Glacial lake hides bacteria - Analogue to Mars conditions

Rxke · 2004-07-26 02:25:12

http://www.nature.com/news/2004/040712/ … tml]Nature

From the article:
"Scientists have discovered a community of bacteria living in the lake beneath an Icelandic glacier. The chilly world provides a model of martian terrain and may boost speculation about the red planet's potential inhabitants."

Looks like a thrilling discovery. Scientists are adamant the sub-glacial lake was nat contaminated by the research.

Shaun Barrett · 2004-07-26 07:51:01

Yes, indeed, Rik!
Wherever life can find the barest necessities it somehow finds a way to hang on. While many people still find the prospect of life on Mars unlikely, there are others (including me! ) who find the idea of a sterile Mars difficult to believe.
This is actually an http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news … s.html]OLD SITE, but it conveys the same kind of information as the site you linked for us, Rik.
To the right-hand side of the main article, there's a narrow panel with additional information about methanogens and an item headed: "Antarctic Microbes Support Possibility of Life on Mars".

When you see the kinds of conditions here on Earth that support breeding colonies of microbial life, it becomes difficult to imagine that Mars doesn't have regions in its crust which are at least as 'hospitable', if not more conducive to life.
Note the reference to the Antarctic Dry Valleys, where colonies of microbes were found in salty soil, almost bereft of water, and where the average temperature hovers somewhere around -30 to -35 deg.C.
Sound familiar?
???

Rxke · 2004-07-26 08:01:31

Difference with your 'old site' is that there it is actually hot water, the new findings are for cold water.

(nitpicking, or not... but i think you'll find more cold water than hot on Mars...)

What i find really exciting is the fact they think they'll be able to keep them alive, to do more studies on them. Now this is 'screaming' for a Mars analogue experiment, IMO... Hope the ecopoeisis guys take note!

Commodore · 2004-07-26 12:56:04

The difference between Mars and Earth is that while life may exist in these seemingly inhospitible places on Earth, its also possible that it deveoped in more hospitible areas, and kind of crept in.

On Mars that isn't really possible.

I wouldn't be surprised (well I would be overall, cause it'd be an Earth shattering find), but I think it could go either way.

Rxke · 2004-07-26 14:22:36

Enter the 'new paradigm shift':

Mars had open water 'for eons', so the environment was much more suitable for life, recent findings at Opportunity showed. Life might have evolved there, or being transported from Eath, in that period.

... And even if Mars turns out to be sterile, these organisms might form the basis for terraforming-projects, they prove, just by being alive, it is possible to introduce lifeforms, even in current, harsh conditions.

Shaun Barrett · 2004-07-26 19:31:47

I agree, Rik, that there's probably a lot more cold water on Mars than hot water! But I also happen to think, from evidence of volcanism into relatively recent eras, that Mars still possesses a considerable amount of internal heat.
I think it likely that substantial reservoirs of areothermally heated water still exist in the martian crust and such reservoirs, in light of what we've discovered about terrestrial microbes recently, would be perfectly suitable for archaea and bacteria to thrive - if there ever were any, of course.
But the site I linked to also discusses the Antarctic Dry Valley life-forms, which appear to survive in conditions remarkably similar to present day surface conditions on Mars (not identical conditions, I realise, but close enough to give us pause for thought).

Commodore, your point is well taken. We can't have surviving microbes on Mars, precariously hanging onto life in various oases under the surface, if there were never any microbes in the first place!
However, after more than a century of research and deliberation, we are still at a loss to explain how inanimate matter acquires the complexity and organisation to become living material. There are many partial hypotheses but still nothing remotely complete enough to be called a comprehensive theory, by any means. Yet, it's a demonstrable fact that life exists here on Earth. As to whether it originated here or on Mars, or somehow found its way here from another star system entirely, is an open question. We simply don't know how life arises; it's a profound mystery which seems to become more intractable the more we learn of microbiology.
What we do know, however, is that life was present on Earth almost as soon as the early hellish conditions here settled down enough to allow it to survive. It almost seems like it popped into existence from somewhere, implying that life is something which just happens as soon as conditions permit it to exist, or it arrived here, ready formed, from Mars, or its spores are everywhere throughout interstellar space (the Hoyle/Wickramasinghe hypothesis).

