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.'"

17 of 305 comments (clear)

  1. Which was first? by ChronoWiz · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Which was first, Mars or Earth??

    1. Re:Which was first? by AndroidCat · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It would be a lot easier for Mars rocks (and life) to get to Earth than vice-versa. Earth's gravity-well would require much more energy to splatter rocks around the solar system, eventually reaching Mars. Of course, if you're God, aliens, random-chance, Kibo, etc, and you have big planetoids to toss around, energy is not much of a problem. (How to blast Earth-life to Mars without killing everything might be tricky.)

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
    2. Re:Which was first? by iocat · · Score: 4, Interesting
      Ironically, since it's known for being fairly fuddy-duddy, the Catholic religion is offically fairly cool with both evolution and the big bang theory. They take the "it's all God's plan" attitude of the grandparent poster -- God created heaven and earth, and all the natural laws of the universe, that enabled us to be here, more or less.

      It's not clear to me if this link is actually the official catechism of the Catholic church or just one person's analysis (and there's a lot near the end that I suspect most slashdotters will take issue with), but it gives an idea of how liberal the Catholic church's views on the subject are compared to say, fundementalist Christians.

      --

      Dude, I think I can see my house from here.

    3. Re:Which was first? by modder · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I'm not trying to be a smart ass, but I know little about chemistry and I would like some clarification by someone who might know.

      It seems to me like people are jumping to conclusions here. Isn't it possible that some other source, source C, was where these meteorites originated and then later collided with both earth and Mars?

      The only thing which seems to not support this is
      from the article:
      "Micro-bubbles of gas trapped in dozens of meteorites found on Earth -- including Shergotty -- match the recipe of Martian atmosphere so closely that they must have originated on Mars."

      But couldn't there be some other place (source C in my example above) which also has an atmosphere with such a "recipe".

      Or are these atmospheric "recipes" that unique? (And if so, how was that determined?)

    4. Re:Which was first? by AndroidCat · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Also, how much has the Martian atmosphere changed over time? (Earth's certainly has, and there was life here before that blue-green algae started farting poisonous oxygen.) We need a better baseline on how Mars has changed over time.

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
    5. Re:Which was first? by shadowbearer · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The Vatican learned a lot from the lesson of Galileo; even if it did take them until the 20th century to acknowledge so publicly. The Catholic church does seem to be keeping up with the times, however; contraception being one example of sorts...

      I don't remember much of what I read about the origins of the Vatican Astronomer, tho; what was the reason for creating the position in the first place?

      Christianity has fragmented so much that there are altogether too many whackies. Not really surprising, most authoritarian frames of mind tend to generate offshoots both more and less fanatical.

      SB

      --
      It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
    6. Re:Which was first? by shadowcabbit · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I'd like to jump in for a second here on the link you offered, and I'm willing to risk a whole three karma to do it (yeah, big risk, but who really cares). I noticed you put in your post the following advice regarding the link:

      (and there's a lot near the end that I suspect most slashdotters will take issue with)

      I realize I probably don't fit the profile of "most slashdotters", but frankly I don't see much of a problem here. I was raised Catholic, true, and have found myself doubting that faith as an agnostic seeker; but to be perfectly honest the link makes a compelling argument for the existence of [a/some/many/the one true/whatever] God.

      It's probably not Catholic canon, to be sure, but the works cited in the article-- from Augustine to Darwin-- are enough for anyone to read for themselves and come to their own conclusions. Some people might say that it was merely luck that humans evolved in the way that they did-- that there was no divine force guiding the mutation and development of the unique characteristics that make a human a human. To this I say, "Well, if I have to prove to you there is a God, you have to prove to me there isn't." There is no evidence either for or against the existence of such a force-- certainly the odds are astronomical, but the greater the odds, the more likely it seems less of a coincidence and more of an intent.

