Biological Activity on Mars

visination.com writes "Recent ground based observations of Mars have confirmed the presence of water and methane. The 300 year life time of methane on Mars is short, giving scientists reason to beleive that Mars may be biologically active." From the article: "Every one of these longitudes shows a very substantial enhancement in the equatorial zone...So this is a very intense source of methane on Mars in this region. It also requires a very rapid decay of methane...more rapid than photochemistry would allow..."

Comments

Late-breaking news:

[TripMaster Monkey]

Today the Council of Elders confirmed the rumours that the sinister blue planet third from our star has managed to detect traces of life upon our world.

K'breel, speaker for the Council, stressed that there was no cause for alarm:

"While this is truly a troubling development, rest asured that the mighty Council has forseen this, and has taken the necessary steps to deal with the situation. The asteroid the Council has set in motion is on target to strike the invaders' planet in a few short years, and its payload of biological toxin, specially formulated to destroy their disgusting cellular structure, will insure our continued safety and serenity."

When challenged by pro-life activists present at the conference, who asserted that the invaders were living beings just as we are, and that we did not have the right to arbitrarily exterminate an entire species, K'Breel replied tersely:

"Wrong. Watch us."

Re:Late-breaking news:

[0x461FAB0BD7D2]

Disgusting cellular structure? 3G is not that bad, honestly.

Re:Late-breaking news:

[notmyeye]

"...will insure our continued safety and serenity."

I hope the deductible is reasonable.

Re:Late-breaking news:

[geekoid]

It's good to hear from our new Pope.

by 'our' I mean your, and my 'your', I mean not mine.

Re:Late-breaking news:

[Vengeance_au]

However what K'breel fails to understand is:

Biological life on mars --> fossils --> oil

therefore, I give Dubbya 5 days to declare a war on Martian WMD's, terrorism, or being anti freedom. And hey, if the above news about the asteroid comes to light, he'll have a 50% strike rate on invading for legitimate reasons!

Re:Late-breaking news:

[kfg]

. . .he'll have a 50% strike rate on invading for legitimate reasons!

Nah! After Mars is reduced to a giant, radioactive Christmas tree ornament it will turn out that the above letter was a "misinterpretation" by the "intelligence" community.

It will come to light that the actual letter said:

"A disease has wiped out most of our male population. Mars needs geeks to insure the survival of our species, and our women are HOT! Them pulp novel covers? Phhhhhhhhbt! You ain't seen nothin' yet, Earth nerd. Because our need is so pressing and so great we have converted an asteroid into a transport ship and will be sending it right over. Fill it up with everyone who knows how to root, if you know what I mean."

Oops.

KFG

Re:Late-breaking news:

[identity0]

I bet when the Martian invasion comes and Slashdot reports it, instead of panicking like the people after the Orson Welles broadcast, Slashdotters will be like:

"Someone tell the editors it's not April fools anymore" (+3, Funny)
"It's a dupe! Doesn't Taco read his own site?" (+2 Insightful)
"I paid subscription rates for *this*?!" (+1 Insightful)
"DUPE!!!" (-1, redundant)
"I, for one, welcome our new Martian overlords" (+3, Funny)
"Slashdot has gone really downhill lately, don't they check their sources?!" (+1 insightful)

and while they chatter away, the Martians will take over the world and kill everyone.

Or something.

Re:Late-breaking news:

[01000011011101000111]

I would post a list of anti-democratic and self serving actions by the US over the last 100 yrs, but it'd be trolling and would also upset me (I do actually admire the ideals America was built on); anyone who wants to can google the facts for themself... I *wish* people would start admitting the faults in their own countries :'( I'm british, and i can admit we've done some really crappy stuff in the past (appeasment, Colonizing america/australia, colonialism, various european wars, selling arms to "Bad People" - just for starters) - i think this is reason for the general low opinion of the US globally - they just won't admit they make mistakes :(
Mod this however you want - flamebait even - I'm depressed at the death of idealism now... bloody secret polic^H^H^H^H^Hservices :(

Re:Late-breaking news:

[Paua Fritter]

For the sake of argument I will agree that the reasons used to persuade the world we needed to invade Iraq turned out be flawed.

Perhaps "reasons used to try to persuade the world" ... because let's face it, the world was not persuaded. Actually the reasons were really only good for domestic consumption.