Mars was once warmer and wetter than it is now and may well have become conducive to life earlier in its history than Earth did. If it somehow crossed the interplanetary gap, that would explain the surprisingly abrupt appearance of life here on Earth when the conditions were still barely adequate.
But, if life actually appeared here quickly, of its own accord, then that in itself is an indication that it must be 'easy' for life to form. If it did so here, why not on Mars during its balmier days?
And, even if life originated quickly here, and nowhere else in the universe, we now know it was almost certainly transferred, intact, between the inner rocky planets on frequent occasions over the eons. The erstwhile concept of planetary quarantine is beginning to fade from the mainstream as impact transfer becomes accepted.

Given this information, and given that Mars today must still have environments where even terrestrial microbes would thrive, I find it logically almost inescapable that Mars must harbour life.

[Darn it! I can't even remember climbing up onto my soap-box that time ... I just found myself standing on the damned thing, ranting!
]

lunarmark · 2004-07-27 02:33:43

There is a big difference between somewhere where life can exist (i.e survive) and somewhere where life can begin.

Yes there probably are places on mars where life can 'survive', but was there an enviroment where life could start? - good question, but I dont think we can say there was, at the moment Mars appears to be a dead volcanic world that has has short periods of standing water, whoopee doos, what about the Organic compounds, what about the stable atmosphere, what about an entire ecosystem that would need to evolve for life to get a foot hold, it is not enough for a few microbes to exist there would need to be a whole ecosystem, and there would be a lot more evidence for this if it were the case.

It takes a hell of a lot more to start life than just open water, many many other enviromental factors also are important.

If you took a glass sphere, filled it with rock and water, and left it at 25 degrees C for 2 billion years, it would not evolve life!

Rxke · 2004-07-27 07:11:57

If you took a planet, 'filled it with rocks and water,' added vulcanism (Olympus Mons, anyone?) etc, the picture changes dramatically.

Disclaimer: i'm not saying life evolved there, but new evidence of *LONG* periods of open water make it more likely.

And you do not need a sophisticated ecosystem for life to start. Otherwise there wouldn't be life on Earth either. Those bacteria found, live in an extremely poor environment, they get their organics © from dissolved CO2 in the water... still they survive (and probably adapted) Now there's plenty of CO2 on Mars.

As for not finding organic complex compounds... We didn't look for them, yet. And the surface-radiation tends to break these compounds, to make things even more complicated.

Lack of evidence is not evidence of lack (or something like that, as Rumsfeld said c/q the WMD )

To be honest, I'd rather have no pesky Mars-bugs. Better to find them on, say Europa.
Life on Mars would be great, scientifically, but it would also seriously hamper manned presence, there, I'm afraid.

lunarmark · 2004-07-28 06:36:01

Fair point but,

If you took a large chunk of rock from earth, sent it through space, and it landed it on another planet, when you cut it and analysed it, it would show much evidence of life. Like organics, tell tale isotopic ratio's etc, maybe even some long dead organisms, since every rock on earth contains microorganisms by the score... they really are everywhere.

Now We can ignore ALH 84001 (since this discovery has now been discredited, they went public way too early), typical sci-politics!

But If there was life on Mars hundreds of millions of years ago, (we have martian metoeorites that date from 3 BY to 130 MY) then there ought to be life (or signitures of life) in most martian meteorites, there is not. Even though Martian meteorites have been found with pristine interiors and some even contain (very) small amounts of martian water and trapped martian atmosphere, why is there no evidence of any life form, even at the molecular scale?

Look at any surface rock on earth and you will find it covered in life, look at any Mars rock with a rover and it looks like the day it was made (minus wind errosion). If this elusive Martian life exists it
is certinaly keepeing a very low profile.

Wishful thinking is a very powerful driving force in science. This is why people still try to invent perpetual motion.

I agree if they did find life, it would certainly spell the end of any manned missions, imagine the health consiquences of finding alien bacteria!

I collect meteroites and have many Martian meteorite samples in my collection I havent noticed any biological side effects ...

**£%^!"£ Must Kill Earthlings, Must Kill Earthlings "!*£$!£!&$

:angry:

Shaun Barrett · 2004-07-28 08:06:42

A very good argument, Lunarmark, and I confess it is difficult to refute it.
You may yet prove to be absolutely correct. And, as I've said before, I'm in the same boat as Rik in hoping, for the sake of human exploration and colonisation in the future, that you are correct.