      Also, the bit about the soul simply not being possible in evolution also sits well with me. If evolution could have created humans exactly as they are now without the need for a creator's touch, what need would we have for the creator? It is my belief that when the creator (who or whatever that may be) saw that humanity was as developed as it was going to get naturally, this creator imbued the race with the spark of intellect-- a touch of the divine, if you will.

      My beliefs are my own. You may or may not find truth in them, and frankly it's none of my business whether or not you do. I just thought I ought to thank you for giving me the opportunity to air that out a little bit. Oh, and I'll definitely be passing this link along to one of my old professors-- he's a Catholic priest and very much into this sort of thing.

      --
      "Why Subscribe?" Good question...
    7. Re:Which was first? by shadowbearer · · Score: 4, Interesting

      WRT to Galileo, true (to an extent! there were a lot of bishops who wanted Galileo burned), but the church still did not issue a formal apology/acknowledgement of his work until just a few years ago. (don't remember when it was exactly now, but not that long ago).

      One might also think on the fact that Galileo's findings - and he was vocal about them, as he should have been - were in direct conflict with the church teachings at the time; so there is no way he could have avoided censure of one kind or another. (A lesson that could also be applied to our times with different subjects and different players, nay?)

      I was actually more impressed by the acknowledgement by the Catholic church that condoms were perhaps not a bad idea, after all. Of course if this had come before nasty STDs such as HIV were becoming a really serious and widespread medical problem, it might have been more of an indication of real tolerance rather than forced recognition of reality. But at least they went that far. Shows that someone there is thinking.

      I'm not religious, tho raised so; but I'll admit that the Catholic church is one of the more enlightened in matters of science. I personally consider it penance for past transgressions. :)

      SB

      --
      It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
  2. Panspermia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    And of course if life existed on Mars, this gives the whole SETI thing alot more significance. Next we need to find the ancient alien spacecraft that crashed on Mars and started life there!

  3. Fascinating... by Jin+Wicked · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I'm not usually much of one for news of outer space, but this particular research I find really interesting. Of course it would be interesting to know if life on Earth evolved from organisms in a Meteorite, or simultaneously evolved and was just cross-pollinated.

    The conspiracy theorists and UFO nuts have held beliefs in life starting from anywhere from a single-celled organism on a meteorite, to outright terraforming for a long time.

    As for life on Mars... I watched a really good documentary about the moon the other day, which basically explained that without the moon -- a single moon -- to help stabilize our planet, we probably wouldn't have ever been here. It will be interesting to see if life evolved on Mars, perhaps conditions were favourable in the past. Apparently since it has multiple small moons, it wobbles on its axis, which makes the climate really unstable over very long periods of times. Or, that was the gist of it.

    This sort of thing is exciting again, since they're got more than just grainy pics giving the illusion of human faces in Cydonia. =)

    --
    My Webcomic: Asylum on 5th Street
  4. Re:A little ahead of things? by CheshireCatCO · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Well, how possible this is depends on, among other things, your interpretion of ALH84001.

    And we know that organisms can survive in open space: the found some still-viable critters on one of the Ranger spacecraft when an Apollo mission brought some bits back from the Moon.

  5. Re:A little ahead of things? by CptNerd · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It was Apollo 12 that brought back bits of one of the Surveyor soft-landers. They brought back a piece of insulation, and when they examined it back on earth they found either a spore or a bacterium deep in the middle. So, it wasn't exactly exposed to all the conditions of space, except for the heat, cold and hard radiation.

    And of course, there's also the bacterium that withstands high doses of radiation, Deinococcus radiodurans. NASA's been looking at it, apparently:

    "Meet Conan the Bacterium"

    --
    By the taping of my glasses, something geeky this way passes
  6. Re:Another Possibility, Or Am I Missing the Point? by Hard_Code · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Am I missing the point?


    Yes, did you read the article?

    "Controllers considered Bounce an odd find because it did not resemble any of the other rocks in the crater's vicinity -- nor did it resemble anything seen before on Mars, they said. ...

