Methane Survey Reveals Mars Is Far From 'Dead'

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Methane Survey Reveals Mars Is Far From 'Dead'

Posted by Soulskill on Monday September 27, 2010 @05:37AM from the mars-has-a-secret-cow-level dept.

astroengine writes "The first planet-wide studies of methane on Mars — incorporating billions of measurements made by NASA's Mars Global Surveyor spacecraft — shows gas concentrations peak in autumn and plummet in winter. Scientists have found significantly higher methane concentrations in the Tharsis, Elysium and Arabia Terrae regions. Tharsis and Elysium are home to Mars' most massive volcanoes and Arabia Terrae has large quantities of subterranean frozen water. This indicates the gas could be generated by geological or biological activity. 'It could be geology or biology, but it is not coming from another source. There is a seasonal pattern, so it could only be a local origin,' Sergio Fonti, with Italy's Universita del Salento, told Discovery News."

171 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Good news by 2names · 2010-09-27 05:41 · Score: 2, Insightful

I'm glad they found this type of cyclic activity. The sooner we find complex life off-Earth the better.

--
"I'm just here to regulate funkiness."
1. Re:Good news by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-27 05:47 · Score: 0
  
  I don't know about you but it sound to me the female lifeforms might be prone to digestion problems, not really into that...
2. Re:Good news by VoiceInTheDesert · 2010-09-27 05:54 · Score: 1
  
  I was hoping for a Farnsworth joke :(
3. Re:Good news by genner · 2010-09-27 05:58 · Score: 1
  
  I was hoping for a Farnsworth joke :(
  Good news everyone, an overused joke is finally dieing!
4. Re:Good news by X0563511 · 2010-09-27 06:05 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  That post was bad, and you should feel bad!
  
  --
  For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
5. Re:Good news by VoiceInTheDesert · 2010-09-27 06:14 · Score: 1
  
  You call that an ink defense? Blah!
6. Re:Good news by Gilmoure · 2010-09-27 06:27 · Score: 1
  
  Fry did it. Whoop, whoop, whoop, whoop, whoop!
  
  --
  I drank what? -- Socrates
7. Re:Good news by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-27 06:27 · Score: 0
  
  "dieing", lol.
8. Re:Good news by Tumbleweed · 2010-09-27 06:52 · Score: 1
  
  I'm glad they found this type of cyclic activity. The sooner we find complex life off-Earth the better.
  It's not obvious to me why it's good for us to find complex off-Earth life. Unless it's a technology advanced species that can help us with our problems, I don't see any benefit to finding complex off-Earth life at all. What am I missing?
9. Re:Good news by IndustrialComplex · 2010-09-27 06:53 · Score: 1
  
  I'm glad they found this type of cyclic activity. The sooner we find complex life off-Earth the better.
  Until you find out that the life is actually biological contaminants that hitched a ride on the Soviet Mars-2 probe. Here on Earth bacteria reproduce every 30 minutes or so (sometimes less) Imagine if the bacteria on Mars only reproduced at half that rate due to less than ideal conditions. 38 years, exponential growth rate.
  Slow down their reproduction to just once an hour, you would have 2^333108 bacteria on Mars after 38 years.
  
  --
  Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
10. Re:Good news by saider · 2010-09-27 06:59 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  It would be another step back from the "we-are-the-sole-reason-for-the-universe's-existence" mindset. Reducing humanities self-centered leanings leaves some more room for a "we-are-a-part-of-the-universe" attitude that tends to promote a more responsible approach to resource management.
  
  --
  
  Remember, You are unique...just like everyone else.
11. Re:Good news by Mister+Kay · 2010-09-27 07:11 · Score: 1
  
  Of course we're always going to have the "fucking magnets. how do they work?" crowd out there that believe scientists lie to them every day.
12. Re:Good news by Tumbleweed · 2010-09-27 07:15 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  It would be another step back from the "we-are-the-sole-reason-for-the-universe's-existence" mindset. Reducing humanities self-centered leanings leaves some more room for a "we-are-a-part-of-the-universe" attitude that tends to promote a more responsible approach to resource management.
  I don't think that would have the impact your hoping for unless it was intelligent life that was more technologically advanced than us. Anything less would be treated just like Western civilization treated (and continues to treat) less advanced societies and life forms. "God made the universe for white guys who claim to be Christian," etc.
13. Re:Good news by CannonballHead · 2010-09-27 08:02 · Score: 1
  
  Biblically, God made at least earth for humans. Not "white guys who claim to be Christian."
  Just wanted to clear that up. I know there are plenty of people who distort and malign it, and I know established 'Christian' religions, who looked nothing like 'little Christs', have perverted it immensely (dark ages, etc)...
  (to make that distortion even worse and stupider, most of the Bible takes place in the "East," not the West. Heh.)
14. Re:Good news by slapout · 2010-09-27 08:05 · Score: 1
  
  Why? What does "complex life off-Earth" imply?
  
  --
  Coder's Stone: The programming language quick ref for iPad
15. Re:Good news by Schemat1c · 2010-09-27 08:08 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  It's not obvious to me why it's good for us to find complex off-Earth life. Unless it's a technology advanced species that can help us with our problems, I don't see any benefit to finding complex off-Earth life at all. What am I missing?
  Hmm, here are a few reasons: The Vatican, Jerusalem, Mecca, the southern half of the United States, etc.
  
  --
  
  "Nobody knows the age of the human race, but everybody agrees that it is old enough to know better." - Unknown
16. Re:Good news by Dishevel · 2010-09-27 08:27 · Score: 1
  
  I have a great new idea for resource management.
  1. We set on all resources a "Price".
  2. We set a lower "Price" on things that have large quantities and low demand.
  3. We set a higher "Price" on things that have lower quantities and higher demand.
  4. We let the price fluctuate as the "Market"(Demand/Availabilty) dictates.
  This should help in a few different ways.
  It should allow for more expensive alternatives to the resource that is getting low to become naturally competitive. It should also spur development in these alternate technologies as the price rises. At higher prices and lower availabilities it should also encourage conservation naturally. Given a chance I think this would work.
  
  --
  Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
17. Re:Good news by fifedrum · 2010-09-27 08:45 · Score: 1
  
  western civilization is hardly the first civilization to cultivate this sort of attitude of genocidal disregard. nor, frankly, the most destructive or even most recent, as there are ongoing disputes of this nature currently raging.
  citation? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gengis_khan, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_invasion_of_India, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_revolution
18. Re:Good news by severoon · 2010-09-27 08:56 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  From TFA: "'It could be geology or biology, but it is not coming from another source. There is a seasonal pattern, so it could only be a local origin,' Sergio Fonti, with Italy's Universita del Salento, told Discovery News."
  To paraphrase: "It is geology."
  
  --
  but have you considered the following argument: shut up.
19. Re:Good news by ooshna · 2010-09-27 09:07 · Score: 1
  
  Lmao I love how a quote from an ICP song became a meme. Every time I see it I just wonder how many people know they are quoting an actual clown.
20. Re:Good news by ooshna · 2010-09-27 09:08 · Score: 1
  
  "God made the universe for white guys who claim to be Christian," .
  Wait wait wait are you saying that he didn't?
21. Re:Good news by ooshna · 2010-09-27 09:13 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah and those are some long lived bacteria. My dog only lived 14 years.
22. Re:Good news by saider · 2010-09-27 09:30 · Score: 1
  
  Works great until you have price discontinuities caused when a resource runs out before a suitable replacement is developed. Price, as the only measurement of value, distorts one's perceptions towards short term goals, and encourages deferring expensive endeavors that have no perceived value.
  An example of this would be the I-35 bridge collapse. "We don't need to replace this decaying, 46 year old bridge, it's working fine!"
  The market has its place, but there are times when you need to put it aside and do things a little differently.
  
