Slashdot Mirror
New Studies Doubt Mars Water Theory
An anonymous reader writes "Two groups of scientists have doubted the Mars rover scientists' theory that Mars was drenched with water for a significant time. If their dry Mars theories are supported, it is unlikely that life ever existed on Mars. The first group say that rock features that indicate water are actually caused by meteorite impacts. The second group argue that these features are caused by volcanic activity. Steve Squyres, the Mars rover lead scientist, is sticking by his original findings."
If the robot can hold out long enough, it may gather enough data to settle the debate.
More likely just enough to exacerbate it.
illegitimii non ingravare
On the other hand, NASA scientists really need to promote the idea of finding life on Mars, no matter how unlikely it really is. Their projects cost vast amounts of money, and each time this starts to run short there is an announcement that they are about to find signs of life.
See, the chances of life spontaneously being created on a planet is so astronomically small as to be almost impossible.
Don't confuse cause and effect, or observation and theory. They're not independent. Almost everything we say about the likelihood of life elsewhere in the universe is tainted by our lack of any indications of other life so far.
An allegedly objective estimative equation like Drake's would look very different if we actually found evidence for life, anywhere. Currently it is strongly influenced by the fact that we haven't, despite people's desire to be objective on the matter.
cold is a relative term for when matter has lower kinetic energy than you do (or something you're referring to does). what do you mean when you say the cold of space?
p.s. this is an actual question, not a troll
if i'm not immortal, what's the point of living?
...te?
Sorry to rain on everyone's parades here, but to find any signs of life on Mars would really damage the current theory of how life got to be here.
Why? The "current theory" is that life arose from complex molecules eventually forming reproducing organisms, evolving over time to the level of complexity we see today on Earth. How would the discovery that something similar happened on Mars damage that theory in the least? Besides, the invalidation of theories is a big part of scientific progress, so if anything, it's a good day for science when a theory is disproven.
See, the chances of life spontaneously being created on a planet is so astronomically small as to be almost impossible.
First, you can't just state facts like that without any hint that they are supported by evidence (to quote Sagan, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence). Second, even if we are to accept this as truth, just how small are these chances, numerically? Third, it's entirely possible for two next door neighbours to both win the lottery in the same week.
However, if we find life on our next door neighbor, we have some explaining to do.
Sure we do. And if we don't find life there, we still have some explaining to do. That's the purpose of science: to explain.
All of a sudden, earth won't seem so unique anymore. And we'll start wondering why SETI hasn't turned anything up yet.
Sounds like a creationist fnord to me. Life on Earth only seems unique because so far it's the only example we have. To flipside a previous analogy, it's possible for an entire city to go a hundred years without any of its inhabitants winning the lottery.
Now, if we found HUMAN life on Mars, that would really destroy all of the ongoing theories of the origins of life on earth.
Back on topic. No one said anything about human life. In any case, I'd like to hear about this supposed plethora of ongoing theories of the origins of life are. Intelligent design is going out of style.
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.