harbors life. That would be amazing.
You do NOT need to find ALL of today's chemicals of life (on earth), from all the amino acids, to all the nucleic acids, in order to get the precursors of life. All you need are some basics. Once, by chance, they polymerize into a form that self-replicates, that's all you need. From that point on, you have the only thing needed for more complex life to form.
There is more than simply adenine in space. There is more than just one or two amino acids in interstellar space. There are also a LOT more than must the 20 _standard_ amino acids or the A(T/U)GC bases available for use in proteins and genetic material as well. We, today, use a particular subset of these.
As for self-replicating RNA, I do not say that you can throw all the precursors into a test tube and viola! Self replicating RNA. You CAN get such given enough time (billions of years), energy (thermal, UV), and repeat occurances (billions and billions of galaxies, each containing many billions of stars, covering a timespan of billions of years).
It should be no mystery to the organism on planet x that it exists on planet x as if it was just inexplicably "created" perfectly for it to exists. C'mon. Billions of stars, billions of planets...chance absolutely assures not just one instance, but MANY instances of random chance leading to life. There is no mystery here, just huge blocks of time, huge numbers of potential sites, and plentiful precursor molecules available.
Given enough time and separate instances, then even an infintesimal chance for event x to occur assures without question that x WILL occur. That is what life is.
In Bushworld, they struggle to keep church and state separate in Iraq as they increasingly merge the two in America.
My friend drew (look him up on the boards at holophrastic.com) once wrote a beautiful essay on how the speed of light can be used to prove the Bible wrong on its creationist timeline. (He concluded by telling all the fundies to give us their toasters and go back to the stone age. It was coarse but intellectual. I love drew.)
Anyway, since there is a big section of Christians who already believe that Genesis is not exactly literal and/or chronological, they could easily fit life on Mars into the story of creation, somehow. The real question is, which of them will WANT to, and which will just add to their belief that science is evil.
Personally, I'd like to see the whole thing blow up. Pat Robertson lives in my neck of the woods, and he is a constant source of entertainment. I would love to tune in one day to something like, "Today on the 700 Club - Life on Mars: Scientific Proof of God's Love, or Evidence of the Location of Hell?" (Mars being the planet of War, ruled by Aries the Ram, a Fire Sign, etc. and so on...)
The House Between - Original Sci-Fi Series
I am really tired of people "looking for life on (insert planet/moon name here)." If it can't jump up and say "Howdy!", prance around in a skipmy outfit like that Vulcan chick from Enterprise, or shoot a ray-gun with a tentacled appendage, who cares! Evolution is king, baby: let's not coddle those weak little Martian organisms. If they can't handle the competetion with some strapping Earth-born organisms...fuck em!
Think about how long it takes to terraform a planet. Shouldn't we have started by now? It's past time to seed some plants to eat the carbon dioxide, release some oxygen and let them begin digging the water out of the earth and releasing it into the atmosphere.
Speaking of plants, I wonder if tossing cactus/sensamilla seeds out of a baloon bourne lander would be a good way of finding water. Those plants are pretty hardy, and anywhere the plants start to grow would potentially have water sources near the surface. I bet I could devise some wicked experiments to carry out on Mars with plants that were modified genetically to withstand the harsher conditions.
If only the scientific community would grow some gonads we would have a great decade of science and experimentiton ahead of us.
What is the matter officer? I have obeyed all of your silly Earth laws!
When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
Here at JPL, it is an interesting mixed feeling the scientists are having.
On one hand, we've acomplished almost all of the stated goals of the mission. I saw the Long Term Planning briefing and the chart had item after item checked off... only the endurance section was left unfinished.
Think about it. We landed not one but two fully functional rovers on mars, with the most comprehensive science package ever sent to another world. We have spectrometers of unmatched precision, we have the ability to examine betneath the surface of rocks and outcrops, and we've taken the most detailed pictures of mars ever recorded.
We've explored rocks and craters and soils, and that was just the first few sols! All of this is an incredible accomplishment, especially considering the track record. The engineering part alone is enough to consider the mission a success.
But since last week it's been clear to us here that we've found what we were looking for: evidence that clinches the case that Mars was once wet. That's when I say, "Mission Accomplished". That's more than many hoped to find, though we sent the mission as it is primarly because we expected this was *possible* if even somewhat unlikely.
But we're not done yet. In fact if anything we have more questions to answer now. Mars has never failed to throw curve balls at us. There's all kinds of minerology that we're not sure about. We don't even know yet if this was just ground water, or actually lakes or oceans. But as long as these rovers still have life in them we'll continue to advance our scientific understanding of the planet.