  --
  
  Remember, You are unique...just like everyone else.
23. Re:Good news by M.+Baranczak · 2010-09-27 09:38 · Score: 1
  
  "Externality". Look it up.
24. Re:Good news by genner · 2010-09-27 10:23 · Score: 1
  
  "dieing", lol.
  It's a word. It refers to the processes of cutting with a die. It's the worst form of dying I could come up with on a moments notice.
25. Re:Good news by IndustrialComplex · 2010-09-27 13:52 · Score: 1
  
  Bacteria divide into two identical child/sister cells. They are effectively immortal with respect to age.
  
  --
  Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
26. Re:Good news by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-27 14:26 · Score: 0
  
  Oh yes, because in the entire solar system, there is surely no other possible cause besides geology or biology.
27. Re:Good news by Sulphur · 2010-09-27 17:56 · Score: 1
  
  Mother, is that you?
  I'd recognize that sound anywhere.
  Prof Fartsworth
28. Re:Good news by Sulphur · 2010-09-27 17:59 · Score: 1
  
  Someone will breathe life into it.
29. Re:Good news by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-28 05:59 · Score: 0
  
  I was hoping for a Fart joke :(
  FTFY
OH COME ON by iONiUM · 2010-09-27 05:42 · Score: 2, Interesting

Don't get me wrong, I like hearing about space updates. But it feels like there's been a ton of "there may be signs that may indicate signs of biological life from stuff we may or may not have overlooked before. Also? It might not be caused by a biological thing."
I want a "we found fucking life" article. Stop teasing me with this nonsense.
1. Re:OH COME ON by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-27 05:51 · Score: 0
  
  Because dinosaur bones are just gods way of testing your faith, just like life on mars. They will say this and/or expand the scope of the jesus to the entire solar system. In all likely hood, religionX will be gone by the time we make contact with other intergalactic life, so it's a safe bet they can't be proven incorrect on that front.
2. Re:OH COME ON by MightyMartian · 2010-09-27 05:52 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  I think the unspoken belief in the scientific community is that it's pointing very heavily towards life on Mars, but the rule of thumb in science is "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", and claims don't get much more extraordinary than the claim that life has been found on another world. Necessity and prudence require that the experts couch their language and manage expectations until we can gather that extraordinary evidence. Since there are other ways that the methane could be formed, in particular geological activity (which in its own way is pretty extraordinary considering Mars' lack of a magnetic field has long been seen as a sign that it is a geologically dead world, lacking a molten or semi-molten core), until incontrovertible evidence has been gathered there will always be the need to list alternative explanations, no matter how much they piss on the parade.
  Quite frankly we're not going to know until we find some Martian life, and that's going to take a good deal of time. We're decades away from being able to gather direct evidence, unless we get very lucky.
  
  --
  The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
3. Re:OH COME ON by digitalsushi · 2010-09-27 05:53 · Score: 1
  
  The announcement you seek may not be framed in time with the boundaries of yours, or any our our lives. It's not a Hollywood theatrical preview with a release date known by studio executives. It's science, and perhaps one day that answer may come, or never. And it may come in an answer you do not desire.
  There's no cat that we know of waiting to be released from its proverbial bag.
  
  --
  slashdot: where everyone yells sarcastic metaphors to themselves to understand the issue
4. Re:OH COME ON by confused+one · 2010-09-27 05:54 · Score: 1
  
  We can give you the definitive "we found fucking life" article once we have boots on the ground. Until then it will be "we have evidence there may be life". Even the new rover (which is soon to launch) might not produce a definitive answer, unless they get lucky...
5. Re:OH COME ON by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-27 05:56 · Score: 0
  
  Since people are willing to read the teases, the media will gladly keep offering them up.
  What's interesting to me is how the exploration of Mars has been framed as an attempt to prove a negative - any measurement which cannot be proven to be non-biological is offered as possible evidence of biological activity. It basically guarantees that the search for life can continue in perpetuity whether or not there is any there.
6. Re:OH COME ON by blai · 2010-09-27 05:57 · Score: 1
  
  If you wish not to be informed of our current research status, you can choose to unsubscribe by adding slashdot.org = localhost to your hosts file.
  
  --
  In soviet Russia, God creates you!
7. Re:OH COME ON by codewarren · 2010-09-27 05:58 · Score: 1
  
  I want a "we found fucking life" article
  I'd be fine even if the life were asexual.
8. Re:OH COME ON by X0563511 · 2010-09-27 06:07 · Score: 1
  
  I think probably the largest "thing" a Star Trek like real-life would have is not space travel, warp fields, transporters etc...
  But sensors that can detect "life signs"
  One can dream.
  
  --
  For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
9. Re:OH COME ON by eleuthero · 2010-09-27 06:07 · Score: 1
  
  Christians would seem to be your target religionX here and have not, as a group, rejected the idea of aliens. In fact, significant theologians among Protestants and Roman Catholics have both affirmed God's ability to do whatever He chooses to do. Roman Catholicism specifically finds no discord between evolutionary models of development and Christianity. Protestant groups are more varied and go from instantaneous creation of man on the sixth day to catastrophe/re-creation models to theistic evolution.
  
  Throughout the history of both these and other branches of Christianity, the unknowability and extreme otherness of God has been promoted ("holiness" is the religious term here). The Christian claim is that for humans, God has sought to reveal himself through the Bible to the extent that humans can and should understand him. It makes no claim on how God would interact with other life throughout the universe (or whether or not there is life outside of earth).
10. Re:OH COME ON by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-27 06:08 · Score: 0
  
  Well, my Slashdot page says "News for nerds." at the top. Nerds and geeks are the people that want to hear about the details and the road to the eventual breakthrough discovery.
  Besides, this is a pretty big breakthrough in and of itself if it is true. Soon, textbooks will have to have a paragraph about the methane that's being produced on Mars and textbooks will have to discuss hypotheses about the origins of it.
11. Re:OH COME ON by arth1 · 2010-09-27 06:10 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  I think it's pretty certain that there is life on Mars now, as NASA didn't take any extraordinary measures to eradicate all possible forms of life from the probes until 1995 and the Mars Orbiter. Earlier, a memo was issued, but not much was done. Up to 10^5 possibly surviving microbes were permissible on the earlier crafts, if I remember correctly.
  It's a shame, as the planet can never be uncontaminated and studied as a truly lifeless planet.
12. Re:OH COME ON by MightyMartian · 2010-09-27 06:12 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  If life is responsible for the seasonal methane fluctuations, I doubt very much that it could be explained by anything hitching a ride on our spacecraft.
  
  --
  The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
13. Re:OH COME ON by DigiShaman · 2010-09-27 06:13 · Score: 1
  
  Sensors that detect for life signs are available...if your looking for Earth based life forms. Unless there's some universal signs with all life in the universe, how do you know what to look for when by its very definition, life is alien?
  