    Rather more than that. Bounce's chemical composition exactly matches that of a meteorite that hit the ground in Shergotty, India, on Aug. 25, 1865.

    Called the Shergotty meteorite -- and the source name for a class of meteorites called shergottites -- its chemical composition is a "matching fingerprint" to Bounce, said David Grinspoon, professor of planetary science at the University of Colorado in Boulder.

    The resemblance helps confirm something meteorite specialists and planetary scientists have suspected for more than two decades but until now have been unable to prove: Micro-bubbles of gas trapped in dozens of meteorites found on Earth -- including Shergotty -- match the recipe of Martian atmosphere so closely that they must have originated on Mars.

    "There is a striking similarity in spectra," said Christian Schroeder, a rover science-team collaborator from the University of Mainz in Germany, which supplied both Mars rovers with Moessbauer spectrometers -- exceedingly sensitive instruments for identifying chemical compositions."
    --

    It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
  7. Bet the creationists LOVE this one by revscat · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Great. I keep hoping that we'll find definitive proof of abiogenesis occuring sponteaneously on another planet, and now look what the gods of chaos have given us: a huge, obvous excuse to give to the creationists. I'm sure we'll see this one crop up on the 700 Club if-and-when they ever find 100%-sure-fire-can't argue-with-that proof that life existed on Mars.

    "But God planted the seeds of life in Eden, and he did smith the earth with a big rock, and it did spew forth flotsam into the universe, and it was good."

    Grrr.

  8. Re:Another Possibility, Or Am I Missing the Point? by penguinland · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Not necessarily. The way I read the article, a much more likely scenario is that a meteorite crashed into Mars, and some of the ejected debris crashed into Earth. Here are some choice excerpts from the article:

    The high proportion of pyroxene means Bounce not only is unlike any other rock studied by Opportunity or Spirit, but also is unlike the volcanic deposits mapped extensively around Mars...
    Personally, I'm inclined to think that this means that Bounce probably did not originate on Mars. It sounds like Bounce is not like any other rock on Mars.

    "Some of us think (Bounce) could have been ejected from this crater," Rogers said.
    Craters are formed when meteorites smash into planets/moons/etc. To get a crater, you need something that came from another part of the solar system, if not another part of the galaxy. If Bounce came from this crater, as they hypothesize it did, then Bounce may or may not have come from another part of the galaxy, so this theory is starting to fit together well...

    On a slightly related note, it should be much easier to find a meteorite on Mars than on Earth - Mars' atmosphere is much thinner than Earth's, so objects are less likely to burn up upon entry into the atmosphere. This explains why Mars has many more craters on it that Earth does. Also, I've read in several places (including a mention in the above quote) that many of the rocks on Mars are quite similar to each other. Thus, any different rocks will stand out rather a lot. This makes meteorite hunting fairly simple. Consequently, it would not surprise me at all if the rovers managed to find a meteorite on Mars.
    I do not profess to be at all knowledgeable about Mars geology, but any fool can see that the author of the article knows even less. Not only did they dumb the finding down for laypeople, they have even added some inconsistencies:

    Bounce's chemical composition exactly matches that of a meteorite that hit the ground in Shergotty, India, on Aug. 25, 1865.
    A less-distinctively named shergottite, EETA79001, found in Antarctica in 1979, has a composition even closer to Bounce's.

    I for one am disappointed by the lack of information in the article. Give me a real scientific article with real scientific facts, and hopefully we can then come to real, scientific conclusions. Until then, many different interpretations of this article are equally valid.

    --
    "Flying is the art of throwing yourself at the ground and missing." - Douglas Adams
  9. Conclusive evidence of a possibility? by bob65 · · Score: 4, Interesting
    provides conclusive evidence ... of the possibility of cross-seeding.

    Okay, that sure says a lot.

  10. The common source? by Slinky+Saves+the+Wor · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Could it have been a planet located at the position where the current asteroid belt is? Something hit it, blew it up, rocks fell everywhere and so on.

    --
    I do not moderate.