Slashdot Mirror
Mars Rock Supports Cross-Seeding Theory
914 writes "Mars rover Opportunity has found a rock (nicknamed 'Bounce') that "provides conclusive evidence not only of Martian meteorites on Earth, but also of the possibility of cross-seeding." Not only that, but according to the UPI article: 'The discovery of Bounce raises the distinct possibility that life arising from a common source could have existed for a time on both worlds.'"
Instead of saying that the rock came from mars and ended up on earth, why not just take it that similar meteors to the one that landed on mars also landed on Mars. Afterall, the 'bounce' rock is reportedly unlike other Martian rocks. Am I missing the point? I blog from naija
If this is found to be true (and I could believe such a thing) then it would be damned near impossible to tell which planet life originated on, and it doesn't seem like it's overly important as the two worlds surfaces were quite similar chemically way back then.
Perhaps I'm just unfamiliar with the lingo being used here, but the words conclusive and possibility don't quite seem to make sense when both used in reference to the same evidence.
Alphanos
So basically what they are saying is that a lot of meteorites have a (very) similar composition. Some end up on earth, some on mars - and yet others are probably still Out There looking for a reasonably sized planet-like entity to smash into.
Given that the article first states that Shergotty and Bounce match like a fingerprint, only to go on saying they found a better match somewhere else leads me to think more in the lines of the rocks being "extremely close" rather than "identical".
It is also probably likely that a meteorite on its way to either planet could shed rock and ice from its tail on the one before crashing into the other, thereby elimiting any "direct" contact between earth and mars.
Still waiting for the martians to make contact...
Penhead
Does conclusive evidence of a possibility make it true?
It's worth pointing out that the quote about "conclusive evidence" mentioned in the abstract does not come from any of the NASA scientists. The full quote reads, "So far, no one has broached the bigger implication: Bounce provides conclusive evidence not only of Martian meteorites on Earth, but also of the possibility of cross-seeding." and comes from the article author himself, a UPI science and technology editor and is pure speculation. I would expect the NASA scientists to be considerably more cautious and not be making claims of conclusive evidence right off the bat.
Download my free songs!
What these scientists are overlooking is that all that the rock shows is that a rock could achieve escape velocity. There would need to be life present, and pretty hardy life at that, in order to be moved to Earth. Everyone keeps saying that life is everywhere in the Universe, why not have it evolve independently on both planets (or on just one). I would love nothing more than a confirmation of cross-pollination to be discovered, but we just don't know enough to say that this is conclusive.
------- "A true friend stabs you in the front." -Eliot
People are awfully fond of pronouncing the death of religion, but they are almost never right. There are two ways that religion could survive this:
1-God created us, God created them.
2-Good old fashioned denial, e.g. creationism, age of the earth, flat world theory, and so on.
Never underestimate people's ability to suppress inconvenient realities.
er, WTF are you talking about?
I think whether life exists on 1 or a million planets should matter very little to religion, western or eastern.
Religion (and God) speak to people in ways they can understand. This is why you have to read religious texts with their historical context in mind, whether it's the Old Testament or the Vedas.
If someone built their beliefs in such a way that evolution or life on other planets would ruin their spiritual foundation, then that's their problem.
You are speaking of the so called "Western" religions ( of Asian origins, go figure).
Thus the third possibility is that various other "nonstandard" ( in the sense that only billions of people adhere to such relgions, just not typically those people in Detroit). Some of these religions have already made strong footholds, at least, in Europe and the United States. Buddhism is widespread enough among physicists that it hardly even raises an eyebrow any more (well, at least not both eyebrows).
And the fourth possibility is the rise of new relgions founded upon these new ideas.
People are adaptable, even if dogma is not.
Of course there's also the possibility that the answer to the question "who was first" is neither the Earth or Mars, that each was seeded from some third bit of interstellar dust carried across the winds of space and time that predates us both, and by a goodly margin.
Yeah, that'll give those of the Judeo/Christian/Ismalic bent something to chew over, and quite possibly deny. There are still plenty of Millerites in the world, and they like to let me know about it.
No, thank you much, I do not want to buy a Watchtower. Would you care to come in anyway though? We're about to sacrifice to Ramtha and your arrival may be taken as propicious.
Hey! Where ya goin'?
KFG
KFG
People like attacking straw men.
"Aha! If you thought this, you'd be sunk!"
Never underestimate people's ability to suppress inconvenient realities.
If I had mod points, I'd give you a +2: All too true.
That's right. All your base.
Hence the position of Vatican Astronomer, held by the Jesuit George Coyne, who states, "It's madness to believe that man is alone."
I suppose I could also point out that in like manner the views of most Islamics differ markedly from those of the fundamentalist sort, and there are plenty of Reformed Jews in the world, and that much of what we think we know about these religions comes to us not from the main line of thought but from those that their own contemporaries thought of as "extremist religious whack jobs."