However we have already invaded Afganistan, and I belive most people would say that was justified, so our strike rate is already 50%, and would go to 66%. If you disagree, than the strike rate would be 33%. If we have invaded another country, please advise and I will stand corrected.

LOL! How many countries has the US invaded?!!

For over a hundred years the US has been invading countries all over the world, from Mexico, to Russia, to Nicaragua, to Vietnam... must have been literally dozens of places, even if you leave the World Wars out of it. Bogus justifications (e.g. the Gulf of Tonkin "incident") are the rule rather than the exception.

But if you're talking about invasions in the last few years then you'll have to include Haiti, supposedly invaded to bring peace and respect for human rights to that troubled country ... starting by kidnapping the democratically elected president and sending him to Africa. I don't think that one does the US "strike rate" any good either.

Re:Late-breaking news:

[Chris Burke]

Mars needs geeks to insure the survival of our species, and our women are HOT!

Oh, no. I'm not falling for that one again.

There it is..No, there it is!

[qw(name)]

Why does it feel like our scientists are just chasing after the wind when it comes to the search for life on Mars?

Re:There it is..No, there it is!

[uberdave]

I'd be glad if they found such evidence. It would provide the best possible excuse for a manned mission.

Methane

[Hatta]

Great, we discover extraterrestrial life and it smells like farts.

Re:Methane

[TheAwfulTruth]

Of course everyone knows that Methane has no smell and the Methane in farts has nothing to do with the odor...

Right?

Or...

[SecState]

From the article: "The methane could be the result of biological processes. It could also be an "abiotic" geochemical process, however, or the result of volcanic or hydrothermal activity on the red planet." Not to burst your methane bubble or anything.

Indeed

[screwballicus]

Given recent Photographic Evidence, the presence of chocolate compounds would seem to necessitate biological activity.

Terraforming

[Colin Smith]

You know this eliminates the possibility of terraforming Mars, don't you. We'll have "Save the microbe" campaigns every time a mission is sent there.

Re:Terraforming

[MightyMartian]

Before we destroy them, ought we not study them. Important questions beckon if this does pan out. Off the top of my head:

1. Does this life chemically resemble life on Earth?

2. If it does, does it use RNA/DNA or something very close to these molecules?

3. If it does, then is Mars or Earth or possibly some other place in the solar system the point where the initial abiogenesis occured?

4. If Martian life does not appear to be closely related or at all related, then what possible abiogenesis pathways occured to produce Martian organisms?

There's a lot to be learned about both worlds from this, so I hope before someone decides to terraform they learn a considerable amount about any potential biotic activity on Mars.

Re:Terraforming

[slittle]

AIUI, terraforming would take centuries (alien pyramids notwithstanding), so there's no huge rush, and we're going to have to build airtight structures to start with anyway.

Re:Terraforming

[SubtleNuance]

yes, because debating the intrinsic value of nature -- and life itself -- is something to be offhandedly dismissed.

right?

Just Curious

[BigDogCH]

Okay, firstly, I am not a follower of any major religion, and I have not read the bible, so that is the purpose of this question...

After reading that article, and then reading another article advertised on the same page here I was starting to feel as if i would be surprised if we DIDN'T find evidence of life on mars. Anyway, I was just wondering what remifications such a finding would have on the bible followers. Is there any reference in the bible as to whether life on other planets exists. Almost every scientific discovery is met with religous opposition, so I was wondering if anyone had any opinions from the religous area. Does the bible say anything about life on other planets?

Re:Just Curious

[TripMaster Monkey]

The Bible pertains to humans only...God neglected to mention his other projects to us.

Re:Just Curious

[0racle]

Why would it. Depending on what you believe, it was either written by some primitive people or given to people on this planet relating to things on this planet.

That said, no, finding life on other planets would also not mean there is no God or that the bible is false. The ramifications for reasonable people would be very little, but there are plenty of nutcases, religious people and athiests, that will tell you otherwise.