Regardless of what anyone thinks about the specifics of the President's plan, it's clear that public support for the program is very high now, considering that we have learned from our mistakes and have accomplished more than we could have hoped. I'm very optimistic that future missions will unravel many of the new mysteries we have discovered. It is truely, as they said on the briefing, a great time to be alive. The field of astrobiology is finally beginning to be taken seriously by the scientific community and even the public at large. We have seen that Faster, Better, Cheaper *can* work - as long as we don't try to bite off more than we can chew.
I don't know when we'll actually have humans on Mars, but I'm hopeful that there's a real chance that in my lifetime (and maybe even my parents') we will find evidence of previous life on Mars. It'd be nice to know we're not quite alone.
My congradulations to the science team for an incredible discovery, and I extend that to the taxpayers that graciously fund us, and to our supporters in all nations of this earth. We could not have made these discoveries without our valued partners in Europe, and they deserve to share much of the credit.
I know some of you on slashdot ask why fund the space program. I hope that this makes it clear that you are getting your money's worth. Thanks for all of your support!
Cheers,
Justin Wick
Science Activity Planner Developer
Mars Exploration Rovers
"In fact it's perfectly safe," said one of the officials,
"it's built so that even if the ship does break up, the
storage holds cannot possibly be breached."
Young Zaphod Plays It Safe
Peace and love, y'all
Mars is already contaminated with Earth Bacteria. There has been significant exchange of materials between Earth and Mars as a result of meteor impacts splashing small bits of each planet into space. It has been demonstrated that lots of bacterial species can cope with the tremendous forces and pressures that these bits would be exposed to, so they could (and almost certainly do) easily survive an interplanetary trip. Discovery of DNA-based life on mars, or anywhere else in the solar system, would not answer the question about whether or not we are alone in the Universe, as all that life is very likely to have come from the same single source.
Given enough time and separate instances, then even an infintesimal chance for event x to occur assures without question that x WILL occur.
Given an infinite time, which we don't have. And even then your conclusion is only valid for a uniform random distribution, which is most certainly not given either. (and that's not all... you're making a lot of assumptions.)
Otherwise you are saying that, at some point, a 747 with every seat occupied by an encyclopedia salesman named "Fred" has flown out of a black hole. If you believe that then I have 440 sets of encyclopedias to sell you.
"Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
That's really not that crazy. Terraforming is an important goal of astrobiology. There are significant risks, and several ethical questions involved, but it's not unrealiseable. Within 100 years we could warm Mars to almost the same temperature of Earth - the seas that we think existed would flow again, and *cross fingers* we'd see a whole new biology erupt before our eyes. It's really very exciting. Check out Nasa's Astrobiology website for more details at: http://astrobiology.arc.nasa.gov/ I took a course on it at my university - I'd assume other colleges offer similar courses. They come highly recommended. I have a real appreciation for the work the biologists do in determining the origins of life, both here and *out there*. Neat stuff...
Now we find another local planet with ancient water on it.. The next find I expect is simple life living on Mars.
:)
How can any religion survive that revelation?
I know you're a troll but it's a decent question.
I work at JPL on this mission, however I'm also a Christian. And as a Christian I believe personally that God made some damn cool stuff for us to explore. If we find past life on Mars (and believe me, we are a long ways away from that) that won't make me feel any worse about how I believe. I will feel more awe, not less, at what I see around us.
I'm not advocating my religious beliefs but it's amazing how many people assume all Christians are violently against the existence of extraterrestrial life. The Bible says we are special compared to what else is on this planet, and nothing more. Personally I'd be surprised if God wouldn't make more awesome, different types of "people" to enjoy this crazy universe
Cheers,
Justin Wick
Mars Exploration Rovers
Think about it. There has to be some reason why Mars once was covered in water and now isn't. Could the same thing happen to our own planet?
http://mediagoblin.org/
"Informative"? Yeesh.
FeH doesn't mean anything, because iron has valence 2 or 3 in stable compounds.
FeS3H2 doesn't spell anything but ignorance.
Iron sulfate hydrate is FeSO4.n(H2O). "Hydrate" means it has water bound up with it.
Congratulations on being able to count atoms on both sides -- and even multiply small integers, wow! -- but there's a lot more to chemistry than that.
That's why the latin is more elucidating. You're fallacy is falling into a linguistic trap. Cogito ergo sum. Think do I, thus am I. The first premise is think, the rest follows. Counter arguments that you can't think that you've thought until you have thought are Zeno-eqsue (google Zeno frog well) or that you perhaps only think you are thinking (google Chuang Tzu dream butterfly) are self-evidently moot. Dang, the frog ate the butterfly again. I hate it when that happens.
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." -- Philip K. Dick
Hard to say. Except for earth, we don't have any examples yet, which means there could be only very rude educated guesswork.
But i'd say the chances are pretty good, since it's known (or at least highly possible) that primitive live like one-cell-organism could survive in space for a long time through hybernating. And it is known that planetary material could be ejected into space (like from meteor impacts or violent vulcanic explosions like in Krakatau - see here and here and land on another planet like mars.
