Slashdot Mirror
Water Flowed Recently on Mars
elfguygmail.com writes "According to to Space.com 'Small gullies on Mars were carved by water recently and would be prime locations to look for life, NASA scientists said today.' "
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
I don't think you understand.. if we get non-terrestrial life and it's genetic code, the results will be the biggest discovery of the last 100 yrs (leaving out quantum physics and atomic energy).. for instance.. we get to see if it also has a "handedness" in the formation of its molecules. check this:
3 408.html
" The crucial biomolecules of life - such as amino acids, RNA and DNA - are chiral. In order for these polymeric molecules to replicate themselves, their individual components have to be of one kind, either right- or left-handed.
"It is generally agreed that you need homochirality - either all left-handed or all right-handed - for life to get off the ground," Bonner said. "Therefore, a preponderance of one handedness must have evolved in prebiotic times."
The scientists, however, cannot explain how this happened because they have never succeeded in creating chiral molecules of only one kind in laboratory experiments that simulated prebiotic conditions.
Since chiral molecules are necessary to breed new chiral molecules, how did the first ones come about? "
from http://www.stanford.edu/dept/news/pr/93/930210Arc
** "It's not my job to stand between the people talking to me, and the ones listening to me." -- Pego the Jerk
I'm no expert but wouldn't even a simple amoeba be an important discovery? Assuming it could be proved that it did not come from Earth in some way, at the very least it would prove that life can and does exist elsewhere.
While a manned mission would be nice, I doubt that the public is ready to accept the risk and cost of such a trip, especially given the recent Shuttle problems. I hear people grumble about the amount of money being "wasted" on space as it is. That says to me that unless scientists can give people a strong reason to explore space (e.g. positive discovery of life on Mars), it's unlikely that there will be much support for a manned mission to Mars.
As has been said, "recent" is in geologic terms. And plantery scientists are geologists. They don't ask you CS guys to change your terminology to better suit the terms that they think in. Well, maybe they do, but you guys still don't do it...
I'll turn into a supernova and burn up everything. Well I'll turn into a black little hole and you'll turn into string.
I was a little disappointed to find no mention in TFA about what they meant by "recently". 1 year? 5? 10? 100? 1000? 10K?
Many will be thinking, water == life!. Let's say this improves the possibility, but if most water on Mars is (and especially, was) mostly locked up as ice and/or only very ephemerally available, then I'd say it's much less likely that the "long shot" of evolution that led to our existence on Earth could have taken place similarly on Mars. Our planet spent millions of years two-thirds covered in water and under a dense methane-ammonia atmosphere. In contrast, it seems Mars had far less soup under far less atmosphere at (average) somewhat lower temperatures. I guess the only thing Mars might have had more of, sans an atmosphere of effective sunscreens, is ionizing (and hence mutagenic) radiation.
When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called Rel
Part of me is tired of this whole "search for life on Mars" saga. What type of life are they talking about? An Amoeba? Oh boy, goodie goodie...Yay!
Hey, don't knock it. If it wasn't for the humble Thermus Aquaticus and other extremophiles, we wouldn't have half the knowledge of DNA that we do and PCR-based techniques would be impossible. We won't know the uses for Martian bacteria, let alone something as large as whole cells are until we know what mechanisms they employ to survive.
Of course, trying to explain this to your average Monster-Truck Joe is difficult. "Hey look! There's green bug-eyed monsters, but they're real small and squishy!" may be one way...
I dont see the point of a mission to mars, you would need to live indoors, ship/generate oxygen, ship/generate food, ship/generate water, ship/generate power, etc etc
All that is true, but you forget the fact that the necessity for those technologies would spur research and development in those areas. That could mean vastly improved efficiency in how we live on Earth. The problem is motivating people to strive for that goal which also requires moving them past short-sighted views on how we need to "learn how to live on earth first."
I think it is more likely that life on Earth originated on Mars that the other way around. Mars cooled faster, and it's easier for ejecta to get from Mars to Earth. Either way, life that has evolved separately for such a long time would be very important scientifically.
a,e,i,o,u and sometimes w and y (at be if of up cwm by)
There is also the possibility that life on Earth is just life that migrated from Mars.