  --
  Life is not for the lazy.
14. Re:OH COME ON by billcopc · 2010-09-27 06:18 · Score: 1
  
  This seems like a "Please don't nerf NASA, we're on the verge of finding shit" kind of press release. As much as the prospect of expanding our cosmic knowledge is alluring to me, I think right now the world has some far more pressing matters to resolve down here, before we start infecting other planets with the disease that is modern society.
  
  --
  -Billco, Fnarg.com
15. Re:OH COME ON by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-27 06:34 · Score: 0
  
  This seems like a "Please don't nerf NASA, we're on the verge of finding shit" kind of press release. As much as the prospect of expanding our cosmic knowledge is alluring to me, I think right now the world has some far more pressing matters to resolve down here, before we start infecting other planets with the disease that is modern society.
  Yeah, Mars exploration isn't the same since the Mars Science Laboratory got renamed and reassigned as the McDonalds Wal-Mart Mars Strip Mall Prospector. The future missions will apparently focus on building highways and suburbian developments and on the possibility of declaring war on the subterranean methane bugs.
16. Re:OH COME ON by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-27 06:38 · Score: 0
  
  There's no cat that we know of waiting to be released from its proverbial bag.
  I agree completely. If there were cats involved in an expedition to find life on mars then we would benefit greatly. If we want man to colonize Mars then it seems logical that we should begin with a space pussy program. Perhaps we could call it the First Underground Colonization by Kitties program. Doesn't that sound like something people would really get behind?
17. Re:OH COME ON by MaWeiTao · 2010-09-27 06:42 · Score: 1
  
  Even if all current life on Mars were there solely because of our probes I think it goes to show just how hardy life is. Not only did it survive the vacuum of space, but it's been able to not only survive a few decades on Mars but thrive. That being the case, it's rational to assume that we will find life elsewhere in the universe.
18. Re:OH COME ON by Belial6 · 2010-09-27 07:03 · Score: 1
  
  Truly lifeless planets are common. Planets other than earth with life are not. Even planets that have life but did not originate life locally are pretty rare as far as we can tell.
19. Re:OH COME ON by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-27 07:08 · Score: 0
  
  So, you are saying that the "life" they found is just some pre-animate matter caught in a matrix"? Go down and check it out, but don't be surprised if THIS IS CETI ALPHA 5!
20. Re:OH COME ON by jpapon · 2010-09-27 07:15 · Score: 1
  
  Well if that's the case, then the upside is that no matter what we do to our own species and planet, at least we succeeded in seeding life on a new planet.
  Panspermia, or actually, exogenesis ftw!
  Actually, I suppose this would be "homogenesis". Sweet!
  
  --
  -- Let us endeavor so to live that when we pass even the undertaker shall be sorry. -- M. Twain
21. Re:OH COME ON by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-27 07:20 · Score: 0
  
  You mean apart from launching the probes through the 2 atmospheres and the associated heat - having them float through a vacuum for months at absolute zero with no oxygen or food - and then crashing them into a planet from orbit? What kind of badass microbial life have you been dreaming up that ignores extreme heat, extreme cold, doesn't breathe anything, survives in a vacuum, and doesn't eat? ;p
22. Re:OH COME ON by Fuseboy · 2010-09-27 07:24 · Score: 1
  
  Sometimes I think this whole notion of extraordinary has more to do with our imagination and cultural background than anything scientific. I mean, wouldn't it be absolutely mind-boggling if we kept encountering massive energy-rich zones (e.g. geologically/chemically active planets) that were completely devoid of microbial life? If/when we find life elsewhere, of course it's going to be extremely significant, but does that make it unlikely?
23. Re:OH COME ON by justthisdude · 2010-09-27 07:26 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Of course the episodic bursts of methane came form the global surveyor that surveyed the planet: as every middle schooler knows, "whoever smelt it dealt it".
  
  --
  "I love his boyish charm, but I hate his childishness" - Leela
24. Re:OH COME ON by MightyMartian · 2010-09-27 07:43 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  You start by not defining living systems as any specific type of chemistry, but rather certain activities; ie. metabolism, reproduction/replication, respiration, excretion. While the only systems we know of that do that from observation is carbon-based life on Earth, we can conceive of alternatives, whether simply using other forms of carbon chemistry, or even possible silicon-based life.
  The risk, of course, of very generalized definitions is that you could catch chemical activity that isn't life, but I think the above tests would be close enough to be highly suggestive that the chemical interactions you're seeing are biotic in nature, regardless of the precise form the chemistry itself takes. I think we're sufficiently good enough of recognizing this things to not confuse even simply living systems with more mundane chemical processes like crystallization, oxidization, etc.
  
  --
  The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
25. Re:OH COME ON by jollyreaper · 2010-09-27 07:45 · Score: 1
  
  Quite frankly we're not going to know until we find some Martian life, and that's going to take a good deal of time. We're decades away from being able to gather direct evidence, unless we get very lucky.
  First we'd need to figure out where to look for them in the first place. Just speculating here but if there were subterranean pockets of liquid water and the methane is bubbling up through porous rock into the atmosphere, getting down there to find proof would be very, very difficult. But if it's lichen clinging to rocks and we just weren't looking in the right spot, that would be easier to find.
  
  --
  Kwisatz Haderach
  Sell the spice to CHOAM
  This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
26. Re:OH COME ON by Smidge204 · 2010-09-27 07:53 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  What kind of badass microbial life have you been dreaming up that ignores extreme heat, extreme cold, doesn't breathe anything, survives in a vacuum, and doesn't eat? ;p
  Ignoring the factual errors in your description... Tardigrades seem to fit those requirements quite nicely:
  - Survive temperatures from -273C to +151C
  - Survive decades without water
  - Survive radiation doses thousands of times higher than what would kill other organisms
  - Survive when exposed to the vacuum of space
  =Smidge=
27. Re:OH COME ON by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-27 08:03 · Score: 1
  
  It can't really be explained at all. Just suppose that there's a methanogenic form of life on Mars. The first question is where does it get its energy from? If it gets its energy from photosynthesis, then it has to sit on the surface of the planet and it would be pretty easy to detect spectroscopically (unless it is very sparse, in which case it can't produce that much methane). If it gets its energy from chemicals, then where are the chemicals coming from? Remember, Mars is supposed to be geologically dead.
  Even if it is photosynthetic and we haven't detected it anyway, from where does it get the hydrogen to make the methane? Hydrogen is very scarce on Mars. You can't just throw it away. If it gets it from water, then what does it do with all the oxygen that's left over? On Earth, it's released into the atmosphere, but there is no evidence of oxygen in any kind of abundance in the Martian atmosphere.
28. Re:OH COME ON by Beezlebub33 · 2010-09-27 08:08 · Score: 1
  
  This is a great strategy for getting the public (largely ignorant of science in general; a huge percentage cannot explain why we have seasons) for getting behind exploration. We can say 'we're looking for life, we've got lots of clues!' and then use the money to go do the science we should be doing.
  
  Well done, NASA PR department!
  
  --
  The more people I meet, the better I like my dog.
29. Re:OH COME ON by MightyMartian · 2010-09-27 08:10 · Score: 1
  
  We can make educated guesses. The surface of Mars, even disregarding low temperatures, is very hostile, with little atmosphere and no magnetic field, it receives a lot more harmful radiation than the surface of Earth does. That radiation makes life on the surface less probable, though maybe not impossible, but it seems more likely that you would find life beneath the surface.
  It's all guesswork, of course, but it's quite possible that extant life on Mars may have long ago migrated deep below the surface, which makes direct detection very difficult, at least with any probe we plan on sending out there. Building robots capable of drilling many meters beneath the surface, while not impossible, is certainly a good deal more difficult than sending something out with a few sanding wheels, drills and blowtorches.
  At some point we will have to, and testing things like this out on Mars, where the scales would be smaller than, say, the kind of drilling probe you would send to Europa or Callisto to pierce the presumed kilometers thick ice crusts, seems an ideal thing to do. Even a manned mission is going to require some pretty sophisticated hardware for any big drilling operation, just look at how far technology has had to advance before we could drill in a big way beneath the Antarctic ice sheets.
  My only hope at this time is that we can confirm life on Mars in my lifetime. I don't even feel like I have to see humans go there, just as long as we can get a picture of a Martian organism and some idea of the biochemistry before I croak.
  
  --
  The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
30. Re:OH COME ON by khallow · 2010-09-27 08:11 · Score: 1
  
  I think the unspoken belief in the scientific community is that it's pointing very heavily towards life on Mars
  Doubtful. Until they rule out serpentinitization processes, there's a simpler explanation than "life did it".
31. Re:OH COME ON by Ol+Biscuitbarrel · 2010-09-27 09:00 · Score: 1
  
  Mars isn't geologically dead, some of the flows in the Cerberus Fossae are believed to be only 2-10 my old.
32. Re:OH COME ON by izomiac · 2010-09-27 10:51 · Score: 2
  
  I also don't think it's likely, but it's easily possible. Some bacteria have a doubling time less than 30 minutes, so if they found a suitable environment without competition they'd reproduce at nearly their maximal rate for quite some time.
  
  OTOH, the whole natural selection thing comes into play since otherwise, in 15 years, they'd weight a lot more than Mars itself. I'd give a number, but didn't have a calculator handy that could handle 2^(15*365.25*24*2), which is how many descendants a single bacteria on the last non-sterile probe could now have if resources were infinite.
  
  Furthermore, it only took ~2,000 years to oxygenate Earth. Mars has ~1/200th of the atmosphere that Earth does, so, theoretically, in 10 years bacteria could completely alter the atmosphere of Mars. Plus that's just from the slight imbalance between energy production by photosynthesis and energy use by oxidative respiration. An actual waste product could accumulate much more quickly.
33. Re:OH COME ON by srvivn21 · 2010-09-27 11:24 · Score: 1
  
  ...I'd give a number, but didn't have a calculator handy that could handle 2^(15*365.25*24*2)...
  Sure you do.
  http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2^%2815*365.25*24*2%29
  7.38... × 10^79164
34. Re:OH COME ON by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-27 14:32 · Score: 0
  
  We'll at least find life wherever we bring/send it...
35. Re:OH COME ON by arth1 · 2010-09-27 14:49 · Score: 1
  
  Not to mention radiation resistant bacteria.
  The biggest problem with our contamination is that Mars is pretty much the only chance we had to study a sterile planet to better understand how life could develop on Earth. If it's not sterile anymore, we've pretty much blown it, unless we in the future can find a safe way to study Venus. (Mercury and the large Jovian moons are still way too small and different.)
  And the sad thing is that at least part of the reason why we didn't hypersterilize our probes was that when it first was proposed, it was strongly recommended that NASA cooperate with Soviet Union scientists on these programs. In the 60s, this wasn't exactly the best way to solicit blessings from those who would have to fund the projects.
36. Re:OH COME ON by dryeo · 2010-09-27 15:05 · Score: 1
  
  It took a lot longer to first oxygenate the Earth. Much oxygen was tied up in things like iron before there was any free in the atmosphere. IIRC it was millions of years.
  I think that you're remembering that it only takes 2000 years to replace the oxygen in the atmosphere now that all the oxygen sinks are full.
  
  --
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
37. Re:OH COME ON by robertinventor · 2010-09-27 20:43 · Score: 1
  
  What puzzles me is - how can NASA have a manned flight to Mars program compatible with its planetary protection policies... I can't imagine any way a human could land on Mars without bringing hosts of microbes and microbial spores to the planet.
38. Re:OH COME ON by arth1 · 2010-09-28 05:16 · Score: 1
  
  It was likely quicker than you think.
39. Re:OH COME ON by dryeo · 2010-09-28 15:24 · Score: 1
  
  The Wikipedia article agrees with me, the second paragraph,
  
  Photosynthesis was producing oxygen both before and after the GOE. The difference was that before the GOE, organic matter and dissolved iron chemically captured any free oxygen. The GOE was the point when these minerals became saturated and could not capture any more oxygen. The excess free oxygen started to accumulate in the atmosphere.
  Note that oxygen was being produced before the GOE. At that it says that the first oxygen producing organism may have appeared 3500 million years ago, which is about 1100 million years before the GOE.
  The discussion is about how quick Earth originating lifeforms could alter the Martian atmosphere. Based on the Earths history it is not instant because first all the oxygen sinks have to saturated.
  Also re the 2000 years oxygen
  
  Without a draw-down, oxygen could accumulate very rapidly: for example, at today's rates of photosynthesis (which are admittedly much greater than those in the plant-free Precambrian), modern atmospheric O2 levels could be produced in around 2,000 years.[4]
  Note that is at today's rate of photosynthesis. Personally my home is surrounded by 100 ft tall oxygen producers with lots more on the ground.
  
  --
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
40. Re:OH COME ON by aquila.solo · 2010-10-01 10:10 · Score: 1
  
  Personally my home is surrounded by 100 ft tall oxygen producers with lots more on the ground.
  Sounds like a nice place to live. :-)
41. Re:OH COME ON by dryeo · 2010-10-03 09:56 · Score: 1
  
  It's very nice in the summer but gets depressing in the winter. Being a Canadian rain forest it is pretty dark, wet and cold at the end of the year.
  
  --
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
In other news... by gearsmithy · 2010-09-27 05:45 · Score: 5, Funny

Martians label Earth "stupidest planet ever" for measuring their farts billions of times...
1. Re:In other news... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-27 05:53 · Score: 0
  
  Don't be rediculous, we all know its coming from URANUS!
2. Re:In other news... by arivanov · 2010-09-27 06:16 · Score: 1
  
  That is still better than them grokking us. At least according to Michael Valentine Smith and he is probably the ultimate authority on that.
  
  --
  Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
  http://www.sigsegv.cx/
3. Re:In other news... by CrimsonAvenger · 2010-09-27 07:39 · Score: 1
  
  At least according to Michael Valentine Smith
  Please, his name was Valentine Michael Smith...
  
  --
  
  "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
4. Re:In other news... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-27 07:51 · Score: 0
  
  No, his name was Smith Valentine Michael.
5. Re:In other news... by Rockoon · 2010-09-27 09:06 · Score: 1
  
  You never really know what a strangers name is.
  
  --
  "His name was James Damore."
Evolution by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-27 05:48 · Score: 0

The planet is cold. I guess they want to warm it up.
Underground methane? by schmidt349 · 2010-09-27 05:53 · Score: 1

The Irregular Webcomic guy has the answer:
http://www.irregularwebcomic.net/393.html
Signs of life? by countertrolling · 2010-09-27 05:58 · Score: 1

They should be looking for small quantities of refined Illudium Q-36

--
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
Just in Time! by davevr · 2010-09-27 05:58 · Score: 3, Funny

Someone call Mazlan Othman asap!
1. Re:Just in Time! by gparent · 2010-09-27 06:16 · Score: 1
  
  Hell yeah, that was quick. Maybe we should wait until Netcraft confirms it before claiming something isn't 'dead' though.
Nice way to narrow it down. by IndustrialComplex · 2010-09-27 05:59 · Score: 3, Insightful

FTFA: 'It could be geology or biology, but it is not coming from another source.'
Another source like what? Comets hitting the planet? Isn't geology pretty freaking broad for a category?
That's like looking at a rock on the Earth and saying "Well, we are pretty sure that it either formed here on earth, or it is a meteorite."

--
Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
1. Re:Nice way to narrow it down. by ceejayoz · 2010-09-27 06:05 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Both are big deals - Mars isn't believed to be geologically active, and life would be a massively interesting find for obvious reasons.
  The seasonality rules out explanations like cosmic rays generating methane.
2. Re:Nice way to narrow it down. by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-27 06:07 · Score: 0
  
  Maybe you shouldn't quit your day job at McDonald's.
3. Re:Nice way to narrow it down. by IndustrialComplex · 2010-09-27 06:12 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Both are big deals - Mars isn't believed to be geologically active, and life would be a massively interesting find for obvious reasons.
  The seasonality rules out explanations like cosmic rays generating methane.
  That's a fair response. I just thought it was fairly broad since I subconsciously eliminated the cosmic ray option since they did mention seasonality.
  Ignoring the biological aspect for a moment. Geological just seems so damned broad as to incorporate pretty much everything on a planet. If it were a Jovian moon, I'd consider it less broad of a suggestion since you would then be eliminating seasonal influences from Jupiter in stating that it was just geological.
  
  --
  Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
4. Re:Nice way to narrow it down. by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-27 06:17 · Score: 0
  
  Hey now, be nice. Sometimes blind squirrels can't find any nuts. They should be pitied, not mocked.
5. Re:Nice way to narrow it down. by gr8_phk · 2010-09-27 06:54 · Score: 1
  
  Here is another explanation that isn't really geology or biology: It get trapped into methane hydrates in the winter time.
  
  I always hate when people say things like "it's not X" without an explicit non-existence proof.
6. Re:Nice way to narrow it down. by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-27 07:42 · Score: 0
  
  I would love to read their proof that the methane does not come from ventriloquistic farts.
7. Re:Nice way to narrow it down. by Shadowlore · 2010-09-27 08:20 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Another source would include the possibility of freeze/thaw cycles. There is also another method suggested last year involving radiolytic H2reacting in a non-bioligic manner with CO2 dissolved in water. That process would be neither biological nor geological. There are other atmospheric/radiological possibilities too (such as UV interacting with the atmosphere).
  Yet another method is one you throw out sarcastically. Last year, as I recall, there was a hypothesis put forth that meteorites released methane as they burn up on entry. They do, in fact. However, the problem with that hypothesis is that this source is not significant enough to account for the large volumes of Methane required to support the cycles shown in the data this report discusses (10kg/year compared to a couple hundred tons/year). Subsurface deposits melting were also proposed as a source.
  So yes, that actually does narrow it down. It narrows it down very significantly, and further if you accept the hypothesis that Mars is a 'dead' planet geologically. "Geological processes" are not as broad as you seem to believe. Geology is a rather specific field. Mars is considered dead geologically. Thus, if you accept that all other sources of Methane have been eliminated you are left with the following two possibilities:
  1) Biological - life of some sort
  2) Mars isn't geologically dead, and it is a geological process.
  Either result is pretty damned important. Though technically it could be a third option: Both.
  Further, the bigger quandary isn't so much *how* it is produced, but why does the Martian air "lose" so much methane so quickly? It is removed from the atmosphere faster than the usual suspects.
  Your analogy would work if rocks could be formed atmospherically, biologically, or radiologically.
  
  --
  My Suburban burns less gasoline than your Prius.
8. Re:Nice way to narrow it down. by Antisyzygy · 2010-09-27 08:30 · Score: 1
  
  It could be neither.
  
  --
  That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
9. Re:Nice way to narrow it down. by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-27 08:52 · Score: 0
  
  God put it there to test us.
  It's a bug in the matrix.
  Aliens crash landed there and didn't clean up properly.
  NASA has been shipping cows to Mars behind our backs.
  The possibilities are endless.
10. Re:Nice way to narrow it down. by riverat1 · 2010-09-27 12:38 · Score: 1
  
  I suspect Martian air loses methane quickly mostly because it is broken down by UV radiation from the Sun. Mars doesn't have a protective ozone layer like Earth.
Time to mine it! by Joe+The+Dragon · 2010-09-27 06:01 · Score: 0, Offtopic

Time to mine it!
1. Re:Time to mine it! by canajin56 · 2010-09-27 06:19 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  We have tons of methane mined daily right on Earth. We burn it off at the source because we can't be arsed to pipe it anywhere. If you can't even be bothered piping it from an oil rig, why would you fly it through interplanetary space? I know, bad form, serious reply to non-serious post ;)
  
  --
  ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI
2. Re:Time to mine it! by Grazham · 2010-09-27 09:17 · Score: 1
  
  We do use the methane we get from mining, and, in fact, we do pipe it from refineries to different facilities as fuel. Most notably down south there are many oil refineries paired to hydrogen plants which use steam methane reforming to make large quantities of hydrogen.
Late-Breaking News from the Council: PERVERSION! by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-27 06:05 · Score: 1, Funny

In other news...
Martians label Earth "stupidest planet ever" for measuring their farts billions of times...

Today the Council of Elders confirmed the rumours that the sinister blue planet third from our star has been engaged in acts so bizarre, so perverted, so far beyond the pink, that the only response can be to prepare for war.
"PERVERSION!", thundered K'Breel, as he addressed the Council:
"The mechanized monsters on the surface of our fair world were not the only harbingers of filth from the Blue Planet. The stink of their own poisonous oxygenated atmosphere wasn't foul enough. Having three quarters of their world covered in liquid dihydrogen monoxide wasn't corrosive enough. The practice of diluting of solutions of ethanol and carbon dioxide with DHMO - and the subsequent use of the DHMO as an intoxicant - wasn't enough. Ever in pursuit of new perversions, we now have confirmation that their orbital robotic stations in orbit around our fair world were placed there to sniff our farts."
When it a junior exobiologist suggested that the lifeforms of the Blue Planet were merely interested in possible commonalities in biochemistry across different evolutionary histories and metabolic pathways, K'Breel had the exobiologist's gelsacs removed for fermentation - by methanogens, the way the Founders intended us to get drunk.
seasonal geology? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-27 06:08 · Score: 0

I wouldn't expect volcanoes per se to be seasonal. Sounds like a freeze/thaw cycle on stuff methane that's already there, which could be from any cause.
1. Re:seasonal geology? by Fallen+Kell · 2010-09-27 08:12 · Score: 1
  
  I think that is what the scientists are thinking as well. However, given that methane freezes at -182.15C and the average temperatures on Mars are -63C with the lowest recorded temperature of -140C and the highest temperature of 20C, I doubt that it is from methane freezing and thawing. It is possible that the methane is trapped in some other medium which allows it to escape with the temperatures are warmer in the summer.
  
  --
  We were all warned a long time ago that MS products sucked, remember the Magic 8 Ball said, "Outlook not so good"
Cycle of methane levels? by WSOGMM · 2010-09-27 06:12 · Score: 1

I have those, too. Mine are especially high after dinner.
1. Re:Cycle of methane levels? by sqrt(2) · 2010-09-27 06:35 · Score: 1
  
  I stopped eating meat and dairy and this problem went away.
  
  --
  If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org
2. Re:Cycle of methane levels? by jpapon · 2010-09-27 07:21 · Score: 1
  
  I stopped eating meat and dairy and this problem went away.
  Gooood for yooouuuuuu! Do you enjoy the smell of your farts now as well?
  
  --
  -- Let us endeavor so to live that when we pass even the undertaker shall be sorry. -- M. Twain
3. Re:Cycle of methane levels? by IndustrialComplex · 2010-09-27 07:53 · Score: 1
  
  I stopped eating meat and dairy and this problem went away.
  I started eating Onions, Cabbage, and Beans and now my house is being tapped for biofuels!
  
  --
  Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
4. Re:Cycle of methane levels? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-27 09:54 · Score: 0
  
  So you're saying a vegetarian diet made you lose your sense of smell? That's a really odd side-effect!
CDIC a side by kenp2002 · 2010-09-27 06:13 · Score: 1

In further news Saturn's climate and chemical activity is also influenced by seasons.
Using a hydrocarbon as a measuring stick for the presence of life is not a very good indicator. Venus has oceans of the crap sloshing around. doesn't imply life.
Here is what we do. get a bunch of people with a terminal disease that gives them 20 years or so of life left. Or the entire viewing audience of Jersey Shore. Put them on a 1 way rocket to Mars with a crap load of Cheetoes and snack foods. Throw in Lohan as a plaything, she's too cracked out to even notice these days...
Send them there. They can then dig around and when one of them get's eaten by something alive there, then the rest of us here on Earth who are busy dodging bullets, fighting hunger, and dealing with assholes will give two shits about life on Mars. In the mean time some of us have important immediate concerns to deal with besides whether there is a new strain of microbe on Mars.
For instance, the HTC versus the iPhone, or the new season of Dr. Who...

--
-=[ Who Is John Galt? ]=-
1. Re:CDIC a side by WormholeFiend · 2010-09-27 06:30 · Score: 1
  
  Throw in Lohan as a plaything, she's too cracked out to even notice these days...
  She'll notice when she runs out of crack
2. Re:CDIC a side by Beardo+the+Bearded · 2010-09-27 06:37 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, because there aren't _any_ engineers, scientists, or biologists who would take a one-way-trip to Mars.
  
  --
  
  ---
  ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
3. Re:CDIC a side by MaWeiTao · 2010-09-27 06:47 · Score: 1
  
  the entire viewing audience of Jersey Shore. Put them on a 1 way rocket to Mars with a crap load of Cheetoes and snack foods. Throw in Lohan as a plaything, she's too cracked out to even notice these days...
  Are these the kinds of people we want to be ambassadors to Earth? Any alien race who came across them would be compelled to destroy the Earth in order to prevent our stupidity from spreading.
4. Re:CDIC a side by mister_playboy · 2010-09-27 07:33 · Score: 1
  
  Using a hydrocarbon as a measuring stick for the presence of life is not a very good indicator. Venus has oceans of the crap sloshing around. doesn't imply life.
  Venus? I think you meant Titan.
  
  --
  Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law ::: Love is the law, love under will
5. Re:CDIC a side by mjwx · 2010-09-27 15:54 · Score: 1
  
  Here is what we do. get a bunch of people with a terminal disease that gives them 20 years or so of life left. Or the entire viewing audience of Jersey Shore. Put them on a 1 way rocket to Mars with a crap load of Cheetoes and snack foods. Throw in Lohan as a plaything, she's too cracked out to even notice these days...
  No, these kind of things never turn out well. in every sci-fi movie always the exiles return for vengeance. Frankly the idea of Empress Lohan I of Mars or Praise be to Snookie day is too scary to contemplate.
  
  --
  Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Yeah, sure.... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-27 06:19 · Score: 0

just 'cause there's a lot of methane it does not mean there's a lot of farting aliens...
This can only mean one thing... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-27 06:30 · Score: 0

Methane emissions on Mars? Must be Martian Cows!
geological how? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-27 06:31 · Score: 0

What sort of geological mechanism generates seasonal emissions of methane?
1. Re:geological how? by MightyMartian · 2010-09-27 06:32 · Score: 1
  
  Off the top of my head, outgassing as ice melts during spring and summer, either by release of methane trapped below the ice or possibly in the ice.
  
  --
  The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Question? by StripedCow · 2010-09-27 06:37 · Score: 0, Redundant

If they find life, how can they be sure it didn't originate from Earth?
I mean, bacteria could have traveled along with the mars rover as free-riders, and may by now have multiplied into billions.

--
If Pandora's box is destined to be opened, *I* want to be the one to open it.
1. Re:Question? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-27 06:56 · Score: 0
  
  If it has DNA then we don't know. If there is fossils we do know.
  If it has DNA we can look the difference, but then there will be always the question where the life came from.
2. Re:Question? by Guido+von+Guido · 2010-09-27 07:11 · Score: 1
  
  If they find life, how can they be sure it didn't originate from Earth? I mean, bacteria could have traveled along with the mars rover as free-riders, and may by now have multiplied into billions.
  Let's suppose there is life on Mars. We can get a pretty good idea of whether or not it's related to life forms on Earth by examining it and seeing how close it is to organisms here. If it has DNA, we could sequence it.
  For instance, suppose it looks a lot like terrestrial bacteria, it has DNA, and its genetic code is nearly identical to or very similar to specific terrestrial bacteria. Then yes, it probably came over as contamination.
  Suppose it uses DNA, but it doesn't remotely resemble any living bacteria. This may indicate that it evolved from terrestrial bacteria that came over earlier (i.e., hitched a ride on a meteorite). Or that terrestrial life evolved from a hitchhiking Martian bacteria.
  Suppose it uses a slightly different DNA system than ours. For instance, the bases may be slightly different, or it uses only RNA, or something along those lines. Depending on the level of the differences, this could indicate that it evolved independently from terrestrial life, or that it hitchhiked over very early in the development of life.
  Suppose the Martian organism doesn't use DNA at all. This may indicate that it's completely independent of terrestrial life. That's assuming that life on Earth always used DNA (or at least RNA), which isn't necessarily true.
3. Re:Question? by arkane1234 · 2010-09-27 07:16 · Score: 1
  
  If you go that route, how can we be sure that life on Earth didn't originate from Mars?
  We did have Martian soil impact earth in the past, so you never know right?
  
  --
  -- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
4. Re:Question? by jd · 2010-09-27 08:11 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Maybe. Let's say it resembles a bacterium on Earth except for the fact that the one on Mars has organelles or other internal structural features that take a very long time to develop that are absent from the one on Earth (or vice versa). You can then say with some certainty that it wasn't contamination during the Space Age. If further samples indicated that the variation in DNA was so great that the most recent common ancestor to all of them was a few million years ago at the earliest, it's old enough to call it Martian life regardless of the ultimate source of organic matter.
  
  --
  It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
5. Re:Question? by GreenTom · 2010-09-27 08:51 · Score: 1
  
  There's be a couple of easy ways to check (well, easy compared with the effort of getting a sample back from mars): All life on Earth uses nearly identical DNA codes for particular amino acids. If the recovered organisims use a different one, probably not hitchikers. If they use the same one, it would be sort of like finding that your extraterrestial radio transmission was encoded in ASCII. There are many amino acids, and only 22 are generally found in Earthly life. If the organisim makes extensive use of different ones, you're a winner. Going a little deeper, there are proteins and DNA sequences that are nearly universal in terresteral life.
6. Re:Question? by LanMan04 · 2010-09-28 04:15 · Score: 1
  
  If they use the same one, it would be sort of like finding that your extraterrestial radio transmission was encoded in ASCII.
  As you implied with your hitchhiker comment, Mars is a stone's throw away from Earth, literally. I'm willing to bet that any "native" life we find on Mars will share a common root with Earth life, although their most recent common ancestor may have been, oh, 4 billion years ago.
  Either that or life (of some kind) is damned near ubiquitous in the universe.
  
  --
  With the first link, the chain is forged.
Easily explained by oldmac31310 · 2010-09-27 06:37 · Score: 1

It's the subterranean Martian buffalo flatulance.

--
http://www.acetonestudio.com
Well that's lucky... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-27 06:47 · Score: 0

If women were from Mars, we wouldn't get any readings at all.
Must be funding time for NASA by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-27 06:49 · Score: 0

They only publish "life on Mars" teaser stories when it's time for Congress to do their budget.
Converging on a solution! by Quiet_Desperation · 2010-09-27 06:57 · Score: 1

It could be geology or biology,
Oh, well, that narrows it down.
In other news, physicists said that before the Big Bang there was either something or nothing. Oh, wait, bad example. :-) Ah, I tease you, physicists! Give us a smile.
Calling all climate change advocates by odysseus_complex · 2010-09-27 07:44 · Score: 1

Great, now we have to worry about global warming on Mars!
No Uranus jokes?? by MooseTick · 2010-09-27 07:45 · Score: 1, Insightful

I can't believe an article about space, biology, and methane has no comments about Uranus. Slashdot has let me down again.

--
Ninjas don't carry tic tacs
1. Re:No Uranus jokes?? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-27 08:31 · Score: 0
  
  Mars needs big-tittied inhabitants.
2. Re:No Uranus jokes?? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-27 08:39 · Score: 0
  
  By lamenting the lack of Uranus jokes instead of posting one yourself, you are the one letting Slashdot down.
3. Re:No Uranus jokes?? by GodfatherofSoul · 2010-09-27 09:01 · Score: 1
  
  You might say this website is slowing spiraling down a deep, smelly hole.
  
  --
  I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
4. Re:No Uranus jokes?? by Kjella · 2010-09-27 09:36 · Score: 1
  
  Every HGTTG/Futurama fan knows it will have been renamed to Urektum in 2620, so the jokes are no longer funny.
  
  --
  Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Ahh, the great infallible jeebus by apparently · 2010-09-27 07:52 · Score: 1

Find something that contradicts the creation story of the Bible? No problem! Those alleged contradictions are merely pieces of information that god purposely withheld, because he created us to be too stupid to understand simple concepts and had to resort to lies and misinformation.
What a guy!

The Christian claim is that for humans, God has sought to reveal himself through the Bible to the extent that humans can and should understand him.
1. Re:Ahh, the great infallible jeebus by ooshna · 2010-09-27 09:21 · Score: 1
  
  As dumb as it sound I believe if there is a god and if he created us to be different than the animals it would have been so we could actually be in awe and astonished at the universe he created. I mean whats the point of creating something at incredible and awesome as what we have just discovered in the last hundred years if there is no one around to be amazed and intrigued by it. I'm not saying that we are the only sentient beings in the universe. But I just hope god would step back and not interfere and let us discover all the wonders this universe hold for ourselves. Again that's if there is a god.
2. Re:Ahh, the great infallible jeebus by Joe+Tie. · 2010-09-27 12:26 · Score: 1
  
  Exactly. I'm always amazed that people think finding a contradiction in the bible will shock and astound anyone. It's not like the first time something like that's happened. There's a pretty standard set of excuses that fit all occasions.
  
  --
  Everything will be taken away from you.
3. Re:Ahh, the great infallible jeebus by Bertie · 2010-09-27 12:50 · Score: 1
  
  How vain of God to create a species just so he could say "Hey, look what I did, isn't it cool?"
  How vain of humans to think they were created for this reason.
  Yeah, we're special. But so's every other living creature. We're no better.
4. Re:Ahh, the great infallible jeebus by eleuthero · 2010-09-28 17:03 · Score: 1
  
  Not quite sure where you read contradictions, lies, and misinformation into my comment there, but, and I am not stating this in an absolute sense here, most of the 'contradictions' I've seen posted on the net have been written by people who have ignored context, cultural background, and even, genre (poetic sections of the Bible are frequently ripped for being 'non-scientific' - which, for poetry, is actually a good thing, I think)...
Biological vs Geological by PPH · 2010-09-27 08:04 · Score: 2, Insightful

Actually, 'biological' should be 'current biological'.
Grab a sample of Martian methane and check its distribution of carbon isotopes. Carbon sequestered thousands or millions of years ago should have different ratios from atmospheric sources (the principle of carbon dating). Current biological activity should reflect the ratios of the existing carbon sources.
Of course, if underground life is munching on 'old' carbon, its farts will look old as well. Just as old as CH4 sequestered a long time ago and leaking to the surface only now.

--
Have gnu, will travel.
1. Re:Biological vs Geological by osu-neko · 2010-09-27 08:18 · Score: 1
  
  Very good point. I would only criticize that I hate seeing "vs" used in the manner in the title here. Life is a chemical process, and ultimately, a geological process. Understanding that ultimately life is one of Earth's geological processes (and indeed one of the most important and influential ones in shaping our planet), the question should be phrased as "biological vs. abiological"; it's geological in either case.
  
  --
  "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
2. Re:Biological vs Geological by GreenTom · 2010-09-27 08:56 · Score: 1
  
  If I had mod points, I'd mod this up.
  I am not a spetroscoper--is it even theoriticaly possible that isotope ratios in the methane could be measured remotely?
3. Re:Biological vs Geological by PPH · 2010-09-27 12:47 · Score: 1
  
  Biological vs abiological is indeed the holy grail we are looking for. But new vs old may help us rule out some processes in either camp.
  
  --
  Have gnu, will travel.
4. Re:Biological vs Geological by Mindcontrolled · 2010-09-27 19:25 · Score: 1
  
  There certainly should an isotopic effect on the IR spectrum of methane. I have no experience with remote sensing, though, but I seriously doubt that one could resolve that difference remotely. Best bet would still be to get a lander down there and do the measurement locally.
  
  --
  Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
Seasonal meteorite showers, anyone? by kiwix · 2010-09-27 08:09 · Score: 2, Insightful

The seasonality doesn't really rule out an external source. On Earth we have seasonal meteorite showers, I guess they could have the same on Mars.
1. Re:Seasonal meteorite showers, anyone? by ceejayoz · 2010-09-28 06:52 · Score: 1
  
  And that would cause massive releases of methane how, exactly?
Jesus was an Arab by Joce640k · 2010-09-27 08:12 · Score: 1

Be sure to remind as many Christians and Rednecks as possible...
Also pull it out next time somebody says "towel head". Remind them that Baby Jesus was a towel head and they should be more respectful.

--
No sig today...
1. Re:Jesus was an Arab by ooshna · 2010-09-27 09:11 · Score: 1
  
  Hey I went to a catholic school and when we colored in the stations of the cross we sure as hell didn't use a brown crayon... we used a peach one.
2. Re:Jesus was an Arab by Nethead · 2010-09-27 11:41 · Score: 1
  
  I'd be scared white if I was going to be nailed to a plank.
  
  --
  -- I have a private email server in my basement.
3. Re:Jesus was an Arab by Schemat1c · 2010-09-27 11:46 · Score: 1
  
  Jesus was an Arab
  If he ever existed at all he actually would have been a Jew but since he never did exist the point is moot.
  
  --
  
  "Nobody knows the age of the human race, but everybody agrees that it is old enough to know better." - Unknown
4. Re:Jesus was an Arab by sodul · 2010-09-27 13:15 · Score: 1
  
  Uh ? There are historical records of Jesus existence. What make you say he never existed ? I'm not claiming the miracles did happen, just the fact that the man that we now call Jesus did exist. Some facts that I am pretty certain are accurate:
  - he was born of a woman about 2000 y/ago (give or take 30y)
  - he preached and had some followers ... what we would call a sect these days
  - in Jerusalem he made some fuss about the temple fees
  - it pissed local religious authorities who called the occupying roman forces to do the execution
  - he was crucified like many criminals were at the time (most representations are inaccurate by the way)
  - some of his followers were successful preaching in Rome, and here we are now.
  Now In all these facts I do not see a single supernatural thing. So why do you claim he did not exist ? It's like saying that Hubbard never existed because you think that Scientology is a scam.
5. Re:Jesus was an Arab by Schemat1c · 2010-09-27 14:45 · Score: 1
  
  Uh ? There are historical records of Jesus existence.
  Please point me to one record that isn't in the bible or hasn't been proved a fraud.
  
  --
  
  "Nobody knows the age of the human race, but everybody agrees that it is old enough to know better." - Unknown
6. Re:Jesus was an Arab by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-27 17:15 · Score: 0
  
  Jews are arabs you fucktard.
7. Re:Jesus was an Arab by sodul · 2010-09-27 20:05 · Score: 1
  
  I stand corrected,there is no evidence for the existence of Jesus that comes from the time of Jesus. I though there were ancient records, but it seems the earliest ones are from many years after his alleged death, and then by christians.
8. Re:Jesus was an Arab by Joebert · 2010-09-27 22:51 · Score: 1
  
  I used a black one so my inability to stay inside the lines wasn't so obvious.
  
  --
  Wanna fight ? Bend over, stick your head up your ass, and fight for air.
9. Re:Jesus was an Arab by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-28 00:44 · Score: 0
  
  Yes and the Jewish people were Arabs too.
  Look up the actual definition of Semitic and get a good laugh the next time someone calls the Palestinians Antisemitic :P
10. Re:Jesus was an Arab by Joce640k · 2010-09-28 21:37 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, they used to tell me that in church, too.
  Turns out it's a lie, there are no records. Think: If there were they wouldn't be hidden in some obscure basement, they'd be on full display somewhere with millions of pilgrims surrounding them.
  PS: There's also no record of the great roman census that sent Mary and Joseph to Bethlehem or Herod's killing of every male under two years old. Both of those would have left a *lot* of paperwork. We still have the invoices for the Roman Legion's underpants, why not the great census...?
  
  --
  No sig today...
11. Re:Jesus was an Arab by Joce640k · 2010-09-28 21:39 · Score: 1
  
  If he ever existed at all he actually would have been a Jew but since he never did exist the point is moot.
  Harry Potter doesn't exist but we can still discuss whether or not he's a French schoolboy...
  
  --
  No sig today...
12. Re:Jesus was an Arab by sodul · 2010-09-29 03:44 · Score: 1
  
  Well there could be records of some unholy activities, like getting married to a prostitute or other embarrassing thing that the catholic church has records of but that would throw off the "official way of thinking" for the past millennia or so.
Statistical relavancy by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-27 08:14 · Score: 0

You are basing this on a thorough study of no fewer than eight data points? Did you control for solar systems of origin?
Basically, we can't tell much at this point. We could be one in a billion, or one in ten.
There is Methane on Mars? by Virmal · 2010-09-27 08:19 · Score: 1

No shit! I mean "Shit"...
Mars is breathing methane. by Xaedalus · 2010-09-27 08:30 · Score: 1

That's not enough? A entire planet is 'breathing' methane. I'd say that's grounds for some serious exploration.

--
Here's to hot beer, cold women, and Glaswegian kisses for all.
Buggalo by Kozar_The_Malignant · 2010-09-27 09:24 · Score: 1

I was hoping for a Farnsworth joke :(
No Farnsworth joke, but here's the obligatory Futurama reference.

--
Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
Life on Mars=Immaterial to colonization by Anonymous Coward · 2010-09-27 10:12 · Score: 0

The best use of Mars is colonization (long term survival and range expansion of the human species outranks all other concerns...a species that does not expand its range will eventually become extinct due to various statistically small causes)..doesn't matter if there is life on it already or not. However, it would be easier to study it if we had a permanent colony with generations living on the red planet.
Besides, the methane would make transforming faster...?
This planet isn't dead. by straponego · 2010-09-27 11:15 · Score: 1

It's pining for the canals.
Methane, eh ? by vegiVamp · 2010-09-28 02:03 · Score: 1

I, for one, welcome our bovine Martian overlords.

--
What a depressingly stupid machine.
Another evidence by luk3Z · 2010-09-28 02:11 · Score: 0

Another evidence life on Mars: http://img.thesun.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00366/F_200709_September1_366368a.jpg

--
Recipes for USA bankrupt - http://tinypaste.com/0d66f dd = dollar deluge (printed in the infinity)
"Mars is sterile" is extraordinary by yyxx · 2010-09-28 06:21 · Score: 1

I think the unspoken belief in the scientific community is that it's pointing very heavily towards life on Mars, but the rule of thumb in science is "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", and claims don't get much more extraordinary than the claim that life has been found on another world
Mars had a wet, warm history, there is liquid water even on its surface (albeit in small quantities), it had sufficient time to evolve life (more than the appearance of life on earth took), and it also had ample opportunity to get seeded from earth. It probably had large bodies of water over many hundreds of millions of years. There is also suggestive evidence of geologically recent volcanism, which means that there are probably warm pockets deep underground that could still support extremophile life.
Given what we know now, live evolving and surviving on Mars is consistent with what we know and requires no additional explanation. On the other hand, if Mars were found to be completely sterile, that would indeed require some explanation that we don't know yet.
So, the claim "Mars is sterile" is extraordinary; the claim "there is life on Mars" is ordinary albeit still unproven.