However, there may be literally millions of fragments of Mars lying undiscovered on Earth's surface. How many have been found and how many have been minutely examined?
What proportion of them should we expect to contain indisputable indications of microbial life? Even when NASA scientists announce evidence of life in a martian meteorite, as in ALH 84001, people find ways to explain that evidence without reference to biological processes (as they should - it's part of the scientific method to do so). The onus of absolute proof lies with those claiming biological remnants in the meteorites and, even though their evidence may be good, it can easily fail to provide definitive proof. But that doesn't mean ALH 84001 isn't full of biologically produced material, degraded by billions of years of chemical reactions. It's just that the evidence isn't unequivocal.

On the other hand, while this onus of proof is onerous, I understand that it has to be that way. Those of your persuasion can hardly be expected to prove the negative.
But I think you might cut us 'life people' a little bit more slack until we've had a chance to present a better case!

I still find the idea of a sterile Mars more difficult to swallow than a living one, though again I admit there's no solid proof as yet.

dicktice · 2004-07-28 09:11:13

lunamark: I've just glanced through the posts of this thread without finding any reference to the most obvious reason not to expect evidence of life on any rocks from Mars found on Earth: They probably got blasted off the planet at a stage in its formation before life conceivably could have occurred--or did I overlook something?

lunarmark · 2004-07-29 03:54:27

Shergottite's (types of martian meteorites) date from approx 130 Million years ago (or at least their geological clock was 'reset', when it left Mars at that time), so some martian meteorite rocks are really young. Others date to a couple of billion years ago (about the time life started on earth?) some others date right to the early beginings of mars's formation. So we have a reasonably varied cross section of dates, but obviously there a few major gaps.

This is the reason the team was looking at meteorite ALH 84001 to see if there was evidence of martian life... thier results were later found to be based on many many asumptions some of which turned out to be groundless, I think personally they published way too early and didnt do any background work first, like looking in non martian meteorites for similar structures etc...

Believe it or not I do have a reasonably open mind on life on Mars, BUT i haven't seen a single thing that leads me to think mars has life at the moment, just evidence for water, well saturn has water so has the moon, - no life there

Rxke · 2004-07-29 04:10:59

Lunarmark, do you happen to have good links about Martian meteorites?

I (until now) was under the impression there were only a small handful of finds. I know you can buy pieces, but the prices suggest they are quite rare. Maybe that's artificial scarcity, and they're more common than the layman thinks?

Good point, BTW about the no-organic contents of the meteorites.

lunarmark · 2004-07-29 08:33:47

There are over 30 Martian falls (a 'fall' may contain many individual meteorites), and at a guess 50+ klios total weight.
You can imagine with 70% of the martian meteoritic material locked up for research there is not a lot to go around.

But you can pick up a small piece of Martian meteorite (Such as Zagami) for around $20 upto many $1000 depending on the size of the piece!

Useful info Sites (Click links)

http://www2.jpl.nasa.gov/snc/]Mars Meteorites

http://www.marsacademy.com/intros/intro3_3.htm]Mars Society about Mars Meteorites

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2004-07-26 02:25:12

Re: Glacial lake hides bacteria - Analogue to Mars conditions

#2 2004-07-26 07:51:01

Re: Glacial lake hides bacteria - Analogue to Mars conditions

#3 2004-07-26 08:01:31

Re: Glacial lake hides bacteria - Analogue to Mars conditions

#4 2004-07-26 12:56:04

Re: Glacial lake hides bacteria - Analogue to Mars conditions

#5 2004-07-26 14:22:36

Re: Glacial lake hides bacteria - Analogue to Mars conditions

#6 2004-07-26 19:31:47

Re: Glacial lake hides bacteria - Analogue to Mars conditions

#7 2004-07-27 02:33:43

Re: Glacial lake hides bacteria - Analogue to Mars conditions

#8 2004-07-27 07:11:57

Re: Glacial lake hides bacteria - Analogue to Mars conditions

#9 2004-07-28 06:36:01

Re: Glacial lake hides bacteria - Analogue to Mars conditions

#10 2004-07-28 08:06:42

Re: Glacial lake hides bacteria - Analogue to Mars conditions

#11 2004-07-28 09:11:13

Re: Glacial lake hides bacteria - Analogue to Mars conditions

#12 2004-07-29 03:54:27

Re: Glacial lake hides bacteria - Analogue to Mars conditions

#13 2004-07-29 04:10:59

Re: Glacial lake hides bacteria - Analogue to Mars conditions

#14 2004-07-29 08:33:47

Re: Glacial lake hides bacteria - Analogue to Mars conditions

Board footer