Perhaps at one time the very beginnings of life were on Mars but due to its conditions the life couldn't sustain itself. However, with all the ejecta shot into space from impacts the life found a very comfy and hospitable home here on this blue planet.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
Parent isn't overrated, but rather a feeling shared by quite a few people
TFA isn't about "shared feelings", it's about interplanetary life and biological science. I read at 3, and don't particularly like to have to sift through comments of people who just don't like the topic. Who's forcing them to read it???
If extra-terrestrial life were discovered, on Mars, or elsewhere, and there was solid proof for it, it would change the entire world. Many religious beliefs would be decimated, many scientific theories would be challenged or completely re-written, we would know that we are not alone in the universe, that we are an even more insignificant part of it that we already think we are, and importantly it would give a huge boost to those who want to see space exploration in our future.
It won't happen. Say, the Earth being the center of the universe was equally central to the early catholic beliefs. When this was convincingly disproven, after first trying to silence its proponents, the catholic church turned a blind eye and moved on. They did the same when Pope John Paull II admitted that evolution was likley correct: "the bible creation sotry just becomes one more mystery of the divine".
The conclusion is based on computer modeling of the atmosphere and how water would behave
In other words "Nothing for you to see here, move along".
No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
It wouldnt be the most important discovery in 100 years, more like the greatest discovery in all of human existance. We would know that we are not alone in space, that is one of the most fundemental questions that science and (unfortunately) relgion have attempted to answer.
Despite what i think it's all incredibly subjective anyhow.
"Many religious beliefs would be decimated"
name one.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Most humans are either too ignorant (not stupid) or too arrogant, and think that the only way an organism can 'live' anywhere must be by our own standards as seen on Earth.
We cannot possibly begin to understand or speculate 'that' which we cannot comprehend. Humans only know what we know, and what we have already encountered, and have absolutely no grasp whatsoever on the unknown.
Columbus said the world was round, while everyone else laughed because it was an unknown that nobody had ever been able to comprehend... until he proved it.
Sound barrier could never be broken - it was impossible. But with a few leaps in technology, trial and error, it was achieved.
Faster than light speeds will eventually become possible, and practical... we just lack the knowledge at this point in time.
And Life DOES exist elsewhere - NOT AS WE KNOW IT. We just have never seen it, and so we only look for planets with water, or signs of.... looking for life as we know it here on earth.
That being said, just because a planet does or does not have, or has ever had water on it bares no relevance on whether or not life exists or has ever existed there.
I dont know. I find it frustrating that the article provides just about no details. However, I did a quick Google search, and came up with this:
http://www.msss.com/mars_images/moc/june2000/
And:
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/ mars_ice_signs_010614.html
The first page is dated in the year 2000! I wonder if this is really news after all! The second page is dated 2001. It states basically the same thing as the article the submitter linked to, however it says how long ago "recent" is--10,000,000 years!!
Dude, if we find any form of life which developed/survived anywhere but Earth do you have any idea of how big of an absolute revelation/breakthrough that would be?
Because if you find even just that elusive "Martian Single-Cell Alien" the likelihod there could, in fact, be Buck Rogers out there somewhere goes way up. It would demonstrate that the Earth wasn't uniquely blessed with the ability to evolve any form of life.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
No, the beliefs would just evolve to accomodate (or deny) the new discoveries like they always do.
You see, once there's a sudden change in the culture and the current belief system becomes unfit to propogate around the population, new amendments are inserted more-or-less randomly into the belief structure and whichever mutations are most fit to attract the greatest number of believers will become the basis for future generations of the religion.
This ability to adapt is really the cornerstone for modern day religion. It also provides us with a wide diversity and complexity of belief systems, yet which all have striking similarities.
Won't that be entertaining?
Note that the discussion never centers on the potential earth-destroying dangers. What if we find Martian life, and the first sound we hear from it is "Juffo-Wup fills in my fibers, and I grow turgid"?