Although the chances of survival for one-cell-organisms in a single incident are fairly small, there must have been thousands - if not millions - of these catastrophic events in earths past. One of the biggest was presumably the asteroid that created a thermonuclear winter about 65 million years ago. This one is known to have ejected material out of earths orbit.
So, all things considered, chances are that some bacteria could have survived an ejection from earth, the travel through interplanetary space, reentry into mars' atmosphere and adaption to mars' climate.
For the chances of complex life-forms: Well, it pretty much depends on many factors: The past climate of mars, if the first life-forms were native or not - and if not - how sucessfull presumed introduced life-forms from other planets adapted to the given and changing climate on mars.
As for fish, i'm don't really know, i'll rather bet on plant-life and rather primitive water-based or sand-based animal life-forms.
Look, this thing is totally safe! Built it myself, you know. You just press that button like this and then turn that lev
Back to previous page Life from space? Unlikely ... Let's wait and see
by Carl Wieland and Jonathan Sarfati
The world's media is abuzz with the claim that life forms have been found coming in on the Earth from outer space. This is said to reinforce the belief that life has evolved in space and 'seeded' the Earth.
This preliminary response was prepared prior to our being able to access original papers, but what we have been able to gather so far is as follows.
What was actually found? The Scotsman (31 July 2001) reported:
'A fluorescent dye which is only taken up by the membranes of living cells was used to detect the presence of the organisms. Electron microscope images revealed coral-like clumps of material measuring between five and 15 micrometres across. ... "...we have detected between one and 10 clumps of these bacteria per litre of ambient air."'
However, note the following:
Presuming that the test with the membrane-sensitive dye is proof that they are bacteria, we are not told how they allegedly differ from Earth-bound ones. Evidently their membranes aren't too different! If their biochemistry or genetic machinery had been carefully compared, no doubt that would have featured prominently in the reports.
There are many non-living things that have a 'ball-park' resemblance to bacteria. Recall the various false 'Mars rock (fossil) bacteria' claims. Shape and size are not enough.
If the objects are indeed living organisms, it is true that living creatures have not been verified at that altitude before. But other scientists are saying there is no reason that the right weather conditions might not waft bacteria that far away from the Earth. In fact, it has been suggested in the past that Earth-bound bacteria may well get up high enough for radiation pressure to carry them off to other planets (see Planets can swap rocks).
There is something intrinsically strange about a claim which essentially says: 'They're 40 km from Earth, so they can't have come from Earth, that's too far, so they have come from another place trillions of km away.'
There is serious doubt whether bacteria, unprotected by e.g. being inside a rock, could survive the harsh conditions of outer space.
Finally, it may be very significant to note that one of the scientists apparently involved in the claim, Professor Chandra Wickramasinghe, has long written about his theory (shared with Sir Fred Hoyle) that the Earth is being 'seeded' with living things from outer space. They developed this theory after they calculated how mathematically impossible it would be for life to evolve here on Earth. (Of course, their theory only shifts the impossibility to another part of the universe. And later they realised that the chance origin of life would defy the laws of probability even if the whole universe were filled with primordial soup!) Without wishing to be uncharitable, we are not the only ones pointing out that it may be no coincidence that the evidence is being interpreted to conform to that viewpoint.
Conclusion
In one sense we don't have enough information to even warrant responding yet, but with all that media attention, Christians will be asking us about it sooner rather than later.
If these are bacteria, and it seems a big 'if' at present, it remains to be seen whether they indeed originated from outer space. If so, then knowing the incredible complexity of even the simplest living thing, they must also be the product of creation. Nevertheless, in the 'big picture' of the Bible, it would be an exceedingly strange thing to expect life forms in outer space. Our deep skepticism on this claim has both a scientific and a Biblical basis.
As our subtitle said, though, 'let's wait and see'. Meanwhile, check out the articles on Q&A: Alien Life/UFOs.
I agree with your main argument. Assigning probabilities to events which we don't fully understand is somewhat rediculous. Any sort of argument that uses a figure like "10^26, yada yada" is interesting because its the best science with the knowledge we have right now. But trying to figure out how life began/was created is so difficult, we don't even know what we don't know. Any statistics we come up with are derived from a hopelessly incomplete picture.
The notion that Mars has been contaminated via meteor impacts is still a theory. It's a plausible theory, but just a theory. It's, in fact, a theory we could try to confirm by examining what kind of life, if any, exists on Mars. That in itself would be a spectacular scientific result.
But once Mars has been contaminated by bacteria from earth, that opportunity is gone because we won't be able to distinguish bacteria we brought from bacteria that traveled via meteor impact.
The real answers can be found here. David Icke knows the TRUTH. It's the lizards from outer space. And the British Royal Family. And the Freemasons. And the Devil Worshippers. And he doesn't take his pills.
Stick Men