Re:Just Curious

[TripMaster Monkey]

Actually, in all seriousness, here's a quote from the Bible:

"Now as I looked at the living creatures, I saw a wheel upon the earth beside the living creatures one for each of the four of them. As for the appearance of the wheels and their construction, their appearance was like the gleaming of a chrysolite, and the four had the same likeness being as it were a wheel within a wheel. The four wheels had rims and they had spokes, and their rims were full of eyes round about. And when the living creatures went, the wheels went beside them and when the living creatures went, the wheels went with them, for the living creature was in the wheel".
- Ezekiel, chapter 1, Versus 15 thru 21.

Sound like a close encounter to you?

Re:Just Curious

[toygeek]

The Bible makes no mention of life on other planets. Instead it is focused on life here on earth and what Gods will is, and what his Kindom is, and who his Seed is.

As for Religion being opposed to science in many ways, that has been very true. Even Gallileo was imprisoned by the catholic church because he believed that the Earth was not the center of the universe.

You must realize though that these conflicts were between *religion* and science, not the *Bible* and science.

The Bible, while not a scientific document (and it does not intend to be one) does hold some VERY accurate, simple scientific truths. While his contemporaries believed the world to be flat (along with science at the time), the prophet Isaiah spoke of "the circle of the earth". Another scripture speaks of the Earth hanging by nothing, which is accurate.

Does the Bible have any real thoughts on whether or not there COULD be life anywhere else other than Earth? Well, it does speak of spirit creatures that exist in another realm, with God himself being one of these creatures.

I hope this helps answer your question.

Re:Just Curious

[nizo]

Does the bible say anything about life on other planets?

Not yet, but it might after the next major revision. From here:

The King James Bible has undergone three revisions since its inception in 1611, incorporating more than 100,000 changes.

I bet they could slip in something about life on Mars during the next revision.

Re:Just Curious

[toygeek]

Actually that was a vision by the prophet Ezekiel, it was not a literal physical interaction.

Re:Just Curious

[toygeek]

Look in the context.

Ezekiel 1:1

1 Now it came about in the thirtieth year, in the fourth [month], on the fifth [day] of the month, while I was in the midst of the exiled people by the river Chebar, that the heavens were opened and I began to see visions of God.

Then it proceeds to describe the vision.

Re:Just Curious

[UnrefinedLayman]

The Bible, while not a scientific document (and it does not intend to be one) does hold some VERY accurate, simple scientific truths. While his contemporaries believed the world to be flat (along with science at the time), the prophet Isaiah spoke of "the circle of the earth". Another scripture speaks of the Earth hanging by nothing, which is accurate.

Don't confuse one correct statement out of thousands of proclamations with the scientific process.

Galileo learned what he did through study and could prove it. Isaiah speaking of the "circle of the earth" and scripture saying the earth hangs by nothing hold no more "simple scientific truth" than a missive from Nostradamus.

The ideas presented are not science. No matter how you look at it, we cannot assume that scientific process was used to come to those conclusions--they're statements without the all important thing called proof. Faith is not proof.

Besides, we all know it's turtles all the way down.

Re:Just Curious

[RichardX]

You're asking questions about accuracy of details in the Bible. A document which asserts the earth is flat, at the centre of the universe, and rests on pillars, that the mustard seed is the smallest seed, that hares and coneys chew the cud, that giants and unicorns are real, that bats are birds, that stars are small objects which can fall fromt the sky and be stamped upon, that.. well.. you get the idea. And that's just the tip of the iceberg.

Re:Just Curious

[Frostalicious]

The four wheels had rims and they had spokes, and their rims were full of eyes round about....

Sound like a close encounter to you?

Sounds like Pimp My Chariot, Ezekiel style...

Re:Just Curious

[Anonymous Coward]

As to my own upbringing, I was raised as a Christian, and in catechism class we were taught the question and answer:

Q. What is the chief teaching of the Catholic Church about Jesus Christ?

A. The chief teaching of the Catholic Church about Jesus Christ is that He is God made man. (A Catechism of Christian Doctrine: Revised Edition of the Baltimore Catechism, No. 2. Paterson, New Jersey: St. Anthony Guild Press, 1941, 15)

But when I later went to a Catholic university, I could not help reflecting that man was limitary and finite, while God was not, and I asked myself why I believed that Jesus was God.