We hunams are too curious for our own good!
Are there any deer in the theater tonight? Get 'em up against the wall.
Wrong snide comment. It should be:
Many religious beliefs would be decimated
That's hardly a significant achievement. There aren't any that haven't been decimated.
Fuck it
here's a good chance that "life on Mars" is just "life on Earth that migrated to Mars"
From the standpoint of the suns gravitational field, the reverse is far more likely.
If God can create one world, and all life on it, why not others? Just because Scripture is silent about life elsewhere in the universe doesn't mean it doesn't exist, only that it has nothing to do with His plan for Earth.
Blind militant atheism is as bad as blind militant fundamentalism. Open your eyes.
Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
I think you could find a common vector and theme if we found life on Mars.
What life could survive a meteorite? Spores maybe or a protein -- a virus is unlikely as that isn't necessarily alive -- it requires higher organisms to replicate. My own theory is that viruses are protein signals that aren't correctly "turned off". That's another topic, however.
Life could have originated on Mars and spread to Earth.
Earth life could have spread to Mars (note, that the Moon is considered part of a massive ejecta from Earth).
Life could have evolved Independently on both Planets.
Life could have come drifting in from outside the Galaxy and not originated on either planet (even if life evolved on Earth, it doesn't rule out some primitive, primordial precursor).
There could be no life on Mars.
But I'm weary too. I'm worried that we have ignored doing GREAT THINGS for too long. Our Earth may be sick along with our culture. We have to solve some BIG, fundamental issues rather than try to be king of the hill in a zero sum game.
>>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
because Mars has a lower escape velocity than the Earth. So its easier to throw rock from the surface of Mars to Earth than visa versa.
Ian
It would be much more than important. It would be the biggest discovery in the history of humanity.
Why?
Because if we know there are even a few cells living off of Earth that there is just such a vast expanse to the Universe that this would mean life was everywhere.
While it seems completely logical life would be everywhere, without the proof of it somewhere else, we just don't know.
With how many galaxies there are out there, and knowing life is so common that a planet right next to us also has it, it changes everything.
The Drake Equation getting an increase in the propensity of life elsewhere from it being next door would be profound. You can actually plug into that equation this event. Every extra planet we would find in our solar system increases the number of likely civilized societies able to communicate in our galaxy by 1000.
So if Mars has life, it is very likely a few moons of Jupiter would, and maybe Titan in some fashion. This would mean there may be thousands of civilazations in our own galaxy able to communicate.
Many religious beliefs would be decimated
Discovery of amoebas on other planets wouldn't necessarily have a big impact on world religions. On the other hand, discovery of intelligent beings on other planets would have a HUGE impact on earth religions, especially if those beings had their own religions or ideas about religion that we could compare and contrast with ours.
For example, let's say that the aliens also had a religion based around Jesus. That would lend a lot of credibility to Christianity. Or suppose they were very advanced aliens with far superior knowledge of the universe and science, and they told us that all of our religions were superstitious rubbish. I think that would affect a lot of people's beliefs as well.
Now, I'm not the GP, but unfounded aggressive anti-religious statements annoy me as an agnostic: I'd like to perceive atheism as being a rational alternative to religion, and broad, sweeping statements like that aren't helping. Furthermore, seeing as I agree with the GP, you seem to by extension assert that I am under the control of organised religion. Being, as I've mentioned, an agnostic, I find this idea counterintuitive and would like to hear the reasoning behind it.
First of all, you do realise that ad hominem arguments are rather obvious fallacies? The AC hadn't even brought his personal beliefs - which, after all, were irrelevant to the discussion - into the matter. You really shouldn't try to attack people for their beliefs before you even give them a chance to state them.
As for the actual question: The Bible doesn't concern itself with the physical space that lies beyond the Earth, for reasons that should be obvious to both believers and non-believers. The book was written before its intended audience had any idea that such a space existed in as concrete a form as we now know it does.
From a secular viewpoint, this means that the people who wrote it couldn't discuss concepts that were conceived after their deaths.