KFG
You will recall, if you are Christian, that Christ himself was included in that group you mention so tenderly. Hence the reason that they crucified him.
"We don't know what we are doing, but we are doing it very carefully,..." Wherry, R.J. Personnel Psychology (1995)
The article indeed is indeed wild speculation. It does not, however, make any claims. What it dies do, is spell out obvious implications. It just so happens, that these implications are quiet wonderful, and happen to inspire the imagination. It is one of the most beautiful aspects of science, that it can inspire human creativity, as well as be a product of that same creative impulse.
I am a Catholic with an interest in science. I trust the Church, and I trust science. It's true that proof of life on other worlds might throw some Christians into confusion, or make them retreat (further) into denial of legitimate science. But personally, I think it disrespectful to the Creator when we are afraid of looking too closely at the method of creation, for fear of contradicting Scripture. This is not a new idea: "If it happens that the authority of Sacred Scripture is set in opposition to clear and certain reasoning, this must mean that the person who interprets Scripture does not understand it correctly." - St. Augustine of Hippo (354-430 AD) Another Augustine quote Faith and Science
Fundamentalist christians really are but minority in the world (or even amongst christians in general); many of them are loud and obnoxious in US, trying to leverage their zeal and energy to get more power to their "mission" (ie. pushing their ideals down others' throats)... but they are still minority, thank doG. :-)
Interestingly, though, there are plenty of less vocal christian fundamentalist groups, both in US and in european countries; folks like Amishes or luddite-like groups in scandinavia (don't own TVs, stay quite isolated from "non-believerers, but have no mission to convert "outsiders"). Those folks are generally easier to respect, because they walk the walk, without having to talk the talk; not vice versa.
I like paying taxes. With them I buy civilization -- Oliver Wendell Holmes
That's feasible in my estimation. The best creator would be one that creates self-sustaining systems that grow and evolve by themselves over time. Creating things one by one would be a major pain in the ass. Building a machine (earth) with all the ingredients to create more life in and of itself, along with all the interdependent systems required to sustain life, would be the most challenging creation of all. Consider the fact that many generations of literally millions of creatures have come and gone based on a complex ruleset of survival, variable environmental factors, etc. Some have killed others off, some have inherited niches that are extremely specific (sea vent worm tubes, deep sea shrimp, etc.). The variety, breadth and depth of life on this planet is staggering.
Perhaps God created this big ant farm we live in but not us?
seeding is an awfully loaded way of referring to material from celestial bodies winding up on each other.
What are the chances that life could survive an impact big enough to expel this material? imagine the size of such an impact on earth. Between the impact's turbulence (I speculate a mix of vaccum, shock waves and super hot atmosphere - not to mention lots of molten stuff) wouldn't the journey through space be even more harrowing?
Then the re-entry on the destination, that can't be a walk in the park.
I've had a feeling that the true history of humankind, and most of the early biblical events, took place on Mars or another planet.
This is an idea I've heard before, but I can't see it making sense. There's evidence of life on earth (including our ancestors) for millions of years. The Bible was only written a few thousand ago. Do you think that our chimpanzee-esque forebearers preserved the history orally all of that time?
"...always new atoms but always doing the same dance, remembering what the dance was yesterday." -Richard Feynman
One can make an assertion that god exists.
One can make an assertion that god doesn't exist.
One can make neither assertion.
The third choice is the only one that does not require defense. As a christian, of almost any sort, you cannot avoid the burden of proof that is on you. Christians cannot claim the third choice. If you claim to see god in the trees and the beauty of the world, you are making the agnostic argument and you are a nonbeliever. If you pray, you are a believer. If you believe in the supernatural, e.g. the soul, you are a believer.
Believers, make an assertion that god exists. Thus, they have an obligation to prove god exists. Many, if not most nonbelievers either make no such assertion, or make a more restricted version of the assertion. A more restricted assertion for example might be "there is no omnicient, omnipresent, omnipotent being". More importantly if one says "I do not believe in god", it is fair to be claiming the third assertion. One can fairly rephrase that "I make no assertion that god exists." Therefore, there is no defense of this position necessary.
Finally, proof is a strong word, and something no believer has come close to developing. Perhaps try developing some evidence first. Or, perhaps even just a simple observable test. Perhaps instead of trying to defend such a large assertion, why not start with a smaller one like one of these:
Can god hear prayers?
Does he have ears to hear them?
Does he hear all of them, or just some?
Do saints talk to god?
If so, does god need saints to talk to him?
Where is heaven?
Can god make a triangle with four sides?
yada yada yada
The point of course, is that these are not the assertions of some fringe element of christianity, but rather, the mainstream. I assert none of the above, if you assert any of it, then the burden of proof is on you.
plurvert