If one could point in answer to the scriptures, I found that modern textual studies of the New Testament had raised large question marks as to that book's authenticity. In a course in theology, I read a work by Joachim Jeremias, one of the foremost exegetes of the New Testament in this century, who after a lifetime of study of the original, finally agreed with the German theologian Rudolph Bultmann that "without a doubt it is true to say that the dream of ever writing a biography of Jesus is over" (The Problem of the Historical Jesus, Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1972, 12), meaning that even the chronology of the life of Jesus could not be established from the New Testament. So how then, I wondered, with the question of whether or not he was God?

Indeed, although ordinary Christians seem quite unaware of the revolution that has taken place in New Testament scholarship by Christians over the past thirty years, if we look at the literature, we find such paragraphs as the following, from a textbook by James D.G. Dunn for university students in their third year of New Testament studies. The italics are his: Similarly the thought of Jesus' deity seems to be a relatively late arrival on the first-century stage. Paul does not yet understand the risen Christ as the object of worship: he is the theme of worship, the one for whom praise is given, the one whose risen presence in and through the Spirit constitutes the worshipping community, the one through whom the prayer prays to God (Romans 1.8; 7.25; II Corinthians 1.20; Colossians 3.17) but not the object of worship or prayer. So too his reticence about calling Jesus "God". Even the title "Lord" becomes a way of distinguishing Jesus from God rather than identifying him with # God (Romans 15.6; I Corinthians 8.6; 15.24-28; II Corinthians 1.3; 11.31; Ephesians 1.3, 17; Philippians 2.11; Colossians 1.3). Paul was and remained a monotheist. That reticence in calling Jesus "God" is only really overcome towards the end of the first century with the Pastorals (Titus 2.13) and again with Fourth Gospel (John 1.1, 18; 20.28). (Unity and Diversity in the New Testament: An Inquiry into the Character of Earliest Christianity. London and Philadelphia: SCM Press and Trinity Press International, 1990, 226).

If the "thought of Jesus" deity"-which I had been taught was the chief teaching of Christianity about Jesus-was "a relatively late arrival on the first-century stage," meaning not taught by Jesus himself, then we might legitimately wonder where it came from. The answer seems to lie in the "Imperial cult" proclaimed throughout the Roman Empire shortly before the era of Jesus, a cult which enjoined the worship of Rome and the emperor. In the words of Hugh Schonfield, a translator of the New Testament, The cult had developed in the reign of Augustus [Ceasar], who for reasons of State policy accepted deification, and authorised the building of temples in which he was worshipped. He was formally decreed Son of God (Divi Filius) by the Senate. . . .

Gaius Caligula (A.D. 37-41) [also] became obsessed with the notion of his deity, and his sycophantic officials played up to him. . . .

A later emperor, Domitian (A.D. 81-96), insisted that his governors commence their letters to him, "Our Lord and our God commands." It became the rule, says [the Roman historian] Suetonius, "that no one should sty

This has been found on other planets too

[The_Rippa]

Scientists recently found large amounts of methane gas around Uranus.

Provocative Pictures from MOC

[Derling Whirvish]

There are some rather strange images from the Mars Orbiter Camera that don't appear to show geologic activity at first glance and do resemble bacteria beds or something organic. We need to go investigate!

Re:Provocative Pictures from MOC

[Derling Whirvish]

Even more such pictures are at this site dedicated to pointing them out. Wow. Just wow.

Activity

[baadger]

And after further investigation several single celled life forms were recovered from the martian surface. Initial test results suggest the average martian microbe is TEN TIMES more biologically active than their earthling slashdotting counter parts.

Fossils?

[JTWYO]

One thing I haven't seen discussed but would like to, is to what stage could life have evolved in the period that it was particularly ripe for life? In that time frame, could there have been significant multicellular life? Significant enough to leave interesting fossils? It has been a lifelong dream of mine to go fossil hunting in an old river or lakebed on Mars. I'm young, so I might still realize it (even though highly, highly unlikely), unless the period of wetness on mars didn't last long enough to have any hope for such things. I'd settle for piloting a probe equipped with a little pick and brush. Fingers crossed.

Why isn't the data coming from more close up?

[DumbSwede]

I understand the one-step-at-time approach NASA is pursuing with regard to the search for life on Mars, but it strikes me a little odd that the methane concentrations on Mars are being measured by telescopes based here on Earth. Why haven't current orbiters been equipped to sense this in a more direct fashion. I would think exact precise chemical composition of the air would be a high priority. In fact, how sensitive would the Viking data have been on showing possible methane concentrations in the atmosphere? My recommendation to NASA: more emphasis on chemical analysis in future missions. Yeah, I know the Rocket Scientists are probably already thinking this. Hopefully this new data will get the proper equipment funded for the next Mars shots. And yes I know everything is a trade off and we do chemical analysis as part of every mission to some degree. But damn, we have to use scopes here on Earth to get this data?!?

Half Life???

[TripMaster Monkey]

Great...now we have to design the probes to withstand headcrab attacks.

Re:methane, biological life, etc...

[El]

Must. Resist. Urge. To. Make. Martian. Fart. Jokes!

Life was predicted years ago

[Anonymous Coward]

Quoting the author of "Creater and the Cosmos" (book). Sorry I don't have the name, I memorized this but forgot the guy's name. The book is not in front of me.

I predict that someday life will be found on Mars. This has nothing to do with the origins of life. It has everything to do with Mars' proximity to Earth.

He went on to describe how bacteria are routinely found in the upper reaches of the atmosphere, and how meteorite impacts are almost certain to propel them into space. Furthermore, he described how many species of bacteria form spores, and that these spores were known to tolerate high temperatures, low temperatures, radiation (!), and exposure to a vacuum for an extended period of time.

In essence, bacteria can make the trip to Mars. The only question is whether or not Earth bacteria can survive there.

ESA probe

[jd]

The ESA "mothership" that deposited Beagle 2 all over the Martian landscape has a spectrometer and it has been observing methane releases for some time. The ESA has been unsure, though, whether it was due to life or geological activity. Trust NASA to go with the more exciting option, with no more data to go on.

Wrong,

[isotope23]

Martians will have to get used to saying:

"I for one welcome our new Terra-ist overlords!"

1. Build Mars colonial Mission
2. Begin Terra-izing Mars.
3. ????? (Encase resident Martian lifeforms in epoxy souvenir blocks)
4. PROFIT!

Woo hoo I found step three!

Bible XP

[payndz]

Can't wait for the next update! Hope it fixes all those contradictio... er, bugs.

all the proof of life I need

[iowa119900089]

http://english.pravda.ru/science/19/94/377/12257_M artian.html According to this highly respectable news page, a Russian boy is a martian and he can tell you all about life there. Case closed. No need to spend more money going there.

There is more than just Methane

[iamghetto]

Dr. Vittorio Formisano is/was the principle investigator of the Planetary Fourier Spectrometer used by European Space Agencies Mars Express probe.

From reading the spectrometer, he believed it was evident that methane, ammonia, and formaldehyde can all be found in the martain atmosphere. Where as methane will last a few hundred years in the atmosphere, formaldehyde will only -eight- hours.

I'm not a scientist, but from what I've read, all 3 gases are strong indicators of life. While I know that the methane could be produced by volcanic activity on Mars (as mentioned elsewhere in the thread), Mars is a geologically dead planet. There is no sign of any such activity.

The presence of all 3 gases on a geologically dead planet would seem to be consistent with planet having some microbial life. As Mars entered its Spring, the levels of all 3 gases were found to rise as well. Of course, more life, more gas in the atmosphere.

It was also noted that the gas levels rose sharply over Mars' frozen oceans as spring approached. Perhaps some simples forms of life were frozen in the oceans? It could also be that the frozen oceans sit over some geological vents, trapping some methane.

But again, as far as anyone knows Mars is still a geologically dead planet.

Sorry if this doesn't make much sense... but gas indicating life in the martian atmosphere is OLD news, and there are far more compelling gases (like formaldehyde) that exist in the atmosphere. If it only lasts for 8 hours, something there is reproducing it.

Apparently, the only way to know definitively what is producing it, is to go dig up the soil. So... good luck on that ever happening. Apparently we have to build a base on the moon first. :)

Cows

[luna69]

A Mars researcher currently working with data from the Opportunity rover told me a couple weeks ago that he and some colleagues calculated what it would take to produce the levels of methane observed on Mars.

Their results? Three cows. Seriously.

I have no idea how accurate those calculations were, but he's a smart guy with more degrees than I have.

Re:Cows

[Curl E]

Their results? Three cows. Seriously.

Actual cows or ideal spherical cows?