From a Judeo-Christian viewpoint, it means that the existence of planets beyond our own would be a silly thing for a god to talk about to the human race. While I'm not very well versed in theology, I think it's safe to say that the Judeo-Christian god tends not to concern himself with scientific discoveries past, present or future, but rather with moral codes and prophecies of the future of humanity(in both the physical and the metaphysical spheres).
As far as I know, the idea that Christianity and extraterrestrial life are incompatible is a myth. (Christianity, of course, would hold that God, being all-seeing and all-powerful, is also the god that ultimately was the creator of whatever other planets and creatures that may exist - but this is not logically incompatible with the rest of the set of beliefs.) It may not have been so at one time - I daresay that Christianity at the time of Copernicus was generally hostile to all kinds of astronomy - but I've yet to find a single Christian who thinks that extraterrestrial life would invalidate his or her beliefs, and the Christianity of the present, like it or not, is defined by the beliefs of those who currently consider themselves Christians.
As for your closing paragraph: while a case can be made for the Marxist view of organised religion, you are approaching it far too naïvely. Saying that it was created for one thing only is simplifying the issue. Even from a thoroughly anti-religious point of view, you'll have to agree that religion throughout history has - to take a stunningly arbitrary example - provided comfort to believers who otherwise would have felt trapped in a world they had no chance of understanding, therefore causing them to cling to it. You can't simplify religion - or even superstition, which religion is indistinguishable from from a materialist viewpoint - down to a conspiracy theory.
(You can try, of course, but then you'll be playing "make believe" without even asserting that you have felt a supernatural influence - which is logically provably silly.)
That all depends on how you interpret the Hebrew shemim, which is clearly plural, implying that there is more than one heaven. The presence of the definite article is inconsequential in whether or not there were more than one of them, and in determining whether there are other earths created in the heavens.
Of course since such semantics is rather irrelevant since the heavens are interpreted in Genesis as being made out of water (why the sky is blue) and one must come to the conclusion that the writer of Genesis accepted the general scientific theories of his day (views also held by the Babylonians and the Egyptians, and which can be seen in other creation myths such as the Enuma Elish http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enuma_Elish), and that God didn't bother to correct him in all his details.
What does that mean for belief? Some have interpreted this to mean that the Bible isn't inspired in any way, and others have interpreted this to mean that God wasn't interested in giving a science lesson but a theological lesson. Then you get the fundamentalist wackos who refuse to see the evidence for what the Bible is really describing.
Given that so many can see incorrect scientific ideas in Genesis, and still believe in God, and even in the Bible, (just not its inerrancy) I would say that evidence of life on another would not affect the faith of most people. Those who don't believe already are convinced, and no evidence will change their mind, and the same goes for those who believe.
Actually, it's not implied at all that jesus would have to be crucified for each planet if life did exist. The bible also never states that god didn't create life somewhere else, along with other planets. Furthermore, it also doesn't state, or even attempt to imply that evolution is impossible(think of the 7 days as each being a billion years long(or whatever the actual scaling factor would be).
As to the argument that us finding life on other planets would prove the bible wrong, and that God did not create us, is about as true as us not finding life proving that atheists are wrong. Just because some members of a religion believe something is implied, doesn't mean it actually is. The only rules for christianity come straight from the bible. The more you interpret literally(and liberally), the more likely you are to be wrong. The best policy is to read the bible, and where it sounds metaphorical, it probably is. Where it sounds literal, it probaly is. Keep an open mind however, and realize that the bible was inspired from god, not directly written by him.
Blind militant anything is bad.
Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
I could go on and on listing atheist rulers and the attrocities they committed in the 20th century but I would hope you get the point by now.
I'm sick and tired of this blind hatred and bigotry towards religion on slashdot as well as the ignorance of our common history. This anti-religious zealotry and often quoted sterotypes is just as bad as racism and racial stereotypes. You fear what you do not understand.
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
Number of religions I do not believe in = N
Number of religions you do not believe in = N-1
Given the known large value of N, what's the difference in the long run?
http://michaelsmith.id.au