New research paper says - Mars life unlikely

prometheusunbound · 2003-08-19 16:33:07

What of the possiblity that earth seeded life on mars? I hear nothing but the possiblity that mars seeded life on earth.

dickbill · 2003-08-19 17:12:21

What of the possiblity that earth seeded life on mars? I hear nothing but the possiblity that mars seeded life on earth.

it's possible, there are some posts on this forum refering to research papers demonstrating that several hundreds of terran stones reach Mars every years. But a stone or a bacterial spore it's not the same of course.

GOM · 2003-08-23 00:08:09

What of the possiblity that earth seeded life on mars?

Personally, that is what I think happened.

It's almost guaranteed that we humans have contaminated Mars with our recent crash landings and rovers. However I think it's also possible that, in the past, some small, very tough life could have survived a trip inside a rock from Earth to Mars. It's somewhat of a longshot, I suppose. However, if we ever do find life on Mars I fully expect it be DNA-based life just like we have here on Earth.

.02

Shaun Barrett · 2003-08-23 02:31:44

Fascinating stuff, Dickbill.
We now know of organisms living in terrestrial environments with temperatures ranging from an average of something like -30 deg.C (crypto-endolithic creatures in Antarctica) up to +121 deg.C!
We have bacteria which can survive, dormant, for 2 years exposed to the lunar environment (stowaways aboard a Surveyor lander, retrieved by the Apollo XII crew).
There are bacteria which live happily in water so acidic or alkaline, you could dispose of your murdered spouse's body in it!!
We have bacteria which thrive in nuclear reactors, bathed in enough radiation to kill a human being 3000 times over (Deinococcus Radiodurans).
We have bacteria living several kilometres deep in basalt in Earth's crust, eating hydrogen generated by water reacting with iron (chemolithoautotrophs).
And we have reports of bacteria reviving after spending periods of up to 250 million years in a dormant state in ancient salt deposits!

In almost every nook and cranny on Earth you can think of, and probably quite a few you can't think of, we find living bacteria.
As GOM points out, large quantities of Earth's crust have been raining down on Mars on a regular basis for billions of years, courtesy of impact transfer. We have ample evidence that bacteria are perfectly capable of surviving the rigours this kind of transfer imposes.
Yet Mars is still treated as though it is almost certainly sterile!
If the whole thing were a horse-race, the bookies would have DNA based life on Mars as a 1000-to-1-on bet!! I can't prove categorically that there's life on Mars but I've seen enough to know that's where the smart money has to be.

GOM, I agree with you 110% !

dickbill · 2003-08-23 09:15:31

If the whole thing were a horse-race, the bookies would have DNA based life on Mars as a 1000-to-1-on bet!! I can't prove categorically that there's life on Mars but I've seen enough to know that's where the smart money has to be.

If I was a politician, or a cardinal of the inquisition, I would say, with total confidence and loudly, shooting with deadly eyes whoever would dare to contradict such obvious statements :

"We know for sure that there is life on Mars ! "

and

"We need to invade Mars NOW, before the martians attack us, do you want to see a mushroom of martian ziltron spread on New York ?"

Unfortunatly all the argument for life on Mars, through panspermia or de-novo, remains putative and don't constitute proofs.
By the way, it's gonna be hard to proove that there is NO life on Mars, someone can always claim we check the wrong place. But, if this life is hard to find, it's because the martians HIDE !, right ?
Why the Martian hide ? because they have something to hide ! and this is Ziltron (obviously) !
A direct proof indeed that Martian ziltron is a thread for us is that we don't find the ziltron and we don't find the martians !

In math this is called "La preuve par l'Absurde"

GOM · 2003-08-23 10:10:29

And we have reports of bacteria reviving after spending periods of up to 250 million years in a dormant state in ancient salt deposits!

That one is suspect due to possible contamination.

I don't know if there is a way to prove or disprove the age that was claimed.

GOM · 2003-08-23 10:20:34

If the whole thing were a horse-race, the bookies would have DNA based life on Mars as a 1000-to-1-on bet!! I can't prove categorically that there's life on Mars but I've seen enough to know that's where the smart money has to be.
If I was a politician, or a cardinal of the inquisition, I would say, with total confidence and loudly, shooting with deadly eyes whoever would dare to contradict such obvious statements :
"We know for sure that there is life on Mars ! "
and
"We need to invade Mars NOW, before the martians attack us, do you want to see a mushroom of martian ziltron spread on New York ?"
Unfortunatly all the argument for life on Mars, through panspermia or de-novo, remains putative and don't constitute proofs.
By the way, it's gonna be hard to proove that there is NO life on Mars, someone can always claim we check the wrong place. But, if this life is hard to find, it's because the martians HIDE !, right ?
Why the Martian hide ? because they have something to hide ! and this is Ziltron (obviously) !
A direct proof indeed that Martian ziltron is a thread for us is that we don't find the ziltron and we don't find the martians !
In math this is called "La preuve par l'Absurde"

Huh?

Nobody's talking about any Martians. I'm willing to bet there is life on Mars. Are you willing to take that bet?

Btw, the only thing absurd about discussing the possibility of life on Mars is that we are still discussing it! This should have been taken care of years ago, when we still had a real space program.

Thirty years ago I watched men walk on the Moon. Today, with all our "progress" we can't even duplicate that event. Sad. And few people even care. That's sad too.

dickbill · 2003-08-23 18:37:10

In math this is called "La preuve par l'Absurde"

Huh?

Nobody's talking about any Martians. I'm willing to bet there is life on Mars. Are you willing to take that bet?

Hi GOM,

I was just kidding, you have to get used to my jokes.
But about what you said, why not to call the martian microbes Martians ? it is still better than "bugs". Imagine nanobacterias are the highest life form on Mars, then those nanobacteria deserve the title of "Martians".

About the bet, I won't bet because the issue of life on Mars is going to be an endless issue, IMO. Suppose the results of the probes investigations of the following 100 years are always negative, then one can always suppose that the right place has not been investigated. On that point, like in the last book of the KSR trilogy, (when they discover snail-shape stones and think they are fossils), you CANNOT really prove there is not, or never was, life on Mars.
It is very well possible that martian life, if it exists, is not necesseraly uniformely widespread on the planet. It could be a single underground cave filled with water where life could have happened 3 billions years ago, before it was sterilized by a meteor impact or frozen forever when the temperature dropped. Life (say an autoreplicative complex RNA-like molecule, prototype of an early protocell) could have appeared very locally, in a single bed of clay or iron sulfure but unfortunatly could never had the opportunity to develop further.
Of course, the Rovers or Beagle could be lucky and find EVIDENT traces of life and I could be wrong, so we have to be patient.

Shaun Barrett · 2003-08-24 06:16:15

My God, of course ... Ziltron!!!
It all makes sense now. Everything is so clear.
I understand you perfectly, Dickbill. The most certain proof of the Martians' existence is their very absence! We've seen absolutely no evidence of Martians or their diabolical Ziltron weapon, so they must be there!
Why, those underhanded, yellow-bellied, scumsucking alien sons of bitches!!!! :angry:

You know, I wouldn't be in the least bit surprised if our governments are up to their scurrilous necks in this attempt to keep the truth from us.
Beware, Dickbill! Never remove your metal helmet .. even in the shower. Their mind-control rays are always with us, eroding our ability to think clearly.
If not for my own metal helmet, I never would have seen the logic in your reasoning about Ziltron!!

dickbill · 2003-08-24 09:09:55

My God, of course ... Ziltron!!!
It all makes sense now. Everything is so clear.
I understand you perfectly, Dickbill. The most certain proof of the Martians' existence is their very absence! We've seen absolutely no evidence of Martians or their diabolical Ziltron weapon, so they must be there!
Beware, Dickbill! Never remove your metal helmet .. even in the shower.

No, no, never !

By the way, CNN becomes better and better: they gave up on Kobe Briant and rather they focused on the close Mars encounter and showed live pictures of Mars through a telescope. This morning they interviewed our president, Dr. Zubrin. He looked good and spoke well, particularly emphasing the quest for life on Mars and the hope for a human presence in the future. Thanks CNN !

GOM · 2003-08-24 11:09:27

1. I was just kidding, you have to get used to my jokes.
But about what you said, why not to call the martian microbes Martians ? it is still better than "bugs". Imagine nanobacterias are the highest life form on Mars, then those nanobacteria deserve the title of "Martians".
2. Suppose the results of the probes investigations of the following 100 years are always negative, then one can always suppose that the right place has not been investigated.
3. Of course, the Rovers or Beagle could be lucky and find EVIDENT traces of life and I could be wrong, so we have to be patient.

1. Okay. But you are alone in calling them Martians. You will probably have to settle for Martian Bugs.

2. We better not waste another 100 years on probes!!! We need to put some people over there. I'm almost 50, but I would go if NASA would make a serious attempt to have a manned space program again.

3. Keep your fingers crossed. They haven't even arrived yet. Funny things happen on and around Mars. I'm sure you've noticed that, if you've followed the history.

P.S. You do know that Sir Arthur Clarke believes the photographic evidence already shows life. Right? Here's the link, if you missed it:

http://www.space.com/peopleinterviews/c … 10601.html

dickbill · 2003-08-24 12:43:18

P.S. You do know that Sir Arthur Clarke believes the photographic evidence already shows life. Right? Here's the link, if you missed it:
http://www.space.com/peopleinterviews/c … 10601.html

Trees on Mars ? I don't know how he could see that.
Microbes would be already great. What I am saying, microbes ?, any form of replicative organic molecular system would be great.
Anyway, good luck for the Rovers and Beagle against the Ghoul ! But NASA and JPL has proved to be able to land safely on MArs, so I don't worry much about the Ghoul. Anyway, as opposed to what say Hollywood, failure IS an option, but it doesn't matter because in a long term, sustained, exploration of the Red Planet, success and failure happen. The good point is that we learn best from a failure than from an easy success.

GOM · 2003-08-24 20:56:10

The good point is that we learn best from a failure than from an easy success.

Then we should be geniuses by now!

Actually, failure does not help at all if we don't know what went wrong, as is the case with one recent fiasco.

Then there was the metric/foot disaster....

What did we learn from THAT one? I only learned that NASA isn't much better than my local DMV for covering the basics.

Palomar · 2003-08-25 10:03:20

P.S. You do know that Sir Arthur Clarke believes the photographic evidence already shows life. Right? Here's the link, if you missed it:
http://www.space.com/peopleinterviews/c … 10601.html
Trees on Mars ? I don't know how he could see that.

*The first word that pops into my mind relative to this belief of Clarke's is: Alzheimer's.

Sorry if I sound snide or disrespectful. How can he possibly believe there's enough oxygen on Mars to sustain trees? And they are just 1 part of a larger ecosystem, as we know.

The dark dots on Marsian sand dunes which do look like bushes/vegetation (I admit it does look this way, yes) have been shown to be part of the dethawing process of the dunes themselves...and the resultant discoloration in the dethawing process.

But whatever Clarke wants to believe... ::shrugs::
--Cindy

Free Spirit · 2003-08-25 15:04:09

Judging from all of the projects he promotes to his assertion of trees on Mars, Clarke seems to be getting bold and controversial in his old age. Anyhow I thought trees mostly breathed in carbon dioxide and exhaled oxygen. Maybe I need a biology refresher course along with that chemistry one? We better tell Shaun to bring more donuts and coffee just in case.

Shaun Barrett · 2003-08-25 21:46:31

I've seen the images Sir Arthur believes may be trees. They are very tree-like in form and we've discussed what they might be in another thread here at New Mars (can't recall where just now) and the idea of some kind of non-living crystalline growth was mentioned. The environment we're talking about is an alien one, after all, and who knows what the conditions there may give rise to.
I don't think we should eliminate things as being impossible until we get there and have a good look but the idea of trees does seem fantastic, in the true sense of the word. I remember someone noting that the shadows in the image in question suggest that the "trees" would have to be about 100 metres tall! And, as Cindy rightly points out, well-developed vegetation of that size and type would surely have to be part of a substantial ecosystem whose tell-tale signs would be everywhere. Yet, we know those signs don't exist anywhere else we've looked (- unless we don't understand what we're looking at!). So Sir Arthur's conclusions seem insupportable.
But does that mean he's lost his marbles? All I can say is I hope not and I don't think so! I think it's just frustration born of the very real sense of his own mortality.

Sir Arthur is a gifted man. He has an extraordinary imagination and a clearer view of the potential wonders of the future than most of us have. He knows he hasn't much time left. I think he is very anxious to see some kind of breakthrough, perhaps on Mars, maybe in the field of propulsion (which he mentions in the above article), or at least in some branch of physics. I know he thinks there's more to cold fusion than meets the eye, for instance.
All this smacks of desperation; he's trying to hurry history along before it's too late and he misses it!
The reason I think I recognise this attitude in Sir Arthur is because, to a lesser but no less real extent, I recognise it in myself! A man well into middle-age may be at the pinnacle of his powers and achievements - and it might be a grand view from the peak he's climbed - but he sees the future more clearly too, and its most impressive feature is how short it looks!! Sir Arthur's future looks even shorter and he would dearly love something amazing to happen to take his mind off it and give him a sense of excitement again - maybe for the last time.

He may be a genius, a celebrity, or whatever else ... but when all's said and done, he's really just an old man coming to terms with the finite nature of his own life. Let's not be too harsh on him.

[Besides, what if he's right?!! :;): ]

Shaun Barrett · 2003-08-25 21:53:51

Free Spirit writes:-

We better tell Shaun to bring more donuts and coffee just in case.

Hey, hang on a minute! I volunteered to buy the coffee but you'll need to talk to Cindy about the donuts!!!
:laugh:

rgcarnes · 2003-08-26 06:47:54

All this smacks of desperation; he's trying to hurry history along before it's too late and he misses it!

The reason I think I recognise this attitude in Sir Arthur is because, to a lesser but no less real extent, I recognise it in myself! A man well into middle-age may be at the pinnacle of his powers and achievements - and it might be a grand view from the peak he's climbed - but he sees the future more clearly too, and its most impressive feature is how short it looks!! Sir Arthur's future looks even shorter and he would dearly love something amazing to happen to take his mind off it and give him a sense of excitement again - maybe for the last time.

Great words, Shaun. This resonates strongly to me, although I can't quite personalize the words "pinacle", "powers" and "achievements". Surely there is more before we're done.

Palomar · 2003-08-26 07:26:30

Judging from all of the projects he promotes to his assertion of trees on Mars, Clarke seems to be getting bold and controversial in his old age. Anyhow I thought trees mostly breathed in carbon dioxide and exhaled oxygen. Maybe I need a biology refresher course along with that chemistry one? We better tell Shaun to bring more donuts and coffee just in case.

*Uh-oh! Guess I'd better take a refresher course too...before Sir Arthur rightfully tosses "Alzheimer's" back into my lap...

Yeah, I said I'd bring the donuts. Shaun's bringing the coffee.

--Cindy

Shaun Barrett · 2003-08-26 07:31:53

Rex writes:-

Surely there is more before we're done.

Oh yes, Rex! Don't misunderstand me. I haven't exactly thrown in the towel just yet and I'm quite sure you haven't either!

I haven't totally given up on a trip to the Moon in my old age for one thing. :;):

[P.S. Thanks for the compliment, by the way. It's always gratifying to think one's comments about inner feelings have been well received.]

alokmohan · 2003-09-29 04:06:10

Arther Clarke is not credible on this.

dicktice · 2003-09-29 18:13:22

All you critics of Arthur C Clarke: Just because he's older than you doesn't mean senility, that seems to occur in those who grow old without imagining things. He's imagining to beat the band! Everything I ever read of his concerned an original idea or concept. Of course, time's short for him. It's nearly as short for you kids--think about it! Let's get going, follow whomever is leading, and when they fall back to have a rethink, grab the "baton" and take the lead yourself, see? If water-ice exists on Mars, then just anything at all is possible. (Over to youse guys.)

alokmohan · 2003-10-06 03:04:19

So mars will be a good nursery.

Palomar · 2003-11-11 10:40:49

All you critics of Arthur C Clarke: Just because he's older than you doesn't mean senility, that seems to occur in those who grow old without imagining things. He's imagining to beat the band! Everything I ever read of his concerned an original idea or concept. Of course, time's short for him. It's nearly as short for you kids--think about it! Let's get going, follow whomever is leading, and when they fall back to have a rethink, grab the "baton" and take the lead yourself, see? If water-ice exists on Mars, then just anything at all is possible. (Over to youse guys.)

*Now, now dicktice...I'm sorry if I sounded disrespectful. You wouldn't hit a girl with your cane, now would you?

Actually, I'd like to read more of Clarke's theoretical opining regarding these "trees," particularly his suggestions as to how they could survive and thrive despite:

a) The thin Marsian atmosphere
b) It's frickin COLD on Mars
c) The trees appear to be absolute loners.

--Cindy (aka "One of Youse Kids")

dickbill · 2003-11-11 11:04:25

Actually, I'd like to read more of Clarke's theoretical opining regarding these "trees," particularly his suggestions as to how they could survive and thrive despite:
a) The thin Marsian atmosphere
b) It's frickin COLD on Mars
c) The trees appear to be absolute loners.
--Cindy (aka "One of Youse Kids")

Hi Cindy,
Martian trees are made of stones and sand, inhabited by the spirits of Mars. Martian ghosts, that's what we gonna find. You dreamed of them already right ? I did it too.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2003-08-19 16:33:07

Re: New research paper says - Mars life unlikely

#27 2003-08-19 17:12:21

Re: New research paper says - Mars life unlikely

#28 2003-08-23 00:08:09

Re: New research paper says - Mars life unlikely

#29 2003-08-23 02:31:44

Re: New research paper says - Mars life unlikely

#30 2003-08-23 09:15:31

Re: New research paper says - Mars life unlikely

#31 2003-08-23 10:10:29

Re: New research paper says - Mars life unlikely

#32 2003-08-23 10:20:34

Re: New research paper says - Mars life unlikely

#33 2003-08-23 18:37:10

Re: New research paper says - Mars life unlikely

#34 2003-08-24 06:16:15

Re: New research paper says - Mars life unlikely

#35 2003-08-24 09:09:55

Re: New research paper says - Mars life unlikely

#36 2003-08-24 11:09:27

Re: New research paper says - Mars life unlikely

#37 2003-08-24 12:43:18

Re: New research paper says - Mars life unlikely

#38 2003-08-24 20:56:10

Re: New research paper says - Mars life unlikely

#39 2003-08-25 10:03:20

Re: New research paper says - Mars life unlikely

#40 2003-08-25 15:04:09

Re: New research paper says - Mars life unlikely

#41 2003-08-25 21:46:31

Re: New research paper says - Mars life unlikely

#42 2003-08-25 21:53:51

Re: New research paper says - Mars life unlikely

#43 2003-08-26 06:47:54

Re: New research paper says - Mars life unlikely

#44 2003-08-26 07:26:30

Re: New research paper says - Mars life unlikely

#45 2003-08-26 07:31:53

Re: New research paper says - Mars life unlikely

#46 2003-09-29 04:06:10

Re: New research paper says - Mars life unlikely

#47 2003-09-29 18:13:22

Re: New research paper says - Mars life unlikely

#48 2003-10-06 03:04:19

Re: New research paper says - Mars life unlikely

#49 2003-11-11 10:40:49

Re: New research paper says - Mars life unlikely

#50 2003-11-11 11:04:25

Re: New research paper says - Mars life unlikely